The "Affordable Housing" Discussion in GR

[x99]

1 hour ago, whitemice said:

Agree completely.  Their talk of community engagement, etc.. is bogus.  I went to one of the several meetings.  It was a Neighborhood Association talking over everyone, interrupting everything, and one of his cohorts mumbling under her breath while the Planning Commission tried to explain things.   And during one short break three of them were joking about which houses they thought should get torn down.   There is no evidence of an interest in real conversation.  It has been a very off-putting and disheartening process to observe.

A 500-600sq/ft space is quite rent-able.  More smaller spaces would take some of the pressure of larger "family size" units.  For example a four bedroom house next to mine is rented by four college students;  because that is cheap, when they could be renting 2 or 3 smaller units.  But the neighborhood is essentially forbidden from supplying those.

And in the last several **years** Highland Park has added **two** housing units.  Two.

Don't get me off track on the city-funded "neighborhood associations"...  Some of them do decent work.  I suspect most of them just take city money to hire a "neighborhood activist" dressed up as a "nonprofit director" and flush the money right down the toilet.  

So far as ADUs, 500sf is is really small.  If they want people to build these things, they need to offer a reasonable return.  For a proper two bedroom unit with separate bath, kitchen, bedroom, and living room, you need more space.  What they are trying to do, to an extent, is to find a way to roll back the zoning code to about 1946 to 1950, when we had a huge housing crunch.  Over the last 80 years, most American cities forgot how to be cities as they tried to look more like the suburbs that stole their mojo.  In the process, they robbed from themselves their own ability to adapt to changing conditions (with significant thanks to a cronyism-infested building code).  Hopefully, the tables are turning and they will rediscover how a city is supposed to function.  And that ain't with 2000 square foot houses with 2 people in them on every lot.  In higher demand areas, you do, in fact, knock over the crappy old house on the corner and put up a quadplex with no yard (or split the thing into a triplex or quadplex).  You do take 3000 square foot houses and cut them up in appropriate locations.  You do recognize that you cannot and should not gut the places, but still try to provide some reasonable levels of fire safety (i.e. wirelessly interconnected hardwired smokes vs other more onerous methods).  The challenge is not in deciding whether these things ought to be done, but where and how.   If you don't, well, you get no new housing units when you desperately need them.

[One small note:  I'm harping on this fire separation stuff because it is a huge obstacle.  ADUs have been very successful in many Washington and Oregon cities, where they often locally amended to code to allow the interconnected smoke detector alternative.  I don't believe Michigan allows local amendments.  Grand Rapids would need to push for a statewide amendment, unless the fire chief could sign off under the fire code, with the position that the IRC is subsidiary to the IBC, where my recollection is that the local fire chief has the authority to approve stuff.  I waded through this once years ago but not recently.  All I remember is that the codes are a mess on figuring out which one controls.  Technical details, but crucial to making ADUs viable. (probably why cities where there are a lot of them have done this)..  ]

Edited February 14, 2018 by x99

[thebeerqueer]

23 hours ago, x99 said:

Don't get me off track on the city-funded "neighborhood associations"...  Some of them do decent work.

Just a heads up, most of the Neighborhood Associations that you spit vitriol about are primarily funded from CDBG and their focus is on quality of life. If you think you can do better, by all means have at it.  

 

Moving on ...

[walker]

4 hours ago, thebeerqueer said:

. . .  are primarily funded from CDBG . . . 

Well, I guess I don't know as much about this urban stuff as I thought I knew cause I couldn't figure out what  CDBG is.  But with the help of Google I figured it out.  So if there is anyone else as ignorant as me who might wonder what it is, the answer is Community Development Block Grant:

wikipedia

[Raildude's dad]

CDBG, a federally funded program started during the presidency of.... Gerald R Ford:)

[thebeerqueer]

14 hours ago, walker said:

Well, I guess I don't know as much about this urban stuff as I thought I knew cause I couldn't figure out what  CDBG is.  But with the help of Google I figured it out.  So if there is anyone else as ignorant as me who might wonder what it is, the answer is Community Development Block Grant:

wikipedia

Sorry, I should've explained that. Thanks for sharing that information here.  

Neighborhood Associations are tasked with a wide variety of functions (community organizing, crime prevention, neighborhood beautification,  code compliance, etc ...)  but the primary one is elevating their neighbors voice. If those neighbors have something to say that may not agree with an opinion here in our insular Urban Planet world, should those voices be silenced just because it doesn't agree with a current vision of urbanism? That's why its important that all residents get involved, somehow, to make sure all voices are heard and not just the loudest/squeakiest wheels gets the grease.  

I'm not trying to throw a pity party for NAs just trying to explain how it works.

[GRLaker]

Doesn't look like the demand vs housing stock problem is going away anytime soon. Homes are still flying off the shelves. 

http://fox17online.com/2018/02/15/grand-rapids-continues-to-be-a-sellers-real-estate-market/

[Pattmost20]

2 hours ago, GRLaker said:

Doesn't look like the demand vs housing stock problem is going away anytime soon. Homes are still flying off the shelves. 

http://fox17online.com/2018/02/15/grand-rapids-continues-to-be-a-sellers-real-estate-market/

The supply has been stagnant for far too long. I work in the industry, but was also just in the market for a home and the pace at which new listings are coming on the market is painfully slow.

[Pattmost20]

For anyone curious, monthly supply since 2002 (homes on the market divided by number sold in a given month) for Greater GR.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Pattmost20

[GRLaker]

Eastbrook and Allen Edwin just can't build their mass developments fast enough. We need some of the other middle income home builders to step up on what they pump out. However, like the article said, there continues to be a shortage of builders. This area is growing like crazy, yet we continue to face the consequences of a talent shortage. 

[GVSUChris]

Speaking of affordable senior housing...

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2018/02/104-unit_senior_living_project.html#incart_2box_news_grand-rapids

[GRDadof3]

5 hours ago, GRLaker said:

Eastbrook and Allen Edwin just can't build their mass developments fast enough. We need some of the other middle income home builders to step up on what they pump out. However, like the article said, there continues to be a shortage of builders. This area is growing like crazy, yet we continue to face the consequences of a talent shortage. 

I would disagree with that a bit. While there is a shortage of talent, a lot of these builders could ramp up volume if they had to.  The real problem is the shortage of developable land, and developers willing to take on the immense risk of developing raw land, and the cost of developing said land. A lot of developers are getting up there in age, near retirement age. To be asked to sign a personal guarantee for $millions when you're 65, with the big payout not coming for 7 - 10 years, doesn't sound very enticing. 

[MJLO]

I wonder how much this housing crunch is hampering population growth below it's potential.  Hopefully the apartment boom is compensating for it, and absorbing potential new residents that might other wise turn down an opportunity.   Although Michigan gained the most residents according to estimates in more than 10 years in 2017.  I also wonder if part of the talent shortage in housing construction has been sucked into all of the apartments being built.

[Raildude's dad]

12 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I would disagree with that a bit. While there is a shortage of talent, a lot of these builders could ramp up volume if they had to.  The real problem is the shortage of developable land, and developers willing to take on the immense risk of developing raw land, and the cost of developing said land. A lot of developers are getting up there in age, near retirement age. To be asked to sign a personal guarantee for $millions when you're 65, with the big payout not coming for 7 - 10 years, doesn't sound very enticing. 

Developing isn't getting any easier. I'm on the review side of new development, roadway and storm water,  I feel sympathy for the developer's engineer.  The Road Commission wants it one way, the Drain Commission prefers something else. The township engineer has another idea. The developer just gets to pay and pay and pay. Same thing with sewer and water. There's conflicting desires between the various  utilities and the road authority. There has to be a better way to facilitate the design of developments

Edited February 17, 2018 by Raildude's dad

[GRDadof3]

Just now, Raildude's dad said:

Developing isn't getting any easier. I'm on the review side of new development, roadway and storm water,  I feel sympathy for the developer's engineer.  The Road Commission wants it one way, the Drain Commission prefers something else. The township engineer has another idea. The developer just gets to pay and pay and pay. Same thing with sewer and water. There's conflicting desires between the varuios  utilities and the road authority. There has to be a better way to facilitate the design of developments

Agreed. And from what I've heard, infrastructure costs alone are getting up to $500+/foot? Water, sewer, curbs, paved road, etc.. So if you have 80 foot wide lots, you have to drop $40,000 just in infrastructure into the lot costs on those two lots adjoining that infrastructure. Add in the land cost and people are shocked that the cheapest lots you can find anywhere are now $60,000.  And you basically can't do lots narrower than 80 feet in most municipalities (and it's hard to design a home that the public will like that can fit on a lot like that). 

It's not all dread I do hear of quite a few single-family developments in the works, but most are getting pretty far out. Grand Rapids Township has a large scale development coming and the township put in their newsletter that it "may be the last large scale single family community in the township." 

[Raildude's dad]

Yes, construction costs are going up. During the lost decade, the site contractors shrunk in size and a few closed up.  They would work to cover their coasts and keep the lights on.

Now, theres plenty of work and finding good, experienced help is difficult. The "talent" that moved from Michigan aren't uprooting their families just because there's some life in MI. Plus, other areas of the country are going gangbusters and the pay is very competitive there.

So, contractors are able to raise their prices. The old supply and demand is good for the contractors, not so good for the developers. I was talking to  one of the larger local general contractors and he said they are not actively looking for work. They are fully booked for 2+ years.  He said that's typical for most of them.

[GRLaker]

I met with a builder last week and was told that Jamestown Twp charges developers significantly more to connect to their water supply than the rest of the area. Because of this, the price of building a home in a Jamestown development was over $7,000 more than building the same home in their Georgetown Twp development. That might explain why Jamestown growth seems to be going at a slower pace than the growth between Hudsonville and Allendale - despite the lack of highway access compared to Jamestown's close proximity to I-196. I wonder how many other townships/cities charge significantly more than the average for water connections.

[Raildude's dad]

I'm pretty sure that any municipality's readiness to serve (connection) fee is based on the cost of the infrastructure in place.  I'm not familiar with Jamestown's particulars but cost of newer infrastructure (water-mains, hydrants, booster pumps, water towers etc) spread over a small base of customers raises the connection fees. The fees must cover the costs. As more customers add on, the fees can lower.

[arcturus]

Can't imagine how chronic the situation could be without a record number retiring and leaving the state for good now.

[GRDadof3]

On 2/17/2018 at 9:20 AM, GRLaker said:

I met with a builder last week and was told that Jamestown Twp charges developers significantly more to connect to their water supply than the rest of the area. Because of this, the price of building a home in a Jamestown development was over $7,000 more than building the same home in their Georgetown Twp development. That might explain why Jamestown growth seems to be going at a slower pace than the growth between Hudsonville and Allendale - despite the lack of highway access compared to Jamestown's close proximity to I-196. I wonder how many other townships/cities charge significantly more than the average for water connections.

Plainfield Township I seem to recall has a lot of funky charges for permits, hookups, etc.. Especially since they have their own water authority. Plus they make you clean your streets almost every day while you're building a home to keep silt from going into the storm drains. Throughout the life of a home under construction, 6 - 7 months, that gets expensive. 

[demhem]

On 2/17/2018 at 8:38 AM, GRDadof3 said:

Agreed. And from what I've heard, infrastructure costs alone are getting up to $500+/foot? Water, sewer, curbs, paved road, etc.. So if you have 80 foot wide lots, you have to drop $40,000 just in infrastructure into the lot costs on those two lots adjoining that infrastructure. Add in the land cost and people are shocked that the cheapest lots you can find anywhere are now $60,000.  And you basically can't do lots narrower than 80 feet in most municipalities (and it's hard to design a home that the public will like that can fit on a lot like that). 

It's not all dread I do hear of quite a few single-family developments in the works, but most are getting pretty far out. Grand Rapids Township has a large scale development coming and the township put in their newsletter that it "may be the last large scale single family community in the township." 

I've seen first hand the cost of infrastructure deterring developers from going forth with a large development. Moderate densities and smaller lot sizes require water/sewer but it is cost prohibitive to install; thus, in the end, a new site condominium or plat with 75 lots becomes a handful of land divisions or one/two-acre lots with well and septic. 

[x99]

Revisiting this multifamily/duplex stuff, which is interesting to me since it's the first real attempt by the city to address a problem that has been festering for ages.  The latest update is that the city commission pushed the proposals back to the end of next month.  Does anyone know if they have to adopt them as they came out the planning commission, or if they can take only what they like and amend on the fly?  Some added analysis after I had some time to go back and look at this stuff: 

If it is a package, the 500' and "every corner lot" pieces could be fatal.  West Grand has a website up with all of the areas outlined: http://westgrand.org/maps-by-neighborhood.  500' gets pretty deep into some of these neighborhoods.  Left out of the hysteria of some neighborhood associations is this:  The draft text (https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/files/assets/public/initatives/housing-now/recommendations/housing-advisory-committee-recommendation-3.pdf) has a HUGE limitation on where MULTIFAMILY housing can actually be located:  The draft changes say repeatedly that multifamily development is subject to a section 5.9.20 of the zoning code.   That restricts multifamily to a certain set of high traffic streets, or within 200 feet of them; it also requires lots at least 90 feet wide.  In practice, I suspect that is a tiny number of eligible lots.  

What this really does, in practice, is significantly expand the options for non-owner occupied DUPLEXES.  Nearly all of the blue highlighted lots on West Grand's website would qualify, as long as the lot was an "average" lot.  I assume the off-street parking requirements for 2 off street spaces per unit also remain.  If so, that again probably reduces the number of interior lots where this could be pulled off.  Greenspace requirements can make the parking difficult.

What the planning commission needs to do is withdraw this, and redraft it to make it clear that multi-families are allowed ONLY on the busy streets.  I would think that would wipe out most of the opposition on that front.  Then they need to come up with some rule other than "500 feet" for duplexes.  I'm going to go with a permit application fee of $150, notice to adjacent neighbors, and if they object, you get a planning commission hearing, no additional charge.  That wipes out the "neighborhood input" griping.  See: https://mibiz.com/news/real-estate/item/25575-density-at-what-cost-zoning-proposals-spark-tensions-between-grand-rapids-policymakers,-neighborhoods. 

Then there is this:  “I get what they’re trying to do, but don’t get the way they’re trying to do it,” said Lynn Rabaut, a former Grand Rapids City Commissioner and current member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. “Lots of cities are increasing their housing stock and it’s not bringing down prices. If they’re increasing stock just to bring affordability, it’s not going to work.”  How do you deal with that?  Basic education regarding the laws of supply and demand?  Perhaps a set of real estate listing showing that 900 square feet rents cheaper than 1800?   

[Pattmost20]

29 minutes ago, x99 said:

Then there is this:  “I get what they’re trying to do, but don’t get the way they’re trying to do it,” said Lynn Rabaut, a former Grand Rapids City Commissioner and current member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. “Lots of cities are increasing their housing stock and it’s not bringing down prices. If they’re increasing stock just to bring affordability, it’s not going to work.”  How do you deal with that?  Basic education regarding the laws of supply and demand?  Perhaps a set of real estate listing showing that 900 square feet rents cheaper than 1800?   

Oh man, statements like this irritate me to no end. What people don't seem to realize is that, while building at a faster rate may not lower prices, it can significantly ease the rate at which prices rise. Restricting new housing will only skyrocket prices. 

[Kinkema]

43 minutes ago, Pattmost20 said:

Oh man, statements like this irritate me to no end. What people don't seem to realize is that, while building at a faster rate may not lower prices, it can significantly ease the rate at which prices rise. Restricting new housing will only skyrocket prices. 

Not to mention that just because they're increasing their housing inventory, that doesn't mean they're increasing it enough.

[x99]

I took a few minutes and actually went through the Planning Commission minutes and a few of the neighborhood association websites, including East Hills, Eastown,  West Grand, Midtown, and Heritage Hill.  Midtown says nothing about it.  East Hills links back to Eastown.  West Grand is very informative and almost neutral.  Eastown has some good information, a little powerpoint, and a set of "talking points" against it (some focused on the "this does nothing for affordable housing" angle and is "supply side" nonsense).  Heritage Hill has some information and a big letter from them opposing it, repeating many of the same points.

Heritage Hill also has an infographic claiming "all blue areas will allow 2 to 4 units by right with a lot size that mirrors block pattern and one car per unit."  I won't rehash all of what I've posted before, but that is highly misleading.  3-4 units still requires a 90' wide lot.  2 units still need to add the required off-street parking.  It's no wonder the neighborhood associations are up in arms if they think vast numbers of houses can simply be flipped over into 4 units, or duplexes with no added parking.  

It seems to me that something went wrong in the communication process by the city.  That, or the neighborhoods ignored the information they were given and decided to hit the panic button.  

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by x99

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, x99 said:

I took a few minutes and actually went through the Planning Commission minutes and a few of the neighborhood association websites, including East Hills, Eastown,  West Grand, Midtown, and Heritage Hill.  Midtown says nothing about it.  East Hills links back to Eastown.  West Grand is very informative and almost neutral.  Eastown has some good information, a little powerpoint, and a set of "talking points" against it (some focused on the "this does nothing for affordable housing" angle and is "supply side" nonsense).  Heritage Hill has some information and a big letter from them opposing it, repeating many of the same points.

Heritage Hill also has an infographic claiming "all blue areas will allow 2 to 4 units by right with a lot size that mirrors block pattern and one car per unit."  I won't rehash all of what I've posted before, but that is highly misleading.  3-4 units still requires a 90' wide lot.  2 units still need to add the required off-street parking.  It's no wonder the neighborhood associations are up in arms if they think vast numbers of houses can simply be flipped over into 4 units, or duplexes with no added parking.  

It seems to me that something went wrong in the communication process by the city.  That, or the neighborhoods ignored the information they were given and decided to hit the panic button.  

 

Apparently this whole issue of the really poor communications from the city caused them to hire a consultant, who gave a presentation at the Committee of the Whole meeting recently, which resulted in a complete melt-down on the part of the some of the commissioners? I didn't go but a  friend said the live feed went blank for a while during the heated discussions, and then when it came back up it was a motion to move on to the next topic.

I know that Rosyalnn Bliss's Assistant was moved over to a communications role recently. Not trying to start a dumpster fire but I don't know what's going on.