Why, however, does it have to be a CDC that needs to develop the property??? Recently I met someone, who told me that his girlfriend was considering buying a property in the City's inner core. Throw all the incentives in the world at them:
- waive permitting fees
- give them with grants directly, whether through the NRSA, HOME funds, etc
- help these people maneuver through the system
- lock in property taxes for 5 years
Problem now is we have come a long way from developing owner occupied opportunities.
This has become a big business, where the developer tries to pack as many units on as small a piece of property as possible with every possible variance imaginable especially parking, free infrastructure improvements (sidewalks and grind/overlays) and do they eally pay the $1,330 fee per bedroom??? Why do they do this:
- increase their development fee up front
- improve their cash flow with the stream of rental income after development.
Let me site the following examples:
- Hadley
- Standish
- City Builders (Southgate Place)--proposed
- May Street
- Mason Street (proposed)
- 93 Grand Street (proposed)
- Chevalier
- Voke School
- Piedmont Street
These projects alone represent approximately 250-275 apartments with no home ownership opportunities and, I would estimate, 80% of these units need to be low to mod income. Problem is when you have percentages this high, these projects tend to end being 100% low to mod income.
As Winn and other companies find out how easily we give variances for whatever you want under the auspices of "affordable" housing, we will be at 20% never mind 14% before you know it heading for 30%. Call me ignorant, better then a pain in the a--, but this is a discussion that we need to have now. For the 100th time RKG was right:
More emphasis should be placed on attracting a higher class of people, who in turn would improve the commercial vitality of the City, and allow the City to leverage more private investement.
No comments:
Post a Comment