Housing, and some newsroom stuff
At Schat's this morning there was conversation about housing. A local developer was on hand to talk about what the county ought to do about the way developers are encouraged - or forced - to create low and middle income housing. One way he likes is density bonuses - where the developer gets permission to build more houses per acre than the zoning allows, if he is willing to sell those homes in the low and middle income ranges. The developer, he says, essentially breaks even at best on those homes since they will be sold for less than market value. He said, however, that the county stands to gain from such a routine because under the law the difference between the selling price for, say a middle income-priced home at $200,000 and the real market value of the home, say $300,000, creates a formula by which the county gets paid when the home is sold later. In the example above, the price as developed is two-thirds of the market value. That formula kicks in when the home is later sold at, say, $450,000. When that happens the county collects one-third of the price, or $150,000. The home owner gets the two-thirds. This is intended I guess to keep people from quickly flipping low and middle income housing. The rules do apparently give definite time lines during which low and middle income housing must stay that way. In some cases its 5-10 years, in others 20, in some as much as 30 or 50 years. I suggested that homes built specifically for low and middle income residents ought to stay that way in perpetuity. That way the economically mixed neighborhood will always be economically mixed. The developer was incomfortable with the concept of forever, saying that the homes would wear out. I said, well then let all the housing agencies like Rural Community Housing Development Corporation, which tends to build "ghettos" of low income housing, use its money instead for rehabbing housing in economically mixed neighborhoods, while developers continue to build with mixed income requirements all the time. The developer also argued that it would be unfair for a low or middle income person to be forced to sell his or her home at the deliberately depressed price, that this homeowner when income permits ought to be able to reap the same profits anyone else does. I would say that's fine, let the seller get what he can and the government pick up the tab to make up the difference between the new low or middle income buyer's ability to pay and the market value, just as we are now.
At the end of the conversation my head was spinning - as yours probably is now if you are still reading - but it seems to me that it makes no sense to keep building low and middle income housing and then letting the housing drift to market value, creating the need for more and more low and middle income housing to be built.
Just a thought.
Some of you may have noticed the by-line Zack Sampsel in our pages recently. He is an intern working with us for the next few weeks for college credit and we think the world of him. He's got lots of energy and enthusiasm and has brightened the newsroom considerably.
If you haven't seen a copy yet, go to dig! music or a downtown restaurant and pick up a copy of our new Day & Night, Night & Day entertainment magazine. Our features editor Richard Rosier did a bang-up job creating a brand new product for the younger gen with, for example, restaurant review by James "I'll Eat Anything" Arens, along with other fun pieces written by newsroom staffers and others.
Check it out.