On Monday, the Decatur City Commission approved the zoning of the property at 230 Commerce Drive from “RL-Low Density Residential to RM-Medium Density Residential”, which makes way for the city’s plan to build a cottage court development at the site.
The goal of the project, according to the application is “serve as a model to prove the depth of the market for quality, small homes and encourage private developers to build this type of project throughout the City.”
The application also notes that the proposed site plan responds to the input of adjacent property owners and neighborhoods thusly:
- Adheres to all property setbacks without the need for a variance
- Limits houses to 1 1/2 stories and window placements to protect privacy of adjacent property owners
- Limits the # of houses to six
- Places three of the six houses along Commerce Drive to reinforce the residential character of that side of Commerce Drive. The units have porches on the front facade to face Commerce and porches on the rear to address the shared courtyard
- Provides for all required parking on site
- Offers a variety of housing sizes including one that is completely accessible.
The application also notes residents’ desire for the DDA to act as the projects developer and retain ownership through a land trust and that the homes should be should to city and CSD employees who make 60%-80% of Decatur’s median HH income.
But for now, the zoning change has been approved, so look for this first-of-its-kind project in the City of Decatur move forward in the coming months.
All renderings courtesy of the application
The Decatur Development Authority’s role is: “They are independent authority established for the purpose of planning, organizing, and financing projects that will revitalize and redevelop Decatur’s commercial business districts. The Downtown Development Authority focuses on the historic commercial downtown central business district and works to market a positive image for the city.”
• How do they have the authority to develop residential property?
Records indicate that the D.D.A owns the land.
Since the D.D.A is also going to be the developer of the homes, and since ownership is retained by D.D.A. through a land trust, then it appears that the D.D.A is now in the rental property business?
• What is the process to decide who will be allowed to live in these properties?
• Is it based on income alone?
• Is it a first come basis?
• Who pays for maintenance?
I cannot see how this will “serve as a model to prove the depth of the market for quality, small homes and encourage private developers to build this type of project throughout the City.”
• Where is the return on the investment from a Developer’s perspective?
[Quote from the post:] The application also notes residents’ desire for the DDA to act as the projects [sic] developer and retain ownership through a land trust and that the homes should be should to city and CSD employees who make 60%-80% of Decatur’s median HH income. ”
I was totally on board with this project before and until I got to the paragraph.
Now, I am confused. I assume this should say that neighborhood residents would like for the DDA to retain ownership of the land and for the homes to be *sold* to city and CSD employees making 60 to 80 percent of Decatur median HH income. But, how would that work? This would seem to treat them like fee simple townhomes and not single family homes, with the added issue of the developer retaining ownership – and responsibility – indefinitely for the development’s common areas (or even the individual homes themselves – confused by the idea of a land trust with respect to private residences). In addition, if the sale of the units is going to be reserved for a select group, how are resales going to be governed? Though a community covenant? So, that sounds more like a housing co-op.
None of this, to me, seems attractive to private developers who usually want to develop, sell, and move on.
I think the DDA needs to decide what the real purpose of the development is. Is it A) to provide a demonstration of the market viability of smaller, denser residential development within CoD; or B) to develop and maintain a segment of affordable housing for city employees?
I think both are valuable, but conflicting, goals. This is completely leaving aside Helvetia’s valid comment above about the stated mission of the DDA.
Since I posted this earlier, Decaturish reported that at the City Commission meeting, Asst. City Manager Lyn Menne said that the City is considering a lottery for school employees and teachers to determine who would get to buy homes in the development.
http://www.decaturish.com/2016/10/decatur-considering-lottery-for-affordable-housing-project/
Lottery is the right term since it home appreciation for houses priced below market rates would be a lottery-style windfall.
So a few incredibly lucky teachers will receive a huge windfall while the majority get nothing. I, for one, would prefer my tax dollars that are being used to subsidize this unmarketable project being spread more equitably.
And please, let’s call this what it is – our city commission giving Lyn Menne a blank check for her pet project. I appreciate her efforts to help create an environment where such a development can work, but when there is ZERO interest by the market, it is time to move on.
This zoning designation has been around for awhile now. Developers are not avoiding it because they are worried about demand. They are avoiding it because it’s almost certainly less profitable.
I applaud the city for trying to be pro-active about this. It’d be great if it caught on. So long as it’s easier, faster, and more profitable to build big and expensive stuff, that’s what they’ll do. What’s the incentive to pursue the cottage court model when they’ve already got existing plans and subs who are comfortable building the same $800k box/porch combo? I find it unlikely they’ll leave money on the table to satisfy some greater community good.
Don’t forget, if the developer replaces the one $800k box/porch combo with 6 cottage court homes, the developers has to find 6 purchasers instead of 1 (and go through 6 separate closings instead of 1), set up some sort of HOA for the common spaces (here, the city is more or less providing that service) and administer it until all of the homes are sold, and so on and so forth. I do not imagine that there are that many developers (or bank lenders) who want to go through all that additional trouble without a significantly enhanced return.
Application claims that the project will have “no impact on the school system.”
Does that mean one of the requirements of the lottery will be that participants have no children? If so, sounds a little discriminatory (as well as being impossible to guarantee for the length of ownership).
Also share with Helvetia’s question about how this project falls within the DDA’s role. Takes an incredible stretch to call this property part of the “historic commercial downtown central business district.”
DDA is appointed by the city commission, so the voters elected commissioners who believe in this sort of government extension.
I have concern that since mayor Floyd, our commissioners don’t sufficiently oversee non-elected city officials and empower them too much.
Breakeven
I would like to hear some of your specifics concerning your comments above, rather than a general statement.
Scott Drake
Sure, now that I have your ear, I can break my response into three parts.
1) Let me flip around the question – can you give me specific examples of times during your time on the commission where you or the commission have pushed back and rejected or dramatically scaled down requests from city personnel?
2) Specific items – the two big ones that are most salient right now are this one and the tree ordinance.
On this project, it started out as a concept to prove the “marketability” of a design so that developers will see there is a market for this concept and start building it. Now, it is going to be re-hashed into “affordable housing” through a lottery. That is pretty much the opposite from how it started, all by non-elected city management whose agency is commercial downtown development, not residential property management.
On the tree ordinance, it started out with a study led by Amanda Thompson that was very one-sided and pushed the conclusion that tree canopy loss was a crisis. Then the clumsy ordinance was proposed in “complete” form, and the commission nearly rubber stamped it, and only slowed down slightly with the outcry. Even then, as comments were made in the public forum, the city management and particularly Mayor Baskett were incredibly dismissive of any conflicting opinions.
3) Rather than specific examples, look at the numbers in general too. City spending has increased at a much faster rate since Mayor Floyd left office. Take a look at the growth in the city’s operating budget. This is separate from the capital programs, debt service, and other special development projects. When I looked at the growth in spending, it averaged just over 3% annual growth from 2009/10 to 2012/13. From 2012/13 to the 2016/17 budget, it has grown over 6% annually. This means the annual budget is about $3 million higher for 2016/17 than if it had continued at the 3% growth clip. That $3 million is basically coming from property taxes now every year (maybe that is around $400-500 per house/apartment/condo on average assuming 7,000 units). Property tax is half of general fund revenues but likely nearly 100% of marginal revenue.
Annual inflation over this entire period has generally been low, under 2%. There has been some population growth during this period, but it has been slow and under 1% annually for the period (based on US estimates of Decatur)
Given this increase in spending above inflation and population growth over the last four years, I believe it is evidence of an overall lack of spending discipline. I’m no anti-tax, anti-government crackpot. I just think that on a per-capita basis, our city services are very expensive, so we really have to understand where the money is going, to avoid pet projects and to push city management to make cost-effective choices, as in the end, it is our money as Decatur residents (who end up footing almost all the cost).
Maybe you should offer yourself as a candidate for City Commission nest year.
I would but personally for right now and the foreseeable future it is too big of a time and financial commitment for me with my career and small children. It’s also incredibly difficult for newcomers to defeat incumbents in any election.
The whole “run or shut up” argument is getting tired. Residents not only can, but should, question the actions/inactions of their elected officials (without having to run for public office). And as most, if not all, of our commissioners lurk (and occasionally post) here, DM is as good of forum as any.
City Commission and various Board meetings are public with time for comments, so go! My experience is that City Commissioners and the various Board members are approachable, so an email and/or one-on-one conversation can be can help to express a concern or request.
And, we should vote in City elections. Less than 30% turnout is ridiculous when we turn out 70% for Presidential elections. As is shown here many times, the decisions that affect us most day to day are local ones made by local elected officials.
Breakeven
Why don’t you come by our next commission meeting and share your thoughts. We would love to work on your concerns. You seem like you have such an in depth idea on what goes on in the city government.
Scott – you asked for specifics vs generalities and I took my time to research them and spell out my concerns. I was hoping for a response along those lines.
Unfortunately it is difficult for most people to be present at all community meetings is one thing that I wish could change about how Decatur is run. I feel as though it is an “activistocracy,” where the loudest and most shrill voices get the most say, rather than popular opinion. We have a representative democracy so every citizen doesn’t have to participate in every meeting and every event, but those representatives have a duty to represent the wishes of their constituents (I do have to say I’m actually not in your zone but in zone 2). Perhaps more frequent use of the open city hall online (and actually listen to what is said there) could aid in understanding opinions for those who cannot regularly attend meetings and understand any issues raised by others.
I believe in adding more parkland for the city and keeping spending discipline where we can, but while the former does have its supporters, the latter is a hard skill to implement and a more nuanced job, beyond many resident’s time commitments to monitor, and without an easily attributed group that benefits.
Very unimpressed with this rather snarky response to Breakeven’s list of concerns, Mr. Drake. Might have been better if you’d resisted writing that last line. You asked for specifics and he provided them. These are concerns that many Decatur residents share.
The more I learn about this project, the more convinced I am that it is a waste of time and resources that could be devoted to more worthwhile subjects. The City has done a poor job of convincing me otherwise. Can any evidence be provided to suggest that any one of the top 10 or so builders that have swept through Decatur over the past decade would consider this model? I’d be surprised if such evidence exists.
“On this project, it started out as a concept to prove the “marketability” of a design so that developers will see there is a market for this concept and start building it. Now, it is going to be re-hashed into “affordable housing” through a lottery. That is pretty much the opposite from how it started, all by non-elected city management whose agency is commercial downtown development, not residential property management.”
That is simply not true. The city has been open about this being a potential lottery situation since this project became more public. For me, if that is the way to make sure a teacher, police officer, of fire fighter will definitely get these homes and be fully part of my community, then it is a fantastic idea in my book. If that is called a windfall by some, no problem. I consider it a windfall for my family to have these awesome people living nearby instead of driving in to work for us.
Did you go to the meetings about this project earlier this year? Or attend either commission meeting? Or if your life precludes you from any of the above, did you email the commissioners your thoughts?
None of this has been set in stone and there have been many opportunities for the community to provide feedback on this project to make it the best it can be.
Curious, what are you disputing about my statement? Is it that the city was clear about its intention to provide the new development as affordable housing? If so I respectfully disagree.
I’m pointing out that providing an example to developers about marketability and providing subsidized housing are not compatible ideas. This project is a reach for what the city typically does as well as what the mission statement of the DDA outlines.
The city should just turn it into a park and get out of the speculative development business. This would give a benefit to all residents and not just the “lucky six” city employees.
Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Where did you learn of the goals being anything but a.) to exhibit marketability and b.) the intent to offer these homes at an affordable price? c.) and to hopefully offer to community workers
I’ve participated in most of the process and this has always been at the forefront of the discussions. I know Lyne Menne reads this site and hope she will correct me if I have completely lost my mind.
I got my info from a press release from the city earlier this year. I’ll add it to a second reply.
So what I am saying is that your a) and b) are not strategically compatible. On option c), the DDA is not an affordable housing agency.
From paragraph 1 on the summary page” This project will serve as a model to prove the depth of of the market for quality, small homes and encourage private developers to build this project throughout the city” -so this means the city will take the risk of construction to build the project and show its economic feasibility.
Then, suddenly it becomes a lottery with only CSD employees who make 60-80% of income who are eligible? That is the exact polar opposite of proving marketability.
Here’s another modest proposal along those lines: Why doesn’t the city just go ahead and buy more property, build big box homes (the $800k homes others deride on this thread), and market them for $300,000 to city employees via lottery too? How is building something and then controlling its distribution at a fixed low price prove anything about marketability?
Paragraph 3 on the application gives a straw man argument: “Residents also expressed their desire that the…”. This is the type of action and attitude I referenced in my response to Scott. City management pushes these things through if there are a few activists to support them. I guarantee I could find some residents to express their desire for just about anything and use it as a justification. I’m sure I can even find residents to support my own modest proposal above (just not me).
The DDA should not be a developer of residential property all its own. This is a giant overreach and mistake.
OK, I think I misunderstood the point of your original post to Scott Drake.
You used words like “new,” “re-hashed,” and “opposite from how it started” which led me to believe you thought the intent of the project had changed. I don’t believe the goals have changed or were secret, and that was the point I was making.
Now it seems you are commenting about whether you agree with the project. I wasn’t challenging your opinions on viability, conflicting goals, etc. Hope that clarifies.
OK, I think I misunderstood the point of your original post to Scott Drake.
You used words like “new,” “re-hashed,” and “opposite from how it started” which led me to believe you thought the intent of the project had changed. I don’t believe the goals have changed or were secret, and that was the point I was making.
Now it seems you are commenting about whether you agree with the project. I wasn’t challenging your opinions on viability, conflicting goals, etc. Hope that clarifies.
If the person who purchases the home is a teacher, they would already have the ability to enroll their children in the school system. I personally think this is a fine idea. Our city is made stronger and brighter with people like teachers and police officers. It kind of feels like people are bitter for not being able to buy into this project.
My limited understanding of the land trust approach is to prevent someone from getting a windfall. They will not own the land, and therefore cannot buy a lower cost home and turn around and flip as a teardown in a year or two.
I often read comments on DM complaining about the influx of developers doing the teardowns throughout the city. Here is a project that is trying to curb this by showing all of us a different approach. Will it be less profitable for a builder? Absolutely. But no builder is going to take on a project that will lose money either.
For me this project has a lot of positives to combat the very things that are choking our community. I’m not sure this is the best location, but I also don’t see a lot of available land around town either. It sounds like many details are not set in stone, but I’m appreciative of he City’s efforts to at least TRY and do something within their capabilities.
So, if the city uses a land trust and retains ownership, how does that promote the goal of serving “as a model to prove the depth of the market for quality, small homes and encourage private developers to build this type of project throughout the City?” Doesn’t this project, in fact, demonstrate the opposite and prove this concept is not marketable?
And someone is getting a windfall in some shape or form. If not equity when they sell, 6 families will receive housing that I can only assume will be far superior to other government subsidized housing in the city.
Assume away but the interiors at DHA’s recently renovated properties (Allen Wilson and Gateway) are pretty darn nice.
Lyrics Only Guy is really falling down on the job. This project is straight out of J. Mellencamp’s classic Little Pink Houses (for you and me, brought to you courtesy of COD government):
Well there’s people and more people
What do they know, know, know
Go to work in some high rise
And vacation down at the Gulf of Mexico
Ooo yeah
And there’s winners, and there’s losers
But they ain’t no big deal
‘Cause the simple man baby pays the thrills,
The bills and the pills that kill
Oh but ain’t that America, for you and me
Ain’t that America, we’re something to see baby
Ain’t that America, home of the free, yeah
Little pink houses for you and me, ooo, ooo yeah
Hey! You! Get off of my cloud
Don’t hang around ’cause two’s a crowd
“Get Off of My Cloud”
-The Rolling Stones
Boondoggle.