The Daily Camera quotes several Lafayette officials talking about the residential housing growth cap of 200 units per year which will be up for re-approval at the ballot box in November. Also part of the discussion will be the additional 50 units per year allowed for affordable housing.
While the pace of development may be slowed by such caps, I will be curious to see how many times a developer has been turned away because we were already at the limit. And cap or no cap, I'm really curious to know if the affordable units being built at Eagle Place will be rented to current struggling Lafayette residents (first choice), struggling Lafayette employees who would save on transportation costs if they could live in town (second choice) or if they are open to everybody in which case Lafayette is just a magnet for other town's economically unfortunate.
Back in April of last year, when Eagle Place was going through final approval, Councilors Frank Phillips and Kerry Bensman supported requiring Eagle Place to prioritize an ongoing preference to Lafayette residents according to the Community Housing Guidelines and provide compliance reports to the Administrator of Lafayette’s Affordable Housing Program on a semiannual basis for reporting to Council.
This motion failed with five other Councilors voting against it. Such a frequency of analysis was deemed unacceptable to the majority of Council. Great.
Instead a motion passed unanimously that “one year from the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy the applicant shall submit a report to the City Council detailing the status of occupant’s relative to the Lafayette preference requirement of Section III. B of the Community Housing Guidelines.”
So we'll see, long after the election, who is truly being served by this particular affordable housing project.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Wow, Dan, you've been busy today. I have a couple comments on this one.
First, have anything to disclose re. Eagle Place?
Second, one of the issues with the reporting on the residents of Eagle Place (if I recall correctly) is that while it would be relatively easy to have preferences for the very first residents of EP, it would be nearly impossible to insure that the second or third (etc.) time a unit was leased it was leased to a Lafayette resident or employee.
Third, people don't really know what "affordable housing" means. I think it has become a loaded term. We aren't talking about people who are unemployed or even working for minimum wage here -- a family of 4 could make in the range of $45K and qualify, and probably couldn't afford the rent if they made much less. Think about it -- this is a young teacher with a spouse staying home with the kids, or a large percentage of our city employees.
Finally, there are circumstances where someone is not already a resident of Lafayette but it would benefit someone who is a citizen of Lafayette. What happens when someone wants their elderly parents to be closer or college student relative moves to town to help out a young family? New residents, yes, but hardly the nefarious invasion of the lower class that people seem to fear. But then again, I don't think that providing quality housing for people in lower income brackets is bad for the city even if those people move here from other places.
Disclose? That I own a townhome 100 feet from the southern boundary, perhaps? I mentioned this when I spoke to Council, however my opposition at the time was not to the affordable housing but to the fact the city was giving up the portion of the property along South Boulder Road to residences instead of the more savvy and contemporary planning and design philosophy of mixed use.
Look at Eagle Place now. That's the scope of housing I believe is appropriate for the parcel, and some type of retail(sales tax generators) along the frontage of SB Rd. would have been the best option for the city. I'm not certain my concept would have been legal to require. But that's my only beef.
Sitting on LOSAC my neighbors wanted us to chmpion the parcel as an open space purchase. Well, that was about as worthy a spot to preserve as the parcel we just annexed (given the other priority parcels, IMHO).
Given the conditions that were heaped on Eagle Place, it's amazing that the project is actually a reality. Indeed, many eyes will be watching to see who the project serves. However, I'm not sure what the implication will be if no one responds to the call for "preferred" Lafayette residents (advertised in this week's Lafayette News). That was an issue with the City essentially providing a subsidy through fee deferments and waivers. But in terms of growth management, there cannot be much doubt that the project is exactly the type that qualifies for the 50 "charter affordable" permit allocation per year.
I've already chastised Dan to my own satisfaction for his opinion about the appropriateness of, at the time of the Eagle Place hearings, commercial, and now it would seem mixed use, instead of what was presented on the application. But since you bring it up again, no one can hold it against you for expressing your opinion, but do you have any greater appreciation now for the difference between a vision that sounds great and a vision that can really be implemented? Your rationale for commercial and mixed use sound great, but this was at odds not only with the City's comp plan but also the market in general and the constraints of that particular piece of real estate.
To the main topic and for the record, I never, never, never said anything about the City needing revenue from building permits. Nonetheless, it seems that a counterpoint was needed for Frank's "unintended benefits" comment and I fit the bill. Here is what I sent to the Camera:
"Dear Editor:
"In its article of March 24 entitled "Round Three for Growth Cap," the Daily Camera states that I have concerns about lost revenues due to Lafayette's existing growth management program. This is not true.
"Readers should understand that the "unintended consequences" of growth management that I have identified as a Lafayette planning commissioner are land use-related issues, such as the nuisance of protracted construction schedules and the barrier permit allocation presents to multifamily units. These comments were accurately reflected in the paper. However, I have never before commented, in any context, about revenues from building permits. City revenues are not generally a land use issue that we grapple with on the planning commission.
"Unfortunately, the Camera's article creates the impression that there is disagreement among city leaders about "lost revenues," when there is to my knowledge no such debate. The fact is that Lafayette does probably benefit from a moderate, less volitile revenue stream from building permit revenues, as noted by members of the city council. From my perspective on the planning commission, building permit revenues have not been lost, merely deferred, hopefully to come into the City when fees and development standards are appropriate to meet community expectations."
For Councilor Cameron's benefit, let us not confuse 'do not want to do' with 'can't do'. When I was on the planning commission it was amazing the excuses developers could come up with when asked to do something. Interesting thing, when it was made a condition of approval it happened.
The Lafayette Affordable housing ordinance clearly states who gets preference. Eagle Place was given extra permits based on the affordable housing classification.
Allowing Eagle Place to skirt the requirement sends a clear message (with a wink and a nod) that we are willing to bend the rules any way the developer wants to the detriment of those in Lafayette this ordinance was suppose to help.
It is clear to me, particularly with the proposed affordable Senior Housing the county wants to build next to the great park, (yes, I asked if current Lafayette residents get preference and I got a big double talk answer) is that the county views Lafayette as its primary affordable housing site for all those on its waiting lists throughout the county.
Alex, you know as well as I do that property taxes do not cover cost of services. If our economic base does not keep up with the cost for additional services due to new residents we are again behind the eight ball. My main thrust of the 'unintended' benefits was that it provides the ability to grow the economy in a reasonable fashion to keep up with the rising cost of services. I would be quite happy to agree to changing the housing allocation so that as each builder gets approval they wait in line until they can amass all the permits they need to finish their development quickly. At the current two hundred a year (not counting the affordable housing 50)
it would take a couple years for the first in line, pushing any ground breaking for those further down the list out to 5 - 10 years.
But since Lafayette has not had the maximum number of available building permits pulled in the last three years I have no sympathy for the builders. BTW, You may be a little oversensitive, I did not interpret your remarks or the camera's slant as implying that you thought the city needed the permit revenue.
As far as mis-quotes go, the Camera's attribution of "lost revenues" is relatively innocuous. So maybe I'm oversensitive, but even minor errors can skew the conversation on complicated issues like growth management. So it should be clear that I agree that there are some "unintended benefits" of growth management, and fostering a sustainable budget is one of them.
Let me observe that this thread is highly focused on one small province of the growth management program, that being the relationship between affordable housing and growth management. It was debated at length during Eagle Place review (and I'm well aware of the existence of other opinions), but I do not believe the "preference" for Lafayette residents is the sole reason why the 50 permit annual exemption for affordable housing was provided. In fact, this preference is not part of the Charter provisions the voters approved, and is specifically stated only with regard to deferrals and waivers (LMC 30-405.5(b)(5), and please correct me if I'm wrong). I just don't see any evidence that Lafayette voters want affordable housing only to serve people with some sort of legacy in the City - people in all economic situations come and go, and the Charter policy seems to say that creating new opportunities for affordable housing is worthy enough to be exempt, to some extent, from competition with other forms of housing development for permits. Period.
I had not thought about the "unintended benefit" of allowing the economy to grow to create other revenues that will subsidize affordable housing or residential uses generally. That is a good point. Certainly, using Eagle Place as the example, it seems like the need to do this may be somewhat controlled by the council's benevolence in granting or denying fee waivers and deferrals. In the bigger picture, if each new residential development is having the effect of putting the City farther behind on paying for needed services, the options would seem to be, generally, (a) raise property taxes, (b) adjust fees, or (c) balance residential growth with commercial tax base. The current growth management program does not concern (a) or (b), and the relationship to (c) is unintended and operates only as well as the market drives an appropriate amount of commercial development.
I have come to agree with the “unintended benefits” theory, though it hadn’t been coined as such yet, through the years. But I continue to believe that limiting permits to 200 per year is not a solution unto itself, and there are many more direct methods of promoting good land use and fiscal policy in Lafayette.
Finally, it is true that the 200 residential permit limit has not been attained in any year since 2001. No enemy of growth management, Councilor Bensman himself stated at the City’s workshop meeting that the market has been the primary constraint on residential growth in Lafayette in recent years. We may look at the target of growth management as developers, but the single family developer is relatively well-positioned to achieve their goals in Lafayette in this market. While I am not advocating removing the unintended benefits of growth management from the Charter, there will come a time, as we get closer and closer to build-out, when we should ask if the extraordinary amount of time and effort that goes into administering growth management is really producing any different outcome for the City.
If we can agree on unintended benefits, can we also agree that the slow market and the City’s relative nearness to build-out make growth management something of a distraction as a policy debate?
Perhaps the reason no one has coined the term "unintended benefits" is because residential growth consistent with city financial and infrastructure growth was INTENDED.
The amendment thus far has never capped actual buildout (though existence of land will do that naturally at some point), just limited the pace at which we get there. Or rather attempted to do so -- one could argue based on permits pulled that the limitation has been largely inconsequential and unnecessary given market conditions.
The benefits were intended. Some of the consequences were not.
I wonder if the Waneka Farm annexation issue will play into the managed growth debate this year. It was brought to a vote because a section of the managed growth law allowed it.
Infrastructure costs can be recaptured, managed, and to some extent controlled solely with limitations placed upon the rate of residential growth, so I'd agree that that result was intended under the 200 permit annual residential growth limit.
But I do believe some of the benefits of growth management were unintended. Frank's theory about keeping the tax base in balance is something different from a limit on growth in demands/burdens on the City. Keeping revenue in balance is another benefit, unintended as far as I am aware. If this benefit was intended, the way this is accomplished leaves a lot to chance; it is important to note that land use balance is not a guaranteed benefit the way permit limits work in Lafayette. For example, Lafayette has been going through a period of commercial growth, but 200 residential permits could issue regardless of whether the commercial base is growing or not. This is why I say that whatever happens with growth management, it would be good to look at more direct mechanisms for achieving the goal of quality development with minimal impacts to the City.
I appreciate the reminder that there are unintended consequences to growth management. The program, as implemented, is virtually incomprehensible in its administration. We say in our comp plan that we want to encourage redevelopment, mixed use, and opportunities for people from all walks of life to live in the City of Lafayette. But greenfield single family development has dominated the permit priority system since its inception, and it very well could continue to do so unless some adjustments are made.
Thanks to Dreamer for pointing out that voters will not just be asked about the 200 plus 50 permit limit this fall, but also the annexation referendum and enforceable Urban Growth Boundary. Those are also features of growth management in Lafayette. My guess is that most voters are not aware of the way these provisions are bundled together in the Charter.
If I recall correctly the gist behind the campaign for growth management was the fear of urban sprawl and the loss of small town image. The forced weaning from reliance on one time building permit revenue and balancing economic growth with residential growth were not topics of the debate, therefore unintended benefits. This time these should be considered. Erie has not grasped the concepts otherwise they would jump at any revenue sharing opportunities. I do believe our experiences with developments since the ordinance was passed should be considered to potentially adjust how we allocate permits, but the basic concept is still sound. Yes, the market can further restrict how many units are built, but conversely can push overbuilding, so relying on the market doesn't always work.
Is the urban growth boundary part of the official managed growth package we will be voting on in November? For some reason I thought it was a separate thing.
The physical UGB line is determined by a separate action to incorporate it into the comp plan. So it's true that growth management could be voted out of the Charter and the UGB would still exist for City planning purposes in the comp plan.
However, the UGB is enforceable and enforced as regulation outside of the comp plan, by the language of the Charter. As stated in Section 6.12 of the Charter: "No new development or annexation may occur outside of the urban growth boundary. After adoption, the urban growth boundary may not be changed except by an affirmative vote of not less than six (6) members of the Council."
And - in case it wasn't clear - yes, the vote this fall will include Charter 6.12. It became integral to the Charter's growth management provisions as of 2001.
I haven't checked this blog lately so it interesting to see what the hot buttons are right now.
Someone notable (I don't remember who) said that democracy is the system where everyone thinks the other guy is paying the bill. And that goes for affordable housing and/or illegal immigration.
When it comes to affordable housing, will Lafayette ever have enough? Or to coin a recently used phrase "When is enough enough?" I recall talking to the Louisville council member who was their lead on affordable housing. She said, "Everyone knows that current residents don't take advantage of affordable housing. Out of towners do." In Indian Peaks where I reside, as the condo and townhouse complexs went up at prices that were low in those days, Lafayette residents were nowhere to be seen. (The building of IP, the 1426 units planned, was not subject to the managed growth ordinance, not even today. Not counted in the permit cap.)
We could build 1000 more units of affordable housing and would it be enough? Or 2000 or 3000? Yet they require as much if not more city services. Police, fire, ambulance, public works etc. Yet with low disposable income (assuming it is not spent in Louisville), who pays for it? The other guy of course.
So why was it problematic to require the developer of Eagles Place to give preference to Lafayette residents in return for the $120,000 he was granted in fee waivers? Yet flat funding for the Library is lamented (not flat by the way) or money for other needed amenities and services.
As for illegal immigration, the media has dropped the word "illegal" these days. I got interested in the issue because two Lafayette residents were killed by illegal immigrants alledged to be driving recklessly. These separate incidents happened in Boulder so not much play here. One was employed by a local company. I asked the owner about it and she said she did not know the status of that person. He had four false IDs. Both were deported, one due to a paperwork mixup. Unfortunately there was no justice for the victims and their families.
In addition, I started hearing from doctors and hospital VIPs what the strain was on their ERs and financial situation. Seems that when illegal immigrants used their ERs, nobody was there with checkbooks or credit cards to pay the bills.
I suggest readers do some research on Caesar Chavez and see what his opinion of illegal immigration was.
As for managed growth, does anyone need a discourse on where it came from and the renewal? The 50 units was meant to accomodate senior housing. Not happening that way.
There are some 1400 housing units that are in the works to use Baseline Road. The city traffic study showed going east from Lafayette, Hwy 7 can handle 40,000 cars a day. Going west from 287, Baseline can handle 40,000 cars a day. The piece in the middle can handle 20,000 a day. Bottleneck? Anybody care?
Just rambling today. Hard hearted?Hit too many potholes of Baseline, I guess.
Ummm, where are you getting your information on the 50 permit growth management exemption, Kerry? I assume you voted in the 2001 election, when I recall absolutely zero of the 2A/2B campaigning focused on senior housing. That's because the BoCo senior housing exemption that I believe you're referring to in Charter Section 6.10 was already approved in the 2000 election. Recall also that assisted living is not subject to residential building permits...
"Enough is enough" is what's called a cliche, and it's meaningless without context.
If the context is affordable housing, I'd ask what possible indications are out there that Lafayette, on the one hand, has enough affordable housing already, or, on the other hand, needs 1,000 "or 2000 or 3000" more units, which could be every unit possible to pack in prior to build-out and then some...
By the numbers, 50 of 250 total permits available on an annual basis may qualify as Charter affordable. That's 20 percent, and we know that the actual number of affordable units being built is less than that 20 percent (even though I would also include "permanent" and "market" affordable, just for the sake of analysis).
Market rate units can be priced as high as $350,000, and so they are, in fact, priced that high. It has often been said that Lafayette's brand of "affordable housing" program is really targeted at the gap where middle class wage earners have trouble making the jump from renting to owning...
At the bottom line, the affordable housing provisions we're talking about are not some radical new spin on creating a sea of low income housing; rather, the goal of the program is to put a variety of housing on the market.
If various councilors have issues with the fee waivers and deferrals given to a project such as Eagle Place, that is its own topic, where growth management really has no role.
The only reason I can see that affordable housing is relevant to this topic is to advocate for some change to the 50 permit exemption. If that is someone's position, I am interested to know why.
Alex,
I was on the citizens committee that campaigned for the extension of the growth cap. The challenge was the council put two questions on the ballot, A and B. I think one had the 50 affordable and the other did not. The concern was the council was trying to split the vote and neither would pass. Some council members and the city had no love for the cap and were quite vocal about it.
So we invented “Vote For Both”. The committee discussed whether to air the differences but decided not to. At the time, Boulder County was talking about building senior housing on the land they owned (that has now changed). BVSD was exploring whether to work with the city to build affordable housing on the bus barn property they owned, giving preference for teachers. Later on that fell apart because BVSD was concerned about union opposition since some would benefit and others would not. (Of course some teachers lost.)
That’s why there was no emphasis on the 50 affordable permits per year. The irony is that none of the two possibilities above have happened and instead there is Eagles Place.
That’s the way I remember it.
Alex,
A couple of times a month, the Camera publishes a real estate report. The statistics show the difference in housing prices. Also Lafayette has a relatively low median income level in Boulder County. So those residents are living in what they can afford.
The current affordable housing ordinance totally missed the mark it was publicized to address. A clear demonstration of a committee assigned to design a horse and ending up with a camel.
But the point I was trying to make is Lafayette has a lot of affordable housing. It's occupied. Add more and it will be occupied, primarily from newcomers.
I would argue the city has reached the level at which it can not afford more affordable housing. If I interpret Frank's comments correctly, he is inferring the same thing. Adding more and more demand for services that can't be funded is simply not tenable unless we start to cut from somewhere else. Why do you think the road repair was not adequately funded over the years? Just an example.
Kerry, you said:
You subsequently indicated that "Vote For Both" was exclusively intended to facilitate BoCo senior housing or affordable housing on the bus barn property.
The implication is that Eagle's Place is not a legitimate use of the 50 permit exemption.
Am I not understanding you correctly? Not about what you think should happen, but about what the law is, in fact, in Lafayette. And if you don't think the 50 permit exemption should be used on projects like Eagle's Place, what changes would you suggest?
It might help if you would define what you think "affordable housing" means. I gather you think it is subsidized, and I repeat myself to say that this has nothing to do with the 50 unit per year growth management exemption.
In any event, I would submit that your vision either involves a community that cannot afford to have any more housing, or a community where service workers and other wage earners have to commute in to serve the growing ranks of the elite. In either case, it is a redefinition of almost everything in our comp plan.
Above, meant to insert Kerry's initial remark: "As for managed growth, does anyone need a discourse on where it came from and the renewal? The 50 units was meant to accomodate senior housing. Not happening that way."
Someone forgot to add some language to the Charter apparently - if you believe this. My recollection is that the 2A supporters reacted to 2B, which added affordable housing, by coming up with Vote For Both. It's not like Vote For Both was invented specifically to allow senior housing, it was to preserve 2A with a potentially competing and confusing dual vote on growth management.
Sorry Kerry, you missed my point completely! I always get a chuckle when you attempt to interpret my comments as support for your outlook. While we may vote the same way on occasion, it is usually for very different reasons. I believe Lafayette's 'affordable housing' program is mis-labeled. As someone previously mentioned, if you look at how it is designed, it is a program (in theory) to enable middle class wage earners to go from renting to owning. It was designed at a time when housing prices were skyrocketing overnight. Further, the dirty little secret is that is was specifically designed to put the entire cost of the program on the backs of developers. Typically affordable housing programs require the local municipality to kick in some funds to make the housing truly affordable. The program has not worked even for what it was designed for. The prices of even the 'permanently' affordable units are beyond the means of most. Further the question arises that if you could afford the price why would you accept restrictions on appreciation when you could find equally priced housing in a different part of town with no restrictions? My concern and issue with the county and their seemingly single minded focus on Lafayette for building affordable housing is that it is not intended to provide housing for the existing workforce we have or need in Lafayette but for those who work in Boulder and can't afford to live there. That still leaves the problem of where the workforce for our growing economy lives, while saddling Lafayette with the increasing cost of services to these new residents. If we are serious about affordable housing we need to dump the current travesty we call affordable housing and accept the fact that the city is going to have to contribute to the kitty to make this housing truly affordable. Further we should be looking at rehabbing some areas of the city to provide safe and livable affordable housing (which the nearby homeowners would welcome instead of oppose). But this requires dedication to the concept and serious muscle by the city to make it happen. You will never hear a politician oppose the 'concept' of affordable housing (except maybe Councilor Bensman if I understand correctly what he has written above). The true measure of commitment is what they actually do about it.
Well, one of the key issues with deed restrictions, in any affordable housing program like Lafayette's, is that it does not put the entire cost of the affordable housing program on developers. It puts a good amount of the financial burden on the supposed beneficiary. The owner, in economic terms, ends up subsidizing the future price by foregoing gains in equity.
I have no problem with the idea that deed restrictions, AMI targets, fee deferrals and waivers, or any other financial aspect of the affordable housing program should be examined; however, I continue to fail to see the connection to the 50 permit exemption from growth management.
To the extent that the hidden costs of affordable housing has been a recurring theme in this thread, I just don't see how giving affordable housing some limited priority for building permits is a cost. The logical extension of the cost argument is that the exemption does carry a cost, because, as the argument goes, it just ends up creating units with a greater demand for services relative to tax collections. This leads one right back into the problem of a lack of intentional revenue or fee recapture objectives in growth management as a whole; either that, or the conclusion is that we should get rid of poverty in the community by getting rid of the opportunity for impoverished people to live here, because it just costs too much...
I don't disagree with the analysis that at a countywide level Lafayette bears a disproportionate "burden" of providing affordable housing. But the quantification of that burden has never been clear to me. It comes strikingly close to certain arguments about the costs of illegal immigrants on the community, which may or may not have some validity, but it is simply an assumption (with all the accompanying overtones of bias) until there is some convincing data.
I do know that I work just about anywhere in Denver metro and even the state of Colorado and beyond, but only rarely in Boulder County - does that make me a burden on the local economy?
I guess my feeling is that the Charter provisions that will be up for reauthorization this fall are many things, but they are not going to solve anybody's dissatisfaction over other existing city policies that have much more to do with the statements that have been made relative to Eagle Place.
Finally, surrendering to the topic drift, I do agree, Frank, that a housing authority, or similar public role, may ultimately be an appropriate way to account for what is really expected or needed in terms of affordable housing. I'm not expert enough to know that's really where we're headed or should be headed with affordable housing, but it does seem like one possible solution to more effectively administer, coordinate, and fund affordable housing if there is a serious need in the community.
I'm often amazed at what you guys read into what I write.
The "Vote For Both" group believed, emphasize the word "believed", at the time, empasize "at the time", that the 50 unit affordable housing permits per year would facilitate the building of senior housing by Boulder County. It was also thought that adding the 50 units as "affordable" on top of the 200 regular permits would facilitate that happening a lot faster since there would be less competition for the 50 and a builder go easily get a commitment for 50 over a number of years. At the time. Fast forward 5 years later and that has yet to happen.
I sat through the initial presentations prior to the city council moving forward on the Community Housing Program. It was "sold" using the argument that Lafayette needed a program that could be used by our police officers, school teachers, nurses, etc. who worked in Lafayette to live in Lafayette. Pictures and everything. But the result was such that unless these were dual income families, they couldn't qualify. And savy home buyers realized they could go east of town and get buy more without deed restrictions (my niece and her husband, renting in Lafayette, did just that after checking out Anna's Farm and Cold Creek Village). There is a free market out there.
It is not an affordable housing program. It uses the words "Permanently Affordable". So then the question is what is the definition of affordable and what level of housing can a family at that income level afford.
If I heard correctly, the Boulder County Housing guy said the project they are considering would benefit Lafayette, housing for workers who live here. Not very convincing to me. We'll see.
Alex, where you work is not the issue? It's where you spend your disposal income is. You know what "leakage" is. And if you don't recognize the cost burden of illegal immigration, you don't work in a business or organization that is getting slammed by it. Three hospitals in Denver are moving out. The U.S. trucking industry is next on the "hit" list.
I guess my argument that a city, any city, can only afford a certain level of low income housing is falling on deaf ears.
I'm not opposed to affordable housing. Don't know where Frank gets that idead. I am opposed to increasing the number of units way above what the city can afford. The way the city makes the budget work is to not include high ticket items that need to be repaired or replaced. Roads are on the radar screen this year. If adequate money had been put aside as it should have over the years, the budget axe would have been extremely painful and unpopular.
In business, it is called "loss leaders". Yes, it sounds inhumane. The entire financial structure of this city is based on its demographics. And we're running as fast as we can just to stay even. If we were a rich city like Boulder we could afford to subsidize more. Ironically, Boulder, which can, looks to move its commuting workforce farther and farther east or northeast.
That's why I said when is "enough enough". When Wal-Mart starts hiring and adds 1000 employees, should the city take the incremental revenue it creates and plow it into housing for those employees? Home Depot in Louisville shifted employees to its new Boulder store. Did Boulder rush to build housing for those folks? Doubt it.
Theory is nice to debate. Reality is a lot tougher to deal with.
We agree! Theory must yield to reality if the two can't be reconciled.
The leaders of the Vote For Both campaign "believed" (emphasis on the believed, of course) that the 50 permit exemption would facilitate the BoCo senior housing, despite this already being subject to a growth management exemption at the most likely location. Did the campaign actually bring this private discussion forward to the voters? Is there any language in the 50 permit exemption that limits Charter affordable housing to specific segments of the population that benefit from affordable housing? It seems that there were some theories...
I was not "reading" anything into your post that wasn't there already, I don't think, Kerry. I was quoting it, in fact.
So is your argument that a "city can only afford a certain level of low income housing" falling on deaf ears? I don't think so. But if that is the case, let me do everything I can to help you make it clear to everyone that this your position.
It's fair to critique the financial assumptions and mechanics of our affordable housing program. It's even fair to postulate that some economic balance must be found. But no one is proposing to turn all the available housing stock, present or future, in Lafayette into low income housing. That's where the debate crosses over from fact-based to speculation and emotion.
The fact is that the program is set up such that, as the number of residential units in the City grows, some fraction will meet the criteria for affordability. Again, this is not particularly radical, and it does not imply subsidies. It's a rule to provide diversity in housing to a diverse population. And Lafayette could indeed choose to directly tie production of affordable housing to the impact of new employers, as other jurisdictions across the nation have, but for policy reasons that are pretty easy to figure out, the City didn't do that.
If there is some data that supports an absolute cap on the number of "low income," "affordable," or you pick the label and criteria for residential units that theoretically burden the City, I'd love to see it. Is the burden of affordable housing theory or fact?
Judging from the allegation that hospitals are leaving Denver solely because of the impact of illegal immigrants, this should be interesting. I might almost be willing to impute some credibility to all of your arguments if you could really substantiate just that one. But we'll really only be moving out of the realm of theory if we have some grip on the reality - or unreality - of a cost burden specially imposed by affordable housing.
Just for some background data...
According to a 2005 Regional Housing Study:
•The Area Median Income (AMI) is based on income and size of household. For a 3-person household, 100% Boulder County’s AMI was $78,300, 80% was $51,750, and 30% was $23,500.
•61% of renters have incomes equal to or less than 80% of the AMI and 64% have unmet housing needs (Unmet needs may include being cost burdened, overcrowded or lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities)
•25.4% of renters were at or below 30% of the AMI
•26% of homeowners have incomes at or below 80% of the AMI and 62% have unmet needs.
•30% of households are cost burdened by their housing payments. In 2005 this meant about 2,757 households.
•Lafayette has a high rate of homeownership (76%), which is higher than the county and state average
•Approximately 2,100 residents work in the community and over 12,000 commute to jobs elsewhere. 3,049 workers commute in to work from homes outside of Lafayette.
•204 or 2% of the total number of residential units in the city are deed restricted. 71 of these are “at risk”. (At risk means that their deed restriction is set to expire at some point in the future. For instance Section 8 housing)
•Lafayette has an Inclusionary Zoning Act which mandates that a developer must make 10% of their stock Permanently Affordable (deed restricted to 80% of AMI or less) and 20% Market Rate Affordable (80% – 120% of the AMI, no restriction on resale)
Based on the data, it seems to me that we have a need for more affordable housing, for renters especially. In addition it seems we also have a need for rehabilitation projects to meet and help solve those “unmet needs.” We also could stand to balance our units-to-own with some more units-to-rent.
Our current strategy has been to require the development to community to do their part to protect the middle range of wage earners and factor them into their plans. It’s been the City’s role to step in and help when the development community wants to go above and beyond just protecting the middle. (Eagle’s Place as an example) So Councilor Phillips is correct our affordable housing plan isn’t really about low-income earners. It’s is about middle income earners.
Obviously we want Lafayette employees, teachers, fire and police officers to live in town and to take advantage of our housing stock, but to expect that this will happen instantaneously upon completion of a new development plays against reality and human nature. Over time this will become possible but unless the projects completion coincides with the time your lease expires or until you hear a recommendation from a friend, or when you get your new job as a Lafayette teacher or police officer or whatever, you won't move in. Point being: it takes time for it to reach equilibrium. In the meanwhile, sure, out-of-towners will move in and live here for a few years, they will shop at our stores, go to our schools, play in our parks, become members of our community and then they will move into a new house in town because they like it so much or they will move on somewhere else. Such is life.
In the near future the city council will have a workshop to get an update on our housing program. Maybe this would be a good time to propose creating some benchmarks to measure how we are doing and to determine where we want to be. (This should help address Councilor Bensman’s concerns “when is enough enough?”)
In the meanwhile we need to keep going how we’re going. We need to keep protecting the middle, we should focus on rehabbing old, substandard units, encourage more rental opportunities, and support and protect our partnership with the Boulder Valley Housing Authority. Partnerships with them, Habitat for Humanity, and other non-profits are the only way we are going to provide housing opportunities to lower income earners. We cannot do it alone.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
As a tasteful alternative, purgatory is nicely appointed with cliches and an atmosphere of ambiguity.
Tastefully put, but metaphorically pure nonsense. As long as only the symptoms are addressed and not the core problem, I agree with the first anonymous!
Frank, in your opinion, the core problem being...
I wonder if that road was paid for by borrowing against future sales and use tax revenue. But maybe they don't use currency down there.
As for David's comments, the city wants the council to consider borrowing $9,000,000. Not one penny to be used to help provide low income housing. $1,000,000 for a park for the Old Albertsons Development. Not one penny to be used to help provide low income housing.
$560,000 to add on to the Rec Center. Not one penny to help improve the Library.
Since the $9,000,000 plus interest (totals around $18,000,000) is proposed to come from future sales and use tax, there will be little if any money to help the Library or subsidize low income housing.
So dear readers, should I point this out this Tuesday?
Kerry, good observation. I would be happy to support you if you propose to put more money towards affordable housing. Tuesday would be a good opportunity. Great idea!
Are you suggesting the city incur debt to stimulate interest or assist in building affordable housing? That's a very bad idea.
No, I was just being a smart-ass
Here is the pdf for the staff report:
http://www.cityoflafayette.com/files/wksh040307.pdf
Councilor Bensman feigns astonishment that the recommendation doesn't mention supporting affordable housing or the library, which shouldn't surprise anyone because the recommendation was for capital projects only, such as building a park or putting in a traffic light.
So I ask myself what's his point? What does Councilor Bensman think should happen? What would he like to change? Does he think there should be an extra line item for those objects? (I don't think he does) So I, a bit facetiously, suggested that he should make that motion and I'll give him a second.
I guess my sarcasm didn't translate... Sorry dreamer-believer.
So was I. Hopefully this council will query the city as to how this bond issue proposal works.
The city proposes that the bond be paid for by future sales and use tax revenue. Those projections are pure guesstimates at this time. Such a bond would have a fixed payment schedule which would have to be serviced regardless as to what the actual revenue is.
So if the actual revenue is lower than the guesstimates, the city faces a financial crunch. No money for affordable housing and continued flat funding for the library. its ability to provide current services, let alone new services, becomes a major problem. Essentially the city is mortgaging its future, again. The city government has continually lamented the problems with the compensation of its employees, especially the police department. One major reason has been the burden of the current debt service. Now its proposing to do it again.
The city did not provide a list of assumptions for its numbers. We'll hear those Tuesday night. But from I can tell, many of those assumptions are extremely optimistic. I have a list of ten already.
What Mayor Pro Tem Strungis also missed is that the $1M for a park is in the Urban Reneweal District. So why isn't that funded as part of an Urban Renewal Plan?
The roads are going to have to repaired. But some of the other stuff we can't afford.
Thanks for the link David.
Bonding against future revenue is always based on projections, or as Kerry says "guesstimates". But I think I'm agreeing with Kerry here when I say the list of proposed items that would benefit from the $9,000,000 bond issue is questionable. Am I reading correctly that over half a million dollars is proposed to build a family changing room at the rec center? That's nuts. And a million dollars for a park at the Walmart-Albertsons site is also crazy. Is there any interest from the development community in advancing the redevelopment design the city crafted? If there is not a contract on the table the city should not put money into implementing a plan that has no legs.
I think I agree with Kerry again that the roads component may have merit. But for FIVE MILLION DOLLARS that needs to include the two traffic signals and a lot of explanation as to why anyone should support the city going into debt for street repairs.
Bend it like Bensman on this one.
Hi everyone. I'm going to be signing off for a while. If you need to contact me, you can do so at my city e-mail address.
Tonight the city council is going to workshop this $9M proposed bond issue. I have found some twenty assumptions in the numbers which I contend are erroneous and must be explored. Some of the major ones are based on confidential information that we are not allowed to share publicly. Some are common knowledge if put together in the proper order. I don't think we'll get to many of them tonight.
When we considered bringing the ambulance service in-house, we worked on it for two years. The financials were worked and reworked. The finances were checked against an established business that had operated solely in town for a couple of years. We also got a bid to determine what it would cost us if we went outside. One of our major concerns was if we would be off by as much as $100,000 on the yearly cost.
Now we're talking about $9,000,000 to be paid back by future projected revenues over a ten year period. If interest is included, somewhere around $12 to $14M. I'm not much good at projecting 10 years ahead, even one. If I could, I'd be a billionaire living in the Grand Caymons (no taxes) right now.
Nice blogging with all of you.
Kerry
Post a Comment