Blogs

newsobserver.com blogs

OrangeChat

How are we doing? If you have a question, complaint or suggestion about coverage of Orange and Chatham counties in The News & Observer and The Chapel Hill News, post your comments in this blog or e-mail us. Comments here may be reprinted in The News & Observer or Chapel Hill News.

Carrboro board worried about the cost of housing

Bookmark and Share

Carrboro Mayor Mark Chilton and several members of the Board of Aldermen are concerned the town is not doing enough to support low-income housing.

“We have a lot of people who are hurting at a lot lower income levels than we’re currently reaching,” Chilton said at Tuesday night’s board meeting.

“Our current system doesn’t ever encourage anybody to create affordable rental housing for people who live on social security/disability income,” he said.

Chilton also said he was concerned about housing for people who live on minimum wage or 20 percent of the median income.

The comments came during a discussion of the affordable housing provisions in the land use ordinance.  In that ordinance, the town has a goal that at least 15 percent of units in new residential developments should be affordable.

Those affordable units cater to any family with a gross income of up to 80 percent of the median area family income.  The ordinance assumes a family can spend 30 percent of its gross annual income on housing.

The ordinance allows developers who include affordable housing units to increase the density of a project up to a maximum of 150 percent of the density otherwise allowed. For example, the maximum density of a proposed apartment would increase by two dwelling units for every affordable housing unit, according to section 15-182.4 of the ordinance.

But the ordinance does not have a sliding scale of benefits to reward developers who cater to very low income residents

“Our system, as it’s currently constituted, it treats all affordable housing units the same,” Chilton said.”

“It says that creating an almost free apartment through the CASA program for people who are transitioning out of homeless shelters, that that is an affordable unit that is the same as one that’s priced for someone who makes 80 percent of area income.”

He said he would like to see more developers bring proposals to build rental units for those with lower incomes.

“They would deserve more credit… for having created such a unit,” he said.

Alderman Jacquie Gist thanked Chilton for mentioning low-income workers.  

“We’re doing great at reaching graduate students and not that great at reaching truly, truly poor people and we got to turn that around,” she said.

“The Orange County partnership on homelessness is slowly working on that, but I’m tired of putting money towards grad students,” she said.

Alderman Joal Hall Broun said she was also concerned about residents who make moderate salaries. She specifically mentioned police officers, firefighters and school teachers.

“We aren’t producing enough housing for them at all,” she said. “I think we need to look at that zone just a little bigger.”

Chilton said the median income in the area was around $60,000, but that a family of four could still struggle under that income.

“At a hundred percent of area median, you’re really stuck,” he said. “You don’t qualify for any subsidy; you don’t qualify for any help.”

Alderman Sammy Slade also thought the issue deserved attention. During the campaign last year, Slade said he had friends who had to leave Carrboro because owning or renting property in the town was too expensive.

“There’s also a way of seeing how we compare to other places and how we are a place that doesn’t allow for people…with more means to be in this community,” he said.

Alderman Dan Coleman suggested Carrboro explore basing its own policy on Chapel Hill’s work. The Board voted to seek more information about Chapel Hill’s inclusionary zoning policy and bring the matter up again at another meeting.

The Chapel Hill Town Council established the Inclusionary Zoning Task Force in 2005, in part to look into the need for an inclusionary zoning ordinance. The council also asked the task force to evaluate the housing market and the need for additional affordable housing.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

find your dream community

John,
Maybe you should move to a community that is run according to your high standards and is devoid of liberal scum. It would probably be good for your blood pressure.

Out of curiousity, do you know of a few communities that meet your standard? (Jacksonville, NC & Paducah Kentucky come to mind as the type of jewel community you envision.)

Thanks for the advice

I can always count on you, Mark.  LOL.

Tough issue - but all we get is local teawater

Thanks for the constructive suggestion, John.

What is your idea of a plan?

MY plan is

Eliminate the dysfunctional "affordable hosing" program, along with about half of the other social engineering experiments that do not work or are not necessary.

Then the drop in property taxes will make this silly little town affordable again. 

 

Did you know, property taxes in Orange county have risen FIFTY PERCENT in the last five years?

 

Which social programs should we ditch?

Let's get down to specifics - which silly, social engineering programs should we scrap?

 

Piece of cake

Everything except fire, police, public works and schools.

Fancy that.

I never thought of parking, planning, communications, finance, libraries, parks, etc. as so unpopular.  Thanks for enlightening us.

You are so confused, son, you must be a liberal

Who said anything about popularity?  This is not a popularity contest, those ended in high school for me, and should have for you.

 

This is about necessary versus wanted.  Not that your liberal mind could ever fathom such.

 

I am guessing you do not have any idea what the phrase "living within your means" means.

Maybe Mommy and Daddy should cut your trust fund off so you would understand.

FWIW

We had parks, bike lanes, planning, and many other of the functions you (John) are labelling as social engineering back before the taxes got so high. You're assuming there is cause and effect. As an engineer, you should know better.

So what is the problem?

With chopping all this "feel good" mess out?  I can live without parks, bike lanes, and "planning".  This does not put food on anyone's table.

 What exactly does the "planning" department do?  Make it miserable for builders? Pray tell, what valuable service do they provide, that one cannot live without??  Enlighten me, please, oh genious liberals!

As an engineer, I DO know better.  The systems should be optimized to be cost effective and efficient.   Dear Terri, show me how cost effective and efficient our government is.  Where are the studies showing that all of the social engineering programs have a "cost benefit analysis" associated with them that proves that they are worth all the money I (not you for after all, you live in the County) pay in ridiculously high taxes?. 

 

WELL??

 

 

 

Cost vs revenue

My point John was that you assume the tax rates are the result of those bad old social engineering projects like parks (Wilson Park was in existence long before you or I came to town/county). Maybe instead of a tax problem, we have a lack of economic development such that the town is dependent on residential taxes rather than revenue from local businesses.

To calculate cost effectiveness you have to have costs and revenues. 

Economic development?

ask yourself why no one is rebuilding on the old Saffelle site or why Saffelle chose to move to Hillsboro. Ask yourself how much Weaver Street saved by moving its baking operations to Hillsboro. Ask yourself what happened with Furniture Follies and why they were forced to move. Ask yourself about the real motives behind why Carrboro steps on the people in the ETJ. Economic development is a dirty word in Carrboro.

But, I agree with the notion that if Carrboro were to change its policies there is a potential future revenue source to offset property taxes.

Due to the current fiscal climate...

...........what I suggest is a zero based budget for non essential services. IMO the government takes far too much property off of the tax base and starves some essential (needs) services for more politically popular (wants). This is not to say we should not fund the wants too. IMO parks and public libraries are non essential services, but should be provided for. The difference is that non essential services should have to justify their entire budget every year. At least until the fiscal climate improves.  IMO this is observation is not unique to Carrboro.  

 

what are non-essential services?

What non-essential services do you believe Carrboro should cut from it's budget? Please give examples (other than parks since they've already been cut).

OK Full disclosure

.... I do not live in Carrboro (by choice). I mean exactly what I said. ANYTHING that is not Schools Fire, Police, EMS etc. You know the traditional definition of essentail government services.

Surely an intelligent person such as yourself can discern what that means. Why don't yo make a list and see what you consider "essentail" before asking me to make the decision for you?

Again. This is not a permanent condition and if the taxpayers do not like the idea then so be it, but do not try to offload your turden on others through county taxes or denying funding to the CH library that has a huge Carrboro component.

 

I didn't make the statement

You're the one who chimed in on John's claim that Carrboro is wasting money on non-essential services.

The important point is that what you or John think are essential services may not make someone else's list and vice versa. We live in a community--there's not going to be agreement on much.

...and

as asked, I told you what I thought. What do you think? Intransigence is not a plan. Don't lump me in with John as a tactic to cover the fact that you don't have any ideas except that nothing should be cut.  Obviously there can be no agreement if you don't have a plan. The town is concerned otherwise this discussion would probably not be taking place. What is YOUR solution? 

 

Huh?

What does Wilson Park have to do with it?  The liberal blathering does get so tiresome.

You're the one who called

You're the one who called parks "social engineering" and said we should get rid of them. Carrboro has two parks, one of which is Wilson Park. Both were owned before you moved to town. They own land for a third park but put plans for developing it on hold several years ago due to the economy. While I see no rationale reason to consider parks as social engineering, I used your example to simply say the town has done exactly what you said earlier should be done--put projects on hold until the economy improves.

Here's a solution

Raise property taxes again, then no one will be able to afford to live here.

Cars View All
Find a Car
Go
Jobs View All
Find a Job
Go
Homes View All
Find a Home
Go

Want to post a comment?

In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of newsobserver.com. Click here to register or to log in.
Advertisements