DeVry Annexation Meeting Wednesday
Decatur Metro | June 22, 2009Fred Boykin remind us that the DeVry annexation meeting is this coming Wednesday and sends along the letter again with the announcement.
Devry University is notifying all adjoining property owners within approximately one quarter mile of a proposed annexation and zoning request for the DeVry University campus located on North Arcadia Avenue.
There will be a public meeting on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the DeVry University campus. Please enter the building from the southern parking lot. Signs will be posted to direct you to the meeting room. Please feel free to attend this meeting should you have any questions regarding this request. If you are unable to attend the meeting and would like to obtain information, please feel free to contact Laurel David at 404-965-3680.
In Fred’s words, “[DeVry] makes Midway look like small change.”
In my opinion, there are two reasons why an 11 parcel Midway annexation has so far drawn more comments than the much larger DeVry “mixed-use” parcel. One is the palpable concern about grade school enrollment among the general population. Two is that the DeVry parcel is currently without a site plan and therefore we do not yet know the potential impact, unlike the family-magnet, detached housing on Midway.
All we know about DeVry thus far is that they’ve decided they want to be annexed by Decatur and that they want the property rezoned as “mixed-use.” And while mixed-use implies a greater degree of density in comparison to a mind-nubbing subdivision, there is still pretty good potential for some single-family, detached homes. (see page 49 of this document for the mixed-use ordinance)
However, a lack of detail shouldn’t mean that we don’t plan ahead. Nothing is more hopeless than complaining about something after the fact. Once we accept DeVry into the fold and approve their zoning change, we’re essentially saying, yes you can develop according to our new zoning ordinance. So, we need to perform our due diligence now, when we can still have a say in the matter.
I think many friends of smart-growth would agree that Decatur would be better off with a “town-center” plan on DeVry, instead of another subdivision or office park. However, if the past is any indication, school enrollments have a way of taking over every annexation conversation. Therefore, what we should determine right off the bat is how much wiggle room the new CSD reconfiguration plan will provide the city. Can we accommodate projected student growth from within the existing city limits and new enrollments from a DeVry annexation plan?
There’s a lot more to consider here than just student enrollment: taxes, development patterns, etc. However, knowing these key enrollment figures upfront will ultimately make it easier to get over the initial CSD hurdle, before moving onto other important – but less politically potent – considerations.
Latest from Decaturish
Is the 6/24th meeting the final public hearing on the matter?
Sorry cubalibre, I wasn’t very specific. I’m not sure who’s holding this meeting (DeVry? DeKalb?), but I’m pretty sure it’s not Decatur and it’s certainly not the commission who will eventually have to vote on it.
CSD enrollment seems to be the major sticking point for a lot of oppurtunities. That indicates chronic planning undershoot when it comes to school capacity planning. How best do we approach building excess capacity (and selling that overspend) in future school projects? It seems to me that the high demand for tuition enrollments would support much more excess capacity than we currently have or plan for.
Thanks for the link.
An MU district could be an improvement for the Devry lot especially if it resulted in making Winn Way a more walkable and transit friendly corridor and provided some useful retail. ie. gym, restaurants and groceries within walking distance of Decatur Heights, the apts on Dekalb industrial and the assisted living centers and medical offices on that street. I can totally see that lot linking those areas with the Avondale Marta station. Taming Dekalb Industrial for walkability (or at least crossability) will be a much needed prerequisite though. It’s almost as bad as Scott Blvd.
Amen! On either one, pedestrians are taking their lives in their hands. It’d be money well-spent, IMHO.
Interesting site and request from DeVry. I have the feeling that if the site is zoned with loose restrictions that there is greater possibility of a poor development in the future.
Personally, I think a professional planner’s take on the site would facilitate both Decatur and DeVry in this process. I am familiar with site/development studies and zoning recommendations produced on behalf of communities that have been far superior to developer’s plans. Specifically, the Brookhaven MARTA area plan that has become part of Dekalb County’s code seems to be a good model.
To consider DeVry’s request, should Decatur require DeVry to pay for planning studies commissioned and directed by the city?
Brad, this is an exceptionally good idea. While it is a marketing advantage to DeVry to be able to sell property already endowed with a specific, and predictable, zoning ordinance (presumably our new Mixed Use ordinance governing development at East Decatur Station), along with active city support for such development, there is still the issue of opposition.
If DeVry funded a collaborative public planning process, done in compliance with our MU zoning, they could market the property as having both the city’s and the surrounding community’s support for a particular development scenario. That would provide the surrounding community with greater assurance that the property would be developed in line with their desires, provide CSD with input into product mixes that would generate acceptable levels of children, and provide a potential buyer/developer with the promise of the fewest possible political/bureaucratic hurdles.
I hope the city’s taking note. Seriously, the closest suggestion to a true, non-partisan win-win that I’ve heard.
Given the imminent destruction of public housing in Decatur and the ongoing lack of housing opportunities for lower income citizens of our town, any planning or development incentives for this land , in my opinion, should include a strong requirement for truly affordable rental housing. Population diversity is one of the things that make our city a great place, and it is quickly disappearing. I am very worried about my friends, the elderly and their children, who have lived in Public housing off of Trinity in some all their life, and will who may soon be pushed out of Decatur, as a result of actions by the city and the housing authority.
I would love to have a discussion of that in conjunction with this project.
I am also interested in the fate of some of our long standing low to middle income communities, both in DHA (Decatur Housing Authority) homes and in traditionally reasonably priced areas like College Heights, Oakhurst, Sycamore Drive, etc. I know a bunch of children were saying that they wouldn’t be coming back to school next year because of vouchers. It’s one thing to displace families temporarily to nearby lodging during remodelling. It’s another thing to disrupt their children’s schooling. We all know that some of the areas that folks will go to with vouchers will have dysfunctional neighborhood schools. Some of the children may never return to CSD and our investment in those children is lost, not to mention friendships and community. Others will return but we’ll need to expend extra resources to get them back up to speed.
Some of my kids’ best friends, many of whom make honor roll or principal’s honor roll regularly, and some of the best and hardest working Moms come from these neighborhoods that are being displaced by either DHA remodelling or by gentrification of South Decatur. We are losing a lot by losing them. There’s a lot to be said for the neat stores, boutiques, remodelling, and increased neighborhood safety that comes with gentrification. We just have to figure out how to do it without destroying the heart of the community, the people. I want my family to live in a better but traditional and historicDecatur that has housing options for the whole spectrum of our community, not a sterile Disneyland Decatur with only McRenovations and McCondos.
Good questions to pose to the City Commission candidates – and don’t forget to vote.
Well said, Snowflake. I often feel torn between being heartened by the interest in bringing new life into some of the older neighborhoods (and their housing), and wondering how many older/longtime/low income residents will be able to stay in their homes in light of it. Gentrification is a good thing, but can have some unintended unfortunate consequences. The difference between Decatur and other ITP places facing similar dilemmas is that here, the “gentrifiers” do at least seem to actually care about what happens to the potentially displaced.
Another Rick,
I hadn’t heard about plans to tear down the public housing on Trinity. I’m not surprised though. I suppose that land will be occupied by more overpriced particle board condos for no-kids renters with disposable income? $cha ching!
Public housing on Trinity is being redeveloped by the Housing Authority. Current plans, as I’ve heard, include a comparable number of replacement public units, a special building geared towards the needs of low-income seniors, a percentage of market-rate, mixed income housing and some neighborhood scaled commercial.
I believe maintaining the current number of subsidized units is a key component of the plan. Some of the other aspects are designed to restore the area’s functionality as a neighborhood rather than just a housing project.
If a low income housing project is placed where Devry was, I will move. I was told mixed use, which is fine…..also don’t mind affordable or mixed income. Low income…no way….sorry. Those of us that bought over there did so when there was a university. Changing it to something most would consider not a good place to own a home near may reduce property values over there. Redo the homes where they are now to make it respectable.
NDG, don’t worry. These are two totally separate issues that ended up on the same thread. The Trinity public housing is being redeveloped on its existing site. The DeVry parcel will never be developed for low income. That’s a given.
A little history for Near Devry Girl
What is now Sycamore Ridge used to be a low/fixed income neighborhood of tree filled lots and modest brick homes. Then the elderly and poor were bought/kicked out, the old growth trees clearcut, particle board&fakestone mcMansions were stacked onto undersized lots. Only after the dirty deeds were done was there a push to join Decatur and abide by city ordinances that would never had let all that stuff happen. It’s unfair and ironic to get all NIMBY on the idea of low income housing in that area.
Um, Ridge, “McMansions”??? The houses in Sycamore Ridge are nice, but are hardly McMansions. Are any of them even over 3K sq. feet? If they are, they sure don’t look it. Cluster housing in & of itself does not equate to the monster boxes commonly associated with the “McM” moniker, IMO…
Devry’s lot resides across from an auto salvage operation and is next to a derelict phone equipment yard. That’s “single use commercial” as currently zoned. I’d like to see something more neighborly go into that parcel. Even if lower income residential is included.
It seems they are doing right by inviting public inspection and comment on it. Offering to come under Decatur planning and the mixed use ordinance is a very positive step to me.
I did not mean to side track this thread into a discussion of public housing. I only said that if land is to come into the City limits of Decatur, I advocate the inclusion of affordable rental housing as a condition of approval by the City of any redevelopment plan. One reason I say this is because the only existing public housing in Decatur will soon be destroyed and opportunities for lower income renters will be even further limited then they are now. I do not mean and did not say that public housing should be built there.
But I do think the fear expressed above that public housing is some kind of negative is not based on fact but is a statement based on emotion only. I own a home in the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the public housing on Trinity and Commerce Drive. We have some of the most expensive housing in Decatur, our resale’s are strong and prices continue to increase. People want to buy into my neighborhood. We are not negatively impacted by public housing.
Do you know the City of Atlanta operates a successful Public Housing development in the Anslie Park neighborhood, one the most expensive and exclusive neighborhoods in Atlanta? The City of Decatur Housing Authority is one of the best managed Public Housing agencies in the country. If they could develop affordable rental housing on the DeVry property, I am sure it would be a similar asset to our community
I agree with your overall concerns about affordability, A-Rick, but a couple clarifications. The Trinity public housing is not being destroyed. It’s being redeveloped with, among other things, a comparable number of new public housing units in their place. So none lost there. Additionally, though its start date is market-dependent, the Housing Authority is also developing the Avondale/East Decatur MARTA parking lot with the kind of affordable housing you describe.
I am glad to hear that a comparable number of new public housing units will be provided in the new development off Trinity/ Commerce public housing. I mentioned my concern about that project because a number of older residents there have mentioned to me their fear over being displaced. Thousands for residents of public housing in Atlanta have been displaced as those projects are demolished. My friends will be given vouchers, but can they find a place to use them in Decatur? I will advocate that the displaced current residents be given first priority for rental when the redevelopment is complete. But what happens to the families with children in the interim?
I seem to recall someone at the city saying that they have been purposely leaving units at Allen Wilson vacant after they have been voluntarily vacated recently, in anticipation of this redevelopment. This way they can move residents within Allen Wilson while construction of the new units is underway. The project will be constructed in stages, so no one will be forced to move off the property.
I’d love confirmation from the city on this, but I’m pretty sure that’s the gist of it.
Agree that DHA runs a great set of homes that are a wonderful community. My kids have loved going there because of the playgrounds, sidewalks, and huge number of playmates all in one place. With the exception of one home (and there’s exceptions like this in expensive sections of town too!), I have sent my children on playdates there knowing I was dealing with good Moms and a safe situation. While kids from DHA might make up a disproportionate number of kids who struggle in school, the absolute number of those struggling kids is low; many are star students. And kids with special needs live all over town.
This is why I feel sad that some families are “temporarily” leaving but I have to wonder if they will really be back. I hope that the new community that is created with the redevelopment retains the warmth, tradition, friendliness, and overall wholesomeness of the current community. There’s trendier, suburban-looking, more accessorized communities around where I’d feel a lot less comfortable and safe.
Mandating “affordable” housing (whatever that means) can be specious and lead to many unintended consequences. Just look at the questionable legacy of our existing public housing – seemed like a great idea in the 60’s. Although one would expect thoughtful zoning decisions could avoid some of mistakes of the past (maybe/maybe not), some nuances to this situation that may be worth considering are:
1) Many of the best developers prefer sites without the bureaucratic and costly mandates of affordable housing requirements. The dynamic can result in less-thoughtful developments (example: Atlantic Station’s rental housing component). This unintended ugly-development consequence is especially prominent in Atlanta metro, which has scads of developable sites options available to best-of-breed developers and also has scads of existing affordable housing. The DeVry site is a decent location, but it is not great.
2) Limiting the rental income potential, and the site’s value, via zoning gives DeVry a negotiating chip that may be used to legitimately request relief on another aspect of zoning approval. For example, they will trade an “affordable” mandate for increased density, height, setbacks, parking. A possible zoning concession may also result in a less desirable development.
3) When the DeVry site is redeveloped, affordable housing (or housing period) may not be the best use for the community. Specific zoning code that is negotiated and codified today may be inappropriate in the longer term. If the development is not imminent, a flexible zoning designation may be advisable.
My personal position is that there are a lot of existing affordable-housing finance programs available to developers (e.g. tax exempt bond financing) and renters (section 8 ) that do not involve zoning. If the site is appropriate for affordable housing, let the market and existing programs outside of zoning address that issue rather than risk the possible unintended consequences of overly officious zoning restrictions.
Sycamore Ridge is hardly McMansions and the homes there before were disgusting, so that neighborhood is a vast improvement ! And,some of the nieghborhood was already within City limits, and the rest was included before building began. I spoke to the lawyer representing DeVry and they only will sell to someone wanting to use the property for mixed use development. The folks that bought at Sycamore Ridge did so when there was a university there. Most I have spoken with are ok with mixed use, but do not support low income or commercial development.
Would they (or you) be against the redevelopment of this land, if it includes housing (a basic component of ‘mixed use) just because it included a requirement for affordable rental housing? If so why?
Mixed income is fine, low income is not. Sorry. We bought in that area because we didn’t want to be near low income housing. We looked at homes near DHA and chose not to be near it. Also preferrably for sale living, not for rent. There are enough apartment complexes right near this property, we don’t need more.
I am glad you see the benefit of mixed income. That is why I live in Decatur (for the diversity). I look forward to the possibilities of redevelopment of the DeVry land. BTW, although the Sycamore (aka Lockwood Terrace area) has become less diverse over the past 20 years, I think you may be surprised about the diversity of income and ownership/rental profile still in your area.
Less Diverse? Please come to this area and look again. Black, Indian, Hispanic, Asian, Gay, Straight, Bi-riacial, Arabic, Old, Young, Single, Married, Mixed Couples and Families. I live here, they are all within a few blocks.
I want to add Rich and Not so Rich. Duplexes w/ affordable simple housing next door to $500k homes.
I’d like to provide clarification to some of the questions that have been posted about the DeVry annexation request. The meeting tonight (June 24, 2009) is being hosted by DeVry University to explain their zoning and annexation request. City staff will be in attendance, but will not be presenting any information. There are currently three meetings scheduled for city purposes:
July 6, 2009 City Commission will consider acceptance of the annexation request package, which only answers the question “Did DeVry fill out the right paperwork to be annexed?”
July 14, 2009 The Planning Commission will consider the question “If DeVry is annexed, what is the appropriate zoning category they should be assigned to?”
July 20, 2009 The City Commission will consider two questions, in this order,
“What should DeVry be zoned as, if we annex it?” AND “Should we annex this property?”
There will be public comment at all three meetings and you are always welcome to submit your comments via email or letter.
DeVry has requested the city’s newly adopted Mixed Use zoning category which requires adoption of a regulating master site plan, which outlines the maximum development that could be allowed and development standards they must follow, like streetscaping requirements. However, they do not have to build to the maximum allowable building height or number of units. The site plan allows protection for the neighborhoods in terms of determining the maximum impact and flexibility for the developer to build what will be supported by the market. Just like our existing ordinances the mixed use ordinance does not distinguish between owner occupied and rental housing. I will have their application posted on the city’s website by the end of this week.
As far as the renovation of Allen Wilson, no residents have been involuntarily displaced. If a resident chose to take a Section 8 voucher, they will be first on the list to return once the renovation is completed.
So the City Commission will vote on this annexation within a month’s time??
1. To quote the venerable Decatur Metro: ” … if the past is any indication, school enrollments have a way of taking over every annexation conversation. Therefore, what we should determine right off the bat is how much wiggle room the new CSD reconfiguration plan will provide the city. Can we accommodate projected student growth from within the existing city limits and new enrollments from a DeVry annexation plan?
There’s a lot more to consider here than just student enrollment: taxes, development patterns, etc. However, knowing these key enrollment figures upfront will ultimately make it easier to get over the initial CSD hurdle, before moving onto other important – but less politically potent – considerations.”
Does this timetable mean that City will not try to answer to question of the impact of this annexation on CSD? I know I sound like a broken record, but without that information, the City CANNOT know whether annexing DeVry is a good deal for the Decatur tax-payer. The City shouldn’t be looking simply at its side of the tax ledger, but at the total tax bill. Times are tough. Slow down. Get the information you need to make a good decision.
2. When the City Commission voted unanimously in January “to defer consideration of substantial annexation until 2011,” what exactly did that mean?
Judd and DM,
You both bring up good points, and the impact on the schools is definitely relevant in this discussion. But I think we all also realize that annexing the DeVry property is different than annexing pre-existing neighborhoods which are a known quantity. Annexing the DeVry property will give us an opportunity to control what and who will border our city, in a large tract of land. If we decide not to annex the property, there is the possibility that something could move in there that would negatively impact the city. I’m thinking something like Wal-Mart, but we all have our own bogeymen. My point is that annexation gives us control over a development which will affect the city to some extent whether it’s annexed or not.
And I for one, would love to see the city bargain for a park in there, as that area of the city has to walk a long way to get to a swingset.
DeVry presented the same development plan to DeKalb as they are presenting to Decatur. No difference. They were quite explicit about that at tonight’s meeting. They said the box-stores just weren’t feasible. There will be about 20% green space — but not a city park. That’s out of 21 acres. So 15-16 usable acres for commercial and residential — condos, apartments, townhouses.
Thanks for the update Judd. Any other details of note?
Judd, can you clarify something? If DeVry is not the developer, and is trying to sell the parcel to someone else, how does any development plan mean anything? Can’t a new buyer do whatever they want, so long as it’s compliant with the zoning?
Either I’m unclear about the roles of the various players or something doesn’t make any sense here. Thanks.
That’s a good question, Scott. I have more questions since the meeting than I did before. DeVry is the seller. They say they don’t have a developer, but they have a pretty bare-bones plan, presumably to pitch the property to buyers and/or to pitch annexation to Decatur. I assume that a developer will have his own ideas about what to put there, so it seems when we talk about annexing this property, all we know about what will go in there is that it will fit within the parameters of Decatur’s MU zoning, which I’m not familiar with. Commercial and residential, with the residential being anything but detached houses?
So without a developer, the economics of it confuses me. Taxes in Decatur are significantly higher, which is why the businesses in between us and AE and many neighboring households have been up in arms about annexation. Why would DeVry want to get annexed now, without a buyer, in this economy, when they know Decatur wants to annex it and can do it in a month when the buyer appears? On a property like that, those taxes add up to a lot of money.
Relatedly, if I’m a developer, how does being in Decatur increase the value of the property? I understand that the process may be more streamlined and has other advantages, but how does it increase the value? The location is the outskirts of the city, and being annexed doesn’t change that. Higher taxes means higher rent for retailers, means harder to fill. And a similar thought for residential. Who would want to pay more to live in the same development in the same location? A developer would have to think carefully about what sort of residential he wanted to put in that location in City of Decatur.
DM: DeVry and their reps did the presenting. They said that they wanted to go with Decatur, since we have a MU zoning that DeK doesn’t have, and that would provide a simpler and more predictable process. Peggy Merriss, Amanda Thompson, and Fred Boykin were on hand, along with about 15 or so neighbors, who seemed have mixed opinions. Some were wary of creeping annexation. Some mistrusted DeKalb and would prefer to see Decatur control it. Some (I’ll let you guess who) raised the question of the impact on the schools. DeVry’s idea is up to 400 residential units, with more 2 and 3 BR than other places along DeK Industrial. They mentioned Glenwood Park as a comparable development.
Thanks for the thorough update Judd. Dave has a good one over at InDecatur too.
It sounds to me like DeVry is just doing what they can to make the property as marketable as possible. Having a plan in place is a lot like bringing a stager into an empty house in order to sell it. If people are presented with a vision instead of having to dream it up themselves they’re more eager to buy it.
As for why they want to be part of Decatur, I think it’s a given. There’s a cache to Decatur, due in large part to it’s school system, public works, police and fire. I think that trumps any sort of excess red tape that adds to the process.
That said, Scott and Judd’s point about the “plan” is an interesting one. Obviously if they got the zoning changed to MU that would hold regardless of the buyer. Maybe they’ll go through the process and get the plan approved by the city, thereby making the property even more desirable, since a new buyer could just start building, and not get stuck in tape. Just theorizing.
thanks for the update Judd.
However, if you’re saying though that because DeVry’s proposal to the City was the same as to the County, the development will be the same whether it’s annexed or not, I’d have to disagree. It’s possible, but I see any development of this size as being a very lengthy process that will involve a lot of give and take. While I trust the city of Decatur to take into account the needs and concerns of the City (schools) and the neighbors (park, traffic and pedestrian increases), I don’t trust the county to address all of our concerns as effectively–or to even take them into account.
Correcting myself: Decatur’s MU ordinance does allow for single-family detached houses, as DM said in his original post. “Detached townhouses,” to be precise (if that IS precise).
“And I for one, would love to see the city bargain for a park in there, as that area of the city has to walk a long way to get to a swingset.”
amen! to that Chris.
The “greenspace” they showed us was pretty much the existing kudzu swale near the creek that they couldn’t build near anyway. There also seemed to be a lot of stammering and mumbling to the question of late night drinking in quasi restaurants. The overall tone of last night’s discussion was to ensure that this project is both kid/family UNfriendly yet also doesn’t provide the amenities young adults want either ie. bars and nightclubs. It’s all rather moot as the proposed “development” plan is not being put forward by an actual developer.
One argument still trumps all though. Do we want the city to have a say in what goes on the property or the county? To my mind this is not a hard decision.
Thank you, Amanda, for that very useful information.
What’s the other option(s) if an Allen Wilson Terrace resident doesn’t take a Section 8 voucher? I believe that it’s been a problem for families to find any Section 8 housing with the city borders so taking a voucher means a move to a new school system. Can families stay in another part of Allen Wilson Terrace until their unit is renovated?
And if they do take a voucher, how long are they gone? The problem for families with children is that even 6 months of moving to a different school system and then moving back again is disruptive to the kids school performance, especially if they go to an inferior school. The kids come back behind their other classmates and CSD loses its investment in the kids, nevermind safety issues.
On another, more historical note, does anyone know why Allen Wilson Terrace is referred to as the “OPs”? You don’t see the term used by little kids or newer residents anymore, but longer term residents and teens still use the term. No one is sure where the term comes from and exactly how to spell it. I’ve even interviewed folks in their sixties who lived there thirty years ago–they use the term but don’t know where it comes from. Some theorize that it stands for “Other Projects” or “Old Projects”. I heard that for awhile the polite term was to say XXX Trinity but now I hear “Allen Wilson Terrace” all the time, even from little ones.
Maybe I’m not looking closely enough, but it seems like City of Decatur has an awful lot of public and subsidized housing already, especially if you look at it as a percentage of our city’s population. My understanding is that a substantial portion of the LCI will also be public or subsidized housing.
I have no issues with folks who are down on their luck and temporarily need help with their housing situation, and I think that we should continue to help the folks that are already in our community. However, I don’t think that I can get behind adding more subsidized/public housing than we already have, particularly when communites near us are trying to do away with concentrated poverty. Frankly, from what I have read and what I have witnessed first hand,I don’t think warehousing people on housing assistance into projects or even “mixed use communities” does them any favors.
As for the folks in Allen Wilson who volunarily chose Section 8 vouchers. I congratulate them for showing some real courage and making an effort to improve their family situation. I think it is quite presumptuous of us to think that only City of Decatur and City of Decatur Schools can care for these people and that their kids will be failures if they don’t live in this particular community. I give our public housing residents and their kids a bit more credit than that.
Why is a Section 8 voucher an improvement? My point is that Allen Wilson Terrace is a pretty decent neighborhood to live in and we shouldn’t do anything that would destroy the existing community. Don’t confuse Allen Wilson Terrace, Swanton Heights, or Gateway with Techwood Homes or the South Bronx. See the post above about some mid- to high-income homes near DHA housing that are considered in a safe area and have held value. Let’s not confuse low-income or blue-collar with slums.
My understanding is that DHA housing is built on the site of what was once the Beacon Hill community with its own shops, school, and churches. It was torn down sometime in the 50s? 60s? 70s? to “improve” Decatur. What they were left with was DHA housing. Some of current DHA residents are what’s left of that community or at least descendents. Decatur has an obligation to serve that community which existed before McMansions and McCondos arrived here. It’s also in our financial interest to do so. We are known as a diverse, safe, family-friendly community within the perimeter. If we become monotonously upper middle class only, we might as well be Dunwoody or Alpharetta.
The historical African-Aerican, black community of residents and black owned businesses was known as Beacon Hill. It had its share of problems, including open sewers, unpaved streets and “slum landlords”, many who had names you may recognize if you are familiar with Decatur history. On the positive side it had home owners and black owned businesses. It was similiar to the “beloved community” that Dr,. King described. It was destroyed through Decatur’s urban renewal program of the 1950’s and 60’s and replaced with the public housing there now. You might ask former Mayor Wilson what she know about that area.
While most of Beacon Hill was torn down in the 1960s, Allen Wilson was constructed in the early 1940s as a late WPA project.
Honestly, I am still not comfortable enough to argue a position on affordable housing/Section 8. I’m not sure any has a proven track record I can stand firmly behind yet. But housing projects of concentrated poverty don’t seem to be the answer. At the same time, I agree with your concern and wonder how many more times we’ll force the poor to move before we find the “right” solution.
What might bring some clarity would be to know whether Beacon Hill had the same level of crime that now exists in Allen Wilson. A New Urbanist would guess no, since Allen Wilson lacks income diversity or retail. But as you said Snowflake, this isn’t an all or nothing game. Though it might not have a great layout, Allen Wilson is single-story (and not a high-rise) has a diversity of ages present, has a 70 year history. So there’s no wonder that there is a sense of community there.
But I guess it comes down to, should we attempt to fix our planning mistakes or should we just let well-enough alone?
With higher taxes and difficult rezonings, why is DeVry requesting annexation? Has Dekalb rejected a prior rezoning request or said “no need to apply, we will reject.”
Certainly being part of Decatur has more cache than being part of unincorporated Dekalb County, but I doubt that is driving this business decisions.
Can anyone speculate to the logic behind DeVry’s annexation request?
Brad, if I’ve been reading the signs right, it’s because Decatur’s MU zoning overlay (which would presumably be applied) is significantly better than the TND ordinance that DeKalb would apply, in terms of structure, flexibility and support of local government.
The MU ordinance’s requirement for block structure allows phased development that can more easily be changed product-wise during the development cycle to meet changing market conditions, without need for an extensive replatting. For a developer looking to do a neighborhood center/urban neighborhood type initiative, it’s ideal. I’m assuming the DeVry folks feel it presents a marketing advantage in their efforts to sell the property.
Haven’t we figured out yet that many people want to be in Decatur despite higher taxes? The simple answer is that property is more valuable if it is within the Decatur City Limits vs. unincorporated Dekalb.
To help me more fully understand the issue, can someone please define the terms “affordable housing” and “low-income?” Are there actual numbers associated with these terms?
I ask this because we have seen how difficult it is to assign actual numbers to socio-economics. An example is Obama’s controversial definiton of what constitutes a “rich” person (and I’m only using this as an example, not as fodder for a political conversation).
So for example, does low-income mean something like “less than $25,000 per year?” If it’s something as simple as that, are other factors taken into account, such as that earner’s expenses? Maybe that person makes only $25,000/year, but has no mortage, no children, no need for a car, etc…and that amount is sufficient.
Anyway, you get the idea. I’m just looking for a baseline so I can start to formulate an educated opinion.
Eric,
Like the tax code itself, the definitions have byzantine complexity. If you want to go through the pain of learning more about it. Here’s a place to start:
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il2009/2009summary.odn?INPUTNAME=METRO12060M12060*1308999999%2BDeKalb+County&selection_type=county&stname=Georgia&statefp=13&year=2009
I hope the link works.