Affordable Housing Initiatives - I've just returned from a week of vacation, and am glad to see that an active discussion has been taking place regarding this issue. The density bonus comprehensive plan amendment that will be discussed this week at the planning board, and I see at a CCNA/Downtown Partnership public meeting, is only one new tool of many that are needed. If the plan amendment is put in place, Shawn Fulker is correct in saying that many steps remain before any program could be put in place. It is exactly this type of program that is needed to allow for some of the housing to be developed that has been talked about for some time, for example the housing Mr. Vengroff has talked about on his property near Park East. (Though in reading posts there was a statment about city staff comments on that, which I'm tracking down.)
No one tool, however, will solve anything, nor is it proposed that it would. It will take the combined efforts of everyone, including employers, to produce affordability, and that includes discussions about what is a legitimate living wage. I heard an employer lamenting a few months ago that his son, who worked in his very successful business, could barely afford to live in Sarasota. I know business margins are tight, but I found it curious that the idea of paying the young man more didn't even enter into the conversation.
In answer to the question about "over 55" age restriction, I am not aware of any downtown project that has such a thing. There may be other questions in the posts, I will get through them once we dispatch today's commission meeting.
No one tool, however, will solve anything, nor is it proposed that it would. It will take the combined efforts of everyone, including employers, to produce affordability, and that includes discussions about what is a legitimate living wage. I heard an employer lamenting a few months ago that his son, who worked in his very successful business, could barely afford to live in Sarasota. I know business margins are tight, but I found it curious that the idea of paying the young man more didn't even enter into the conversation.
In answer to the question about "over 55" age restriction, I am not aware of any downtown project that has such a thing. There may be other questions in the posts, I will get through them once we dispatch today's commission meeting.
posted by Michael McNees at 9:24 AM
60 Comments:
If the city and county are looking to provide affordable housing and workforce housing, that usually means people young enough to have families, or possibly grandchildren who would visit or maybe even live with them. Young Professionals Group - young, starting families, having babies, entertaining, etc. So if the City/County is looking for affordable and workforce housing downtown that would be something they would need to know- will the condos be deed restricted as to age? A great number of condos
outside downtown are age restricted. I just can't imagine a lot of children and teenagers living in those buildings with the wealthy residents. That would mean people that would apply for homes thru Housing & Comm Dev that might qualify for financing a place in a downtown condo would be living with the wealthy, million dollar residents? Is that realistic to expect?
So we're good enough to be their nurses, their firefighters, their social workers, their policemen, but they don't want us living next door to them. I guess realism will have to trump idealism, but that isn't the kind of town I want to live in.
Shawn: I agree with you on one thing. The ERA study is about as clear as mud. For those of you discussion participants who have not read it, please do so. It's on the Planning Department web site. You will then understand why the members of the City Coalition of Neighborhood Associations voted overwhelmingly to request that the density bonus concept be removed from the updates of the comprehensive plan. There are just too many questions to place this on the fast track. Shawn, this is not dysfunctional. It's a serious attempt to avoid another major mistake like the Renaissance. Thank all of you anonymous participants for joining me in the discussion. The powers that be need to hear your concerns.
By the way, what is the format of the "forum" tomorrow night?
It would be unrealistic to expect the people in the downtown condos will want children and families in them. Downtown and this area in general needs more families, children, working people. The plan as is to mix the retired, elderly wealthy with the younger, working people will probably not work. I applaud the Coalition of Neighborhoods effort as also being realistic. A condo board of directors would make it impossible for families and all that comes with families to dwell in their building. That is just the way it is. Ever lived in a condo? The first sound of rock n roll being played, children running thru the hallways, bikes outside, toys, kids coming and going...well what do you really think, that anyone would tolerate that in the million dollar condos? Who brought about the noise ordinance? Downtown condominium associations. Something needs to be done for families and people struggling to live here and be near schools, etc., and have affordable HOMES to live in and preserve the family atmosphere this city used to have.
What kind of family with kids and bikes and toys, as you said, is going to be moving into a 700sf one-bdrm condo?
That is not who these bonus units are meant for, and you know it. At least try to find real reasons to speak against this issue, rather than making them up.
It appears many are just struggling with our city becoming a city. It is a really good thing we are growing and that we have developers willing to build residential units so people can live downtown. The more people the more the city will be a success. All the businesses need people and the more the better it will become. We will also have more people living and walking instead of driving that is also a huge plus. I am not sure why everyone is so stuck on density as if we can have too many units. Is it not the developers problem if the demand does not come? If they do not sell then guess what - they may be sold for less!! So, I say build as much as developers are willing to invest and let the market start setting the prices. If we just keep the density down and keep the units big and expansive then we may not have the market adjusting anything because the current demand will buy them up.
I also keep hearing about infrastructure and we can not have more people, bla bla. Is this actually true? Last I knew the infrastructure of our city was quite good and could handle quite a lot of new development.
The only thing that the city seems to be lacking is parking and I suggest they build a 800 car garage on the State Street lot and not give it away!!!!! This would seem a very good spot for a large public parking facility and so close to the bus station.
If we are concerned about traffic, well then get over it because that is a problem and always will be as long as we keep having babies. But it would be nice if we moved US41 around the north side of the city, like university, instead of at the bayfront.
Who really thinks Renaissance was a failure? It may have some parts to the deal that was a bad choice on the Commissioner's part but overall we have a beautiful building that will be home to many people. The city staff is smarter about deals now and a lot more detailed about the deals are added. Well, that is if the Commissioners do not act like they know more than staff which seems to have happened with the Pineapple Square project deal......guess staff learns but Commissioners do not.
Affordable housing. Just another government employee fringe benefit...by another name. Elected officials who are afraid to raise taxes find another way to provide government employee benefits at taxpayer expense. If the government quit buying up all of the local land, restricting densities, stopped "homeowner's exemptions" and relaxed zoning rules, maybe housing would be more "affordable". The more government does, the bigger the problems become.
I have a comment about the commission meeting last evening about the park.
I cannot understand how the commission voted to put the historic homes in a park when the neighborhood does not want them there. Is it not the neighborhood that uses the park the most important speakers at the meeting? We have enjoyed that park for many years and cannot understand how a different park that would have the neighborhood support did not get those homes. Is it that we are mostly black, poverty and upcoming neighborhood? Are we less important than those speaking on behalf of the park by the Library? Since when are the people that live next to something given deaf ears? And you stop the construction of a tall building next to the Mews because it is not compatible? What does staff not get about the neighborhood does not want it? Have we really looked at all other parks and ruled out other possibilities? I think everyone wants the restoration of historic buildings but not at the expense of our children and playground for the "service people" to hold classes and services!! WE WANT OUR PARK!
Also, what is this direction given to staff to answer our questions? That is just insulting since our question and request was not to place those structures in our park. How do you expect Staff to address that? That sweet talk does not fly when you cannot listen to our sorrow over our lost park as it is and has been.
I appreciate your disappointment regarding this decision. This was an issue with a great deal of interest and passion on both sides, and a decision had to be made by the elected officials in support of one side or the other. I don't speak for the individual commissioners, but I believe before they voted last night each talked about the reasons they voted the way they did.
You asked a question about what the staff doesn't "get", and I can only point out that it is staff's responsibility to carry out the will of the City Commission, and in this case that has been to work toward the relocation of these structures to Pioneer Park.
As for the direction staff was given to answer the questions posed by the neighborhood, I understand that many of those questions are rhetorical, and can't be answered by staff. There are some however that can, and some issues that can be addressed as the actual relocation proceeds. We will do our best to do that.
It is still sad that the ones living and enjoying an area are not given greater consideration.
Did not the commission just vote to not extend 17th street because of several homes and residents? An extention so needed for our traffic and city and the greater good of things. But then they vote against citizens that just want to protect their park.
Had those commissioners bought a house with a beautiful view of a park, and in fact paid more for the property because of it, they sure as heck would not have voted to put a business or any other building right in their view. This would not have happened in any of the more affluent areas of town. They tried to say that they had to vote for it because it met wll the criteria for approval. Bull. They never had to let it be considered for that site in the first place. It is public land!
In light of the city going to Lakeland in the past few months to look at parks and think of ways of improving ours within the city it is somewhat alarming the Commissioners could vote against a neighborhoods desires to keep a park open and playful for children and adults.
To put service buildings regardless of there history on park land is not a good idea if not wanted by the neighborhood.
Other options should have been requested by the commissioners since the neighborhood did not want it. Did they think about the park on the other side of 41 on the water? This park is larger, has plenty of parking and since parents in that neighborhood do not want their kids crossing 41 it would be a better place for these types of services.
I request the City Commissioners reconsider directing the City Manager to find another location that is acceptable of the homes.
Mr. McNees: Last night, you spoke about the density bonus issue at the forum. You indicated that the public had plenty of notice of this change, since the Downtown Partnership has been considering it for two years. Unfortunately, the Downtown Partnership's planning does not suffice as public notice. I doubt if the public knows about the full implications of this proposal even now. As a resident of the Park East neighborhood mentioned last night, most residents do not know about this proposal. Neighborhood leaders, who have been forced to be hyper-vigilant on development issues, first learned of this plan on Valentine's Day. This proposal was put on the fast track after the public hearings on the update of the comprehensive plan (EAR) were concluded. There is no need for this important and complex issue to be placed on the fast track for inclusion in the comprehensive plan. Even the ERA study commissioned by the city makes that clear. I hope this fast track plan was not an attempt to stifle legitimate opposition to an ill-considered proposal.
I agree with Ms. Chapman. The citizens are just now becoming aware of the ERA plan and need time to learn the details and understand the ramifications of it for the entire city and for their individual neighborhoods.
More public meetings like last night's and workshops over more than a months time need to be held to discuss whether this plan is the best possible option. Three minutes of formal public input at two hearings is not sufficient - we need dialogue.
No one questions the need for affordable housing - we just need to collaborate to be sure we get the best possible outcome.
Better to delay for a year than regret for a generation.
I DO NOT agree with Ms. Chapman.
The talk about density has been going on forever. What was said last evening is that the Downtown Association did bring the conversations up more with the city and plenty of discussions have taken place in Commission meetings that the public is open to. This is hardly something implied to have taken place with just John Tylee. The city has had open discussions about it at meetings many times.
It is nearly impossible to let everyone know exactly what is going on. In fact I am sure, positive, know for truth that Ms. Chapman does not inform everyone in the area she claims to be the president, of the every day things going on with CCNA, her neighborhood and the city. She acts as if the city had told her sooner, "ms. president", that she would have informed everyone, "everyone", in her "made up district"?! I am puzzled by her ignorance. She cannot even let her small area of the city know anything how does she really think the city can let everyone in the whole city limits know? We already broadcast our meetings live, have things in the paper, put things on our web site, are open to anyone who asks anything, and then you blame the City for acting to fast? Most feel the city is not acting fast enough on this option.....density is not a devil as so many claim. And, my apologies for some heated discussion here but Ms. Chapman you are just rude and love to point the finger at everyone else. I would like to know how YOU have let the people in your "neighborhood" know about this issue since you have known about it for over 6 weeks or....do you just let the "due" payers in your association know and.....have you even let them know? How many know? Six weeks to have this information is a long time in most peoples books - hardly fast tracking!
Ms. Chapman's neighborhood does not even touch an area that has the option of increase density. Her neighborhood is on the other side of a seven lane road called US41.
More density is good. I would rather have 3 or 4 1000 square foot locations for people to live than one large 4 thousand foot condo that only someone very rich will own and possibly live in. A 1000 square foot condo also have the potential to become a affordable rental apartment for someone working downtown. The 4000 foot condo will never be an affordable rental to the average employee. Also the more people the better to prosper downtown. Are not Downtowns suppose to be filled with people moving about working and living - shopping and eating?
Safar: I have sent multiple emails to members of the Hudson Bayou Neighborhood Association on this issue. The Hudson Bayou Neighborhood Association boundary starts at Mound. Are you claiming we will be unaffected by the traffic, drainage, and other infrastructure issues? You are very intense. I must have touched a nerve. Look at the official EAR process on the planning department calendar. This density bonus proposal was not part of that process. I certainly am not the only one speaking up on this issue. I wonder why you choose to focus only on me.
I am so sad to hear that Karin Murphy is leaving the City Planning Department to go and work for a developer. It is sad that she was not supported and treated better by the City Commission during the public hearings on the Pineapple Square deal making session. Because of the poor judgement of the City Commission we are loosing one of the cities best employees who has looked out for our best interest for many years, negotiating tough deals and coming out on top with good projects that are well supported. Her attempt to help our city make a good deal with Pineapple Square was completely erased by our Mayor who FAST TRACKED (now this is a good use of that word) Pineapple Square deals behind the public eye.
I am sorry to lose such a talented lady and the Commission should have some humility and take accountability for this loss.
Ms. Chapman - I can see how Safar has focused on you. You are the one that wanted to fire the CCNA president for just having a discussion open to people about the density issue with the Downtown Partnership. If you cannot understand something you seem to be relentless on making other at fault. Many have worked to try to find solutions and as everyone keeps saying for years, one solution is not going to solve everything - but anything is a start. If you understood development of our city you would realize your fears are not founded based on actual ability of developers. You also do not know that the increase is going to hurt as much as you seem to want to scare people to believe. Just because a consultant was paid to make the document does not mean it is going fast, there are still meetings and process and yes, many downtown feel this is one of many possible good things - not everyone will choose this option. Sorry to butt into this conversation but I can see how Safar followed the conversation and feels you are being hyper critical in all the wrong areas.
Is there a way for the public to get the City Commission to reconsider the location of the Historic Homes for the neighborhood that does not want them?
Ms. Chapmann - My comments are just trying to point out the difficulties of assuming everyone will or has to know and understand everything before the city can move. Everyday people are learning something they did not know and that does not mean everything has to stop for them to catch up. Ms. Chapman you have had six weeks to review what is being considered and are entitled to an opinion but everyone in the city does not have to stop just because of it. Also, it is not easy to run a whole city, as pointed out at how you cannot even control and/or inform a little section you call you district. You do not, Ms. Chapman, inform all those people living in your neighborhood of every detail of everything going on in your CCNA job, the neighborhood or the city so.....are we just assume you are making sound choices for us and speaking our voice without asking us? Just pointing out how self important you make yourself at the expense of those you leave uniformed. Who are you to decide the important issues to discuss with the neighborhood you speak on behalf of? If you really want information from your neighborhood and can honestly speak for it then you have to speak to all of your neighborhood but in reality you speak to a very small percentage and when you speak it is about what you decide is important - how messed up is that? Get a reality check before you start acting as if you are speaking for a large group or can throw bad energy at people doing good like the city and your own CCNA president, Joe Morrocco.
Why do you not work on the city buying the lot at the end of Bahia Vista on the water. It is a good visual for our neighborhood and it would be a shame if a house That is something we would be behind.
Why is everyone so upset about density? We are lucky to have condos being built downtown instead of 18 story office buildings that have many more workers, cars, poop and all the hardship on our city everyone is complaining about. Instead we have a person or family living in a home - just saying it sounds more relaxed than a big office building. Okay, should we just build office buildings instead that bring more of everything from the outside that has to leave at 5pm? Does any of the opposition of density really know what they are talking about?
On November 7, 2005 at a regularly scheduled City Commission meeting, this item was considered, advertised in this way: "Approval Re: Create and Process a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which will focus upon establishing a density bonus foundation for the provision af attainable housing withing the existing Downtown Urban Mixed-use land use classification as well as that area under study for possibly receiving this classification based upon the EAR and prepare and present a draft ordinance implementing this density bonus initiative." The consulting report that came from this engagement, which has come to be known as the "ERA report" was issued the very end of January. Someone else has correctly pointed out that everyone has had five or six weeks with the report, which is a fair amount of time n my opinion. The truth is that MUCH process remains before any program could be put in place, with multiple opportunities for public input. It seems to some we're always moving either too quickly or too slowly, I suppose we need to figure out how fast is "just right."
There are consequences to putting potential solutions off another year, and those are apparent to anyone who must recruit and retain employees, as we do here at the city. This density bonus program may NOT be a viable option for the city, but either way it seems the amount of public awareness and conversation has been huge, and the first of many, many public hearings that would be required before a comp plan amendment could be approved, and the subsequent zoning code amendments, etc. adopted, hasn't even been held yet.
Finally, can we please keep the conversation to the issue, and away from the personal stuff? Thank You.
Safar and anonymous contributor: Your facts are wrong. I never wanted to fire Joe Moraca as President of CCNA. I just asked him and the members of the Board of Directors to follow the bylaws which direct us to abide by the vote of the membership. I like Joe Moraca. I don't always agree with him, but I think he means well. I read his blog religiously. It's such a shame that your buzz tries to create a personal conflict when there is just a disagreement on this one issue. By the way, I voted with the majority on the CCNA motion. Joe and one other member were in the minority on the density bonus issue. Healthy organizations like the CCNA can and do tolerate disagreements.
I have cooperated with various people (HBNA Board members and others) on the possibility of a city park at the end of Bahia Vista. In addition, I have worked on restoring Prime Park. Safar, you are welcome to join in any neighborhood activities. We are currently meeting on Thursday night as part of the NEST program to work with other area neighborhoods to label all storm drains in our neighborhood. Please join us at the corner of Alta Vista and Osprey at 5:30PM.
We are running out of room, which is why density is such an issue. But if I recall...the city had a very detailed plan to annex parts of sarasota county, south, almost to stickney point and including oyster bay...but all that got scrapped.......why? It had to do with the county having to provide sewage treatment which they didnt have?
Ms Chapman - That is interesting read and was it not you that wrote Joe should step down because you felt he was out of line working with the Partnership to have the joint meeting last night?
I am not trying to attack you but point out the things you do that are not good community involvement. Your comments that the city has done something wrong is getting so tiresome comming from you when you cannot even run a neighborhood association by informing and getting input from your area. Maybe you should limit your area to a manageable 25 - 50 homes and stop trying to cover an area that you cannot honestly say you are their voice.
And it is really great you do stay involved, that part is appreciated by many, I am sure. I also appreciate the invite to your meeting about storm drains - but why are we labeling them? Do you not think you label too much already?
To Mrs. Chapman: Below is what you wrote after the President of the CCNA sent out the notice of a joint conversation. What is it about open discussion that you found to be a problem? Since what you have been saying is this issue needs more discussion?
From: Susan Chapman
To: SarasotaCCNA@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: RE: affordable housing density bonus
I wonder why this was done in light of the membership's vote. I think this is an outrageous move. Joe, I perceive that you have a conflict of interest. You were one of two voting against the CCNA resolution to remove the density bonus from the comprehensive plan. I think it is time for you to appoint someone else to speak on behalf of the CCNA resolution which was duly approved. Susan Chapman
-----Original Message-----
From: SarasotaCCNA@googlegroups.com
[mailto:SarasotaCCNA@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Moraca
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 6:53 AM
To: SarasotaCCNA@googlegroups.com
Subject: affordable housing density bonus
I would like to announce that CCNA and the Downtown Partnership are
sponsoring a discussion on the affordable housing issue:
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The Selby Library
7:00PM
more details to follow.
I suppose Safar is being facetious with the comment on labeling storm drains, but I've lost my sense of humor: The subject is worth taking seriously. Hopefully the readers of this blog will already know why the labeling is done, but for those who don’t, here’s some info I cribbed from the Fairfax County (Va.) web site:
“When it rains, the water running along the gutters in the street vanishes down storm drains. Where does the water go? The water in a storm drain does not go to a wastewater treatment plant like many people assume. This water drains into a local stream, which... eventually empties into the Bay. ... That means pet wastes, yard debris, fertilizer, motor oil, pesticides and trash all have the potential to flow into the Bay... Storm drain labeling ... has proven to be an effective, low-cost method of educating large segments of the population about water quality problems in our streams, lakes, rivers, and the Bay."
One should never lose their sense of humor.
Labeling as you describe sounds like a good thing to do but I have to admit, I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind thinking the water that runs into our street drains goes through a processing plant. Okay, I understand there are people out there with little common sense but that is as important as not losing your humor.
So, if I get this straight the Labeling is to inform those ignorant people not to let damaging liquids and materials enter our drains. In addition to inform people what damaging materials are simular to what all the newspapers have been reporting for the past year in response to our last long outbreak of red tide.
Okay this sounds like a good initiative but I do not know of anyone that ignorant. And for those that are, I guess they do not talk to people, watch TV news or read the paper and are very sheltered people. I wonder if those are the people this neighborhood are trying to target.
And as the point being made was...it is good to be a community activist doing things to inform your neighbors. It is not a good thing to attend meetings with a firm hand on City issues acting as if you are representing a huge area. If you represent 20 members state so, if you represent 30 members say so. But do not act as if you have spoke to an entire district and took a vote on an issue and call yourself president respresenting an area that has probably over 200 homes. This type of self importance and inflation of who you respresent is just dishonest.
There are many associations that need to take a good look at how they run the association and make sure they do not take on more than they can handle. If you do not have at least 51% of the district as a member participating in decisions then shrink the size so that you can have consensus.
Obviously some of the things associations do are for the better of a neighborhood and do not need votes for anyone to know they are good for an area. Such as the labeling is a good thing for those that are ignorant of the importance of making sure bad things do not end up in our waterways or soil. But when it comes to speaking before the City Commission or others about an issue, it is hard to really understand how one person can act as if they have the consensus of a neighborhood when they do not.
Mike:
I'm confused!
How can the planning board reject the proposed density bonuses, when the city had already approved similar bonuses for projects already underway...1350 main, kanaya, rivo. These projects did nothing to contain a portion of affordable housing, yet they did contribute to the fund. The DTN and the DTE are the most likely candidates for this attainable "walk to town" initiative yet I am dumbfounded as to the planning boards reasoning.
Jeff
Mr. Mcnees - great forum here. Quick question -- after watching the event last night - learned something new -- Planning Board members pointed out the fact the ERA originally recommended to the City that density bonuses for Downtown areas for affordable housing would not be a good tool for such stimulation. Can you elucidate, then, on why the City decided to ignore this, though, and re-task ERA to create a proposal for something they'd said was a non-starter? (As opposed to exploring other more immediate and clearly beneficial options for Affordable Housing that ERA did propose?)
Thank you sir. And keep the info flowing -- this is an invaluable resource that not many cities or their citizens are given.
Whoever posted my communication to Joe Moraca: Thank you. Read it and you will see that I asked Joe to appoint someone to speak on behalf of the official CCNA position, since he did not appear to want to do so. I did not try to fire him as President of the CCNA.
If I am to become the scapegoat on the density bonus issue, so be it. If I am to become the scapegoat about the sewage issue, so be it. I am certainly not alone on either of these issues. I believe I represent the sense of my neighborhood on both of these issues.
The size of the Hudson Bayou Neighborhood Association is large only by request of neighbors in the areas covered. I find it quite illuminating that every time I speak on an issue, I am criticized as not representing a real neighborhood. Yet, when it comes time for people to speak up or to act, those supposed neighborhood critics never surface.
On storm drain labeling: It may not
be the ultimate solution to storm water run off issues, but it is a start on creating public awareness.
The best thing about working with your neighbors on a project is that, in the process, you become part of a community. Being part of a community is actually one of the keys to happiness. Why don't you join us, Safar, on the issues you care about in our neighborhood? We don't always have to agree.
Jeff: The DROD projects you criticized were exactly the reason why the planning board denied the ERA plan. Density increases alone won't help the affordable housing problem. The consultant even said that. In the projects you listed, those developers won the lottery with the DROD, and regrettably they contributed little to the affordable housing problem. Under the proposed AHOD, similar developments would surely be built with even more density than the DROD, and still have negligible impact on the housing problem.
I understand that the AHOD is one of the means to achieve the goal, yet the DTC densities only seemed to benefit the developers by providing more units in which to sell. The DTN and DTE zones stand to benefit more by the combined use of other avenues such as homestead exemption restrictions (ie:3-5yr), pricing maximums, etc.
Realize that while some of the DTN and DTE zones are already being gentrified, this also causes displacement as well. How do we make up for the displacement?
Ms. Chapman you should stop digging your hole.
From reading the back and forth, it appears you have no interest in learning anything other than trying to write you are correct and others are wrong or critical.
It reads pretty clear that you found it unacceptable for your president to send out a notice of joint discussion between the CCNA and the DTP. Nobody can understand why? You are talking out both sides of your mouth. First you think more needs to be done to understand the density proposal, then you slap your president for setting up a meeting for interested people to discuss it. You appear to find it acceptable to take votes on major City issues with only one member from each CCNA neighborhood without further discussion to a broader audience. You are the one out of line on this because any discussion with a group of interested people is nothing but a good idea but you voiced loudly that your president was out of line.
It does not seem people are critical of some of the things leaders of associations do but it is sort of wrong to act like you are representing a larger group than you do just by saying your association covers it.
So try not to confuse the good input with acting like everything all leaders do is bad because that is not what it appears is being said.
To 23/3/06 11:53 AM - Thanks, and I understand the confusion. I can't connect to the specific date or report from ERA, the economic consultant, that was referred to at last night's planning board meeting, but I think I can answer your question.
Early on in their process of looking at the universe of potential housing tools, ERA told the City Commission that while density increases were an option, density alone didn't guarantee affordability. They also said the the economics of affordability become more problematic as the price of the land increases (dare I say "duh"?) which of course means as you get closer to the downtown core. (Sorry about the little joke, but it's been very serious in here. And yes, I know this is a serious subject.)
Anyway, in addition there has been a great deal of support expressed, most easily identified with the Downtown Partnership folks over the last couple of years, for desity increases in the downtown edge to promote affordability. If I remember correctly, the original focus of that suggestion was the Rosemary District. The City Commission agreed, last November, to take a hard, quantified look at that possibility, and the result of that study is the ERA report that is now being discussed.
What the Commission did NOT do however is stop any of the other effort to identify and develop other options. That work continues, some by ERA, so it wasn't a retasking, it was an additional assignment. I hope this helps answer your question.
As far as ways to increase affordable housing, wouldn't it make sense to keep the affordable housing that already exists by introducing some sort of "rental homestead" cap on taxes for rental properties in the affordable range that people are discussing? This might take away some of the pressure on owners who must pass on taxes and insurance bills to their tenants. Or maybe some sort of grant system from the City in conjuction with a registration requirement. Just a thought.
This idea is being bounced around quite a bit, I believe there are (Florida) constitutional issues, and if you think about the underlying purpose of the homestaed exemption, it's easy to see why. One thing that concerns me, as broadening the application of the Save-our-Homes cap is discussed more and more as a solution to the imbalances and other unintented consequences of that cap, is that doing so will just exacerbate the remaining imbalances and unfairnesses.
Mike,
so....,
1. What is your idea of the underlying purpose of the exemption/Cap?
2. Isn't affordable housing one underlying purpose of the exsmption/Cap?
3. What happens to the Low-Wage renter?
4. Do you have a better suggestion?
#1) I believe the primary purpose originally of the "Save-Our-Homes" amendment, which put the cap on increased assesments in place for homesteaded properties, was to protect long-time property owners, especially older residents, from rapidly escalating tax bills that were being caused by huge valuation increases, especially on waterfront properties. People along the water who might have purchased a home twenty or thirty years earlier for relatively small amounts were seeing multi-million dollar valuations and tax bills that they were having to sell their homes to avoid - thus "save our homes." Someone else might describe it differently, but that's basically how it was sold at the time. If I remember corretly, it was the brain-child of the gentleman who was the Lee County tax collector at the time, and others I'm sure.
2) "Save Our Homes" was never about "affordability" as we're using the term in this conversation. At least that is my opinion, and recollection of the original campaign. Does anyone have a different recollection?
3 & 4) The issues facing landlords, and by extension low-wage renters, I would say are part of the unintended consequences of S.O.H., as are the impacts on commercial properties, which are also taking on more of the tax load as a proportion of the whole. I don't have an immediate answer as to what the solution is, although that discussion comes down to subsidizing either the rent or the taxes in some way. I was simply making the point that further expanding the S.O.H. cap, even if it were constitutional, would quite possibly exacerbate other unintended consequences that are already out there as well.
Wow. After reading through all 42 comments at once, I can only say that the promoters of the density bonus are truly out in force, and with a take no prisoners attitude. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose. As Bob Ardren once said (I paraphrase) "there's money in them thar hills." Lest you accuse me of being too cynical, let me also quote Ali Ebrahimi, president of Ersa Grae Corporation (Plaza at Five Points,) who said the following in the January 2006 edition of SRQ: "The city government should be careful not to buy into the naive notion of increasing allowable densities in order to somehow enhance affordability. The only effect of increased density is an increase of the land prices which benefits the landowners but not those in need of affordable housing." But wait, you will say, we have included measures ensuring affordability. And my response is that that is exactly what has not been included. The language for the density bonus comp plan change is very clear and ready to proceed forward. The language for the details of the rest of the program are extremely fuzzy, and, in my opinion, likely to be weakened as we move along. How very interesting it was to observe the two groups promoting this plan at the Planning Board hearing. First came all the developers in their fancy suits, singing the song of affordable housing, their newly found religion. Then came the YPGs, a group I find much more sympathetic, but who I also find very naive in their expectation that this program will ensconse them in downtown condos. Look hard boys and girls. The devil is in the details. You rarely go wrong by reading the fine print and asking for written guarantees.
Why do we have to focus on affordable units downtown? Why not focus on attracting more rental units such as the complex on Lockwood Ridge Rd that is a government program with apt. rentals? That is a super nice complex. I agree that more units downtown will simply make the area developers and planners richer and will still preclude the lower paid working people.
Karin Murphy will be missed.
Her caring and friendly attitude, as well as her knowledge, is something that is needed. Staff is here long after the elected officials, and this is just sad.
Mike, I truly think it would be beneficial to have more affordable rentals and housing in Sarasota, but find it hard to see it in the downtown core and bayfront districts. I think that some of the study areas mentioned are more than appropriate for such densities, but the administration of the program seems problematic at best. Further, the ownership criteria outlined in the ERA plan, would result in units quickly loosing their affordability after a few quick flips.
How about this for an idea. It addresses two problems at once, and relates to affordable rentals. The city sets a finite number of how many affordable rental units it wants within the city limits. (recognizing that the county has much more land to work with, and at even less costs and thereby must share in the effort) The number can represent a mix of target incomes within the affordability scale. A precentage of these units must be new construction, so as to encourage new and modern inventory, and not discourage development. Owners / landlords can apply to have their units counted officially as affordable and if accepted will then qualify for the tax cap. Of course to be accepted they would have to submit to the Landlord Inspection Program or whatever program would be created to ensure these units are quality and thereby safeguard our citizens from the dreaded slumlord mentality. The benefit to the city is better quality affordable rentals, and the database created would provide a precise accounting of unit quantity, sizes, ammenities, etc. The benefit for landlords is that they get to maintain their current tenants and since their tax assessments would be capped, their cash flow would remain intact.
For new rental unit developments, a similar program could be created. The difference here is that density bonuses and other incentives could be allowed for developments that meet establish critera. First, a rental pricing formula per unit size would be established by the city. One bedrooms cost this, two bedrooms cost that, etc. The formula is published with corresponding densities bonuses which are available. The bonuses are not tied to particular parcels, but to particular development concepts. Potential developers would then build a formula which included the cost of a target parcel, the cost of development and construction, and the return given the rent limitations provided. Then let's say a developer determines that it can provide 400 units on this site, but would need $250K contribution to make it work, or can do it on that site but would need $350K to make that work, they can request a contribution from the city or county. The density is not tied to the land so property values would not go up across the board, and the city would even get to have input into the location of the projects. The commissions would then evaluate the project, how it fits on the site, its scale, and its benefits to the area, and determine whether it is contribution worthy. The monies can come from the affordable housing trust or from the general fund if it is good enough. Instead of cash, the city /county can flex on its fees including: a reduction in impact fees, land use application fees, permit fees, public art fees, etc.
Once the target of total units is reached, the incentives for each class can be halted.
What do you think? You are probably laughing too hard to type, but the idea might have some merit.
It does seem important for the commission to direct staff to figure out a way to give landlords of apartment buildings incentives that will help keep the rental rates low in our downtown core. It is sort of unrealistic to expect apartment rental rates to stay low when we are seeing such huge increases in taxes. Because it is diffucult to make numbers work and see at least a break even with many rental apartment buildings we are seeing them turned into Condos or torn down for new development. This would seem like a good use of our affordable housing fund money. Some have expressed this is a difficut thing to do but I do not think that there are many apartment buildings so it may be more managable than we think. Apartments seem to be the only way we are going to continue to have affordable living spaces for the employees of our downtown.
Mr. City Manager: There's some editing going on. Gretchen Serrie's discussion on the Renaissance is gone. The attack of Shawn Fulker is edited out. The attacks on Susan Chapman remain. Very interesting!
Many communities are struggling with the rental issues, and some are researching what can be done regarding the regulation of conversions. To subsidize rents or taxes will require money, what sources do people feel would be acceptable? One thing people said in our first citizen's survey was that many support affordable housing, but few were willing to be taxed to make it happen.
As far as editing goes, I haven't edited anything except a couple of blog-spam type posts. I have never edited anything without mentioning what it was and why I took it down so you're a bit off base. I remember Ms. Serrie's post in particular, I'll see if I can find it - with the volume of posts it's getting harder.
Mr. Mgr.:
Per your comments on the ERA original analysis that this was a non-starter from the start -- are you implying that this was just pushed through by the Downtown Partnership and that the City just humored them, in spite of ERA's original recomendation? Why?
Additionally, See Shelton's pointed questioning of the ERA representative last Wednesday night on this whole six-figure fiasco that the consultant conceded to the Planning Board was an ill-advised further study, considering what they had just presented in August of 2005.
Per the City pursuing more of the recomendations laid out by ERA -- please share with us the list of activities and responsible parties from Planning Dept. who are in charge b/c according to Doug James on Wednesday before the Planning Board -- not much else has moved forward.
First, Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous, for the record Gretchen Serrie's (informative) post on the Renaissance project is still here, it's at 19/3/06 5:18 PM under the City Hall at the Market heading. Perhaps you'll look more closly the next time before making accusations.
For the last mr. Anonymous, I didn't imply anything, nor do I typically. I described the situation directly as I saw it. You are free to draw your own conclusions.
I can't say I understood Mr. James' answers before the planning board myself. I do know that he has in the past been somewhat unaware of things that were happening in other parts of the department when he wasn't directly involved. There is further work from ERA proceeding, I will have to get an update and pass that information on.
I do not think there was any attack on Ms. Chapman as a recent post implied. The conversation was important and necessary pointing out many important things to consider when one is being critical of others. Ms. Chapman was just one that appeared to need to be made aware of different ways of looking at difficult situations than just her own.
Curious that our city manager doesn't know what's going on w/implementation of ERA proposals, nor does Doug James, nor does anyone at the Planning Board meeting -- but we do know that we immediately need to ramrod through a Density Bonus proposal for the creation of perhaps 200 to 400 condos over 10 years, b/c the Downtown Partnership has been talking about it for a number of years and this is one of the City's Priority Hot Button Issues right now. Perhaps we'll spend the next $100k on an affordable housing density bonus study for implementation on Lido Key.
To Anonymous 10:48 - It's not curious at all that I don't know every detail, as in precisely when the next step is scheduled for the Commission. Of course I want to get the correct information from the Planning Department. There are, for your information, a number of work tasks underway at City Hall in addition to the work on housing. I have to ask, do you ever tire of looking so cynically at what we're trying to do, or of finding such creative ways to be critical? I find THAT "curious".
Dear Mr. Mgr:
I am not speaking for or against the recent proposal for density bonuses but I do have a question about what is being said.
Is it true we do not have the infrastructure and road within the city core to put more living quarters?
It seems to me that I am stuck in traffic until I reach the downtown and then everything with the auto traffic seems to be calm or moving at a pace very acceptable, if not really great, for a city. What is everyone talking about when they say there are already too many cars?
Now, if we are talking about parking, I must agree that many do not venture downtown because parking is such a problem in certain areas. Around Lemon Avenue seems to be one of the best places to find parking but that does not help the areas that are two or four or more block away.
And do the people that do not want more condos feel it is better to have a big company with tons of employees that just go to work and then get in their cars and leave at night? More people end up in an office than a living space usually so why is everyone so upset at living quarters?
And it is not better on the environment if people live in a compact area instead of sprawl? Or is it not easier on our systems like plumbing in condensed areas than sprawl?
I find it intresting how so many of the people that find the density bonus odd and needing more research also support building 200 units per acre for the Vondroff project.
If it is affordable or not, I think the market should dictate the amount of density and not the city.
To 8:19 A.M. - I think you've made some great points, especially about the density vs. sprawl issues, which is a lot of what the philosophy of our downtown redevelopment is about. It's getting in and out of the core that's the big problem, not geting around once you're here, and anyone who lives in or near downtown can confirm that.
Pattie said:
I am curious as to how roads can ever be widened on the west end of Fruitville Road, US 301 near Hollywood 20 and the courthouse, or practically any roads in the downtown area if buildings are being built right on the sidewalk? If transportation problems can only be resolved by more or larger streets, how will they be built with buildings on the curbs?
WHO ever said we want the streets in downtown widened? THAT WOULD BE AWFUL!!
County and State streets are another thing and that is not up to the city government.
Well if in the future there is a line of traffic from US 301 to US 41 down Main St or from US 301 to US 41 down Fruitville, someone will probably want them widened sooner or later - but that will not be a possibility with buildings there. The condo dwellers, workers and shoppers will be waiting in line all day to get to their apartments or downtown stores. See any other roads going downtown?
Let's run them thru the Orange Avenue and Osprey Avenue neighborhoods to downtown. Or 10th Street thru Gillespie Park neighborhood. Even streets of NYC are wider than 2 or 3 lanes on one side. Or maybe Central Avenue.
I think it's fairly widely acknowledged that mainly what you get with wider streets is more cars. That is not what is intended, rather to have more people, and ultimately move them around in other ways. So I don't ever see the widening of Main Street, for example. Of course we have work to do on the "moving people around" part, with the exception of walking, which is already a viable option, particularly as more people live downtown. I think it's safe to say that improved people-moving is in our future, and that may or may not mean vehicular transit if we're really creative. Sounds like I should start a thread on that!
Post a Comment
<< Home