Jump to content

The "Affordable Housing" Discussion in GR


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, RegalTDP said:

+1. I did that as well.  Often I've found paywalls do not block returns that come up on a Google search.

That's because Google bots do not like paywalls, so when it comes to one of your biggest traffic drivers (Google), and all the related ad dollars, clicks, etc.., they don't want to block out the big daddy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 hours ago, arcturus said:

Grand Rapids front and center in today's Wall Street Journal titled 'The Next Housing Crisis: A Historic Shortage of New Homes' subtitled 'Fewer new houses are being built in America than at almost any time before; ‘It’s a good time to be here in Grand Rapids, if you can get a house’

Not sure if it's pay walled.  I have a subscription.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-housing-shortage-slams-the-door-on-buyers-1521395460?mod=e2twg

That was one of the most accurate representations/descriptions of Grand Rapids and the situation here.  Most national publications do a terrible job when doing stories on GR.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, MJLO said:

That was one of the most accurate representations/descriptions of Grand Rapids and the situation here.  Most national publications do a terrible job when doing stories on GR.

Agreed. And I bet there were building professionals all over the country reading it and nodding their heads. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reminded, as I see the campaign continuing, that neighborhood associations continue to combat "missing middle" housing with whatever bullhorn they can find.   West Grand, Eastown, and Heritage Hill all have their websites littered with opposition.  They do not want more duplexes.  They do not want more 3-4 unit houses.  We need them.  We need to support better use of the urban residential space near commercial areas.  We need to support the stuff that CityLab, many other new urbanist organizations, and many cities like Grand Rapids have all found to be good policy prescriptions.   We need housing that people who make $45k a year can afford.  Not just stuff for people making $28k and those making over $80k.  

Show up at the hearing MARCH 27, 7PM, CITY COMMISSION.  Write commissioners letters in support. If they do not hear some support, these necessary measures may well go down in flames entirely.  That would be a shame.   Oh, and take West Grand's survey and support it there, too.  http://westgrand.org/updates/2018/2/7/proposed-zoning-ordinance-changes#survey  

Edited by x99
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, x99 said:

I am reminded, as I see the campaign continuing, that neighborhood associations continue to combat "missing middle" housing with whatever bullhorn they can find.   West Grand, Eastown, and Heritage Hill all have their websites littered with opposition.  They do not want more duplexes.  They do not want more 3-4 unit houses.  We need them.  We need to support better use of the urban residential space near commercial areas.  We need to support the stuff that CityLab, many other new urbanist organizations, and many cities like Grand Rapids have all found to be good policy prescriptions.   We need housing that people who make $45k a year can afford.  Not just stuff for people making $28k and those making over $80k.  

Show up at the hearing MARCH 27, 7PM, CITY COMMISSION.  Write commissioners letters in support. If they do not hear some support, these necessary measures may well go down in flames entirely.  That would be a shame.   Oh, and take West Grand's survey and support it there, too.  http://westgrand.org/updates/2018/2/7/proposed-zoning-ordinance-changes#survey  

It seems as if the city is doing the right thing with zoning and somewhat bypassing the hair on fire neighborhood associations the past few years.  Are you saying they can actually prevent the city from continuing to shift in a more competitive position with its peers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MJLO said:

It seems as if the city is doing the right thing with zoning and somewhat bypassing the hair on fire neighborhood associations the past few years.  Are you saying they can actually prevent the city from continuing to shift in a more competitive position with its peers?

Yes.  They are raising holy hell about this thing and stirring up all sorts of fear based on outright lies and half-truths.   My guess is they will generate dozens if not hundreds of letters and have them stacked up like cordwood at the hearing to repeat the lies and half-truths.  If you're a commissioner, what are you going to do?  Mobilize the next campaign against your seat?  Or take a stand based on the truth?  The truth is a difficult thing, and all of this pot-stirring gives council members a lot of room to hide from it.

The opposition campaign (at least from some of the opposing neighborhood associations) is often disingenuous and dishonest.   Heritage Hill features a letter with this gem:  "The zoning proposals do not specifically provide or protect affordable housing and will likely concentrate wealth in high-demand areas.  The process and the text of these proposals have disenfranchised neighbors who have worked so hard... Trust in our local government has been severely scarred."  ECA has "talking points" claiming that the proposals "will negatively impact residential neighborhoods and communities" and that there is a "lack of data supporting affordable outcomes."  Just mull that over for a bit.

Now, let's try to unpack this.  Heritage Hill claims that allowing more duplexes will, by some unknown mechanism, result in more rich people being concentrated (although I will assure you that the guy who lives in the 500 square foot efficiency a few houses over from me does not have $2000+ a month in housing costs).  They also claim that duplexes are not less expensive than single family homes ("do not provide affordable housing").  ECA claims that the proposals will not do anything to result in lower rent.  At the same time, they claim a "negative impact" which one must assume comes  from--well, what?  Apparently, not cheaper rents since they say this won't lower rents.  So is it parking?  Nope, those requirements remain.  So what is it?  HINT: It's the lower rent.  Per the Housing NOW! committee (https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/files/assets/public/initatives/housing-now/files/housing-demand-and-equity-march-2018.pdf, page 77), the historic fear was that smaller unit sizes and apartments would result in houses that more black people and "less privileged" people could afford (as they put it, a "social class elitism").  Those fears, of course, were entirely accurate.   Smaller unit sizes do result in lower costs, which does mean that groups of people who often have less savings and monthly disposable income can afford them.  That was true then, and it remains true now.  

To be clear, I am not calling the HHNA, ECA, or WGNA a bunch of racists or elitists.  I doubt there is any open racial animus in their opposition.  But is there elitism?  The arguments being shouted out against this are nonsense and self-contradictory.  So what really lurks behind the curtain? I can deal with honest disagreement.  I can deal with (apparently disenfranchised, if HHA is to be believed) people in Byron Center having a fit and voting out their commissioners who voted for more apartments because the residents really did not want a lot of people making lower incomes packing their schools full.  At least they were honest about it.  But when you protest "remov[ing] neighbors' voices", that's just the dissemblers  way out.  The voice to say what?  I don't have a "voice" to protest my neighbor's new fence, garage, or even an entire 4300 square foot single family home with a family of ten living in it.  Why do I need a greater voice to protest a duplex with six  people living in it who (probably) make less money than I do, and who I can only assume are perfectly nice people?  

This self-contradictory nonsense is coming from a bunch of supposedly progressive people who prattle on endlessly about "inclusion" and "housing affordability."  But when push comes to shove, it's little more than rank hypocrisy.  Their beliefs stop at their backyards. That's why these arguments need to be pointed out for the nonsense that they are.   The Commission should not be allowed to utilize nonsense as a shield for keeping an area more exclusive.  There is no[t much] shame in that.  If you don't want more people who make 40 grand a year living in your neighborhood, or don't want renters in your neighborhood, just say it.   Don't lie about it and claim that smaller housing units will result in more rich people.  The Commission needs at least a few neighbors to stand up and tell them the truth.

/endrant
 

Edited by x99
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, x99 said:

Yes.  They are raising holy hell about this thing and stirring up all sorts of fear based on outright lies and half-truths.   My guess is they will generate dozens if not hundreds of letters and have them stacked up like cordwood at the hearing to repeat the lies and half-truths.  If you're a commissioner, what are you going to do?  Mobilize the next campaign against your seat?  Or take a stand based on the truth?  The truth is a difficult thing, and all of this pot-stirring gives council members a lot of room to hide from it.

The opposition campaign (at least from some of the opposing neighborhood associations) is often disingenuous and dishonest.   Heritage Hill features a letter with this gem:  "The zoning proposals do not specifically provide or protect affordable housing and will likely concentrate wealth in high-demand areas.  The process and the text of these proposals have disenfranchised neighbors who have worked so hard... Trust in our local government has been severely scarred."  ECA has "talking points" claiming that the proposals "will negatively impact residential neighborhoods and communities" and that there is a "lack of data supporting affordable outcomes."  Just mull that over for a bit.

Now, let's try to unpack this.  Heritage Hill claims that allowing more duplexes will, by some unknown mechanism, result in more rich people being concentrated (although I will assure you that the guy who lives in the 500 square foot efficiency a few houses over from me does not have $2000+ a month in housing costs).  They also claim that duplexes are not less expensive than single family homes ("do not provide affordable housing").  ECA claims that the proposals will not do anything to result in lower rent.  At the same time, they claim a "negative impact" which one must assume comes  from--well, what?  Apparently, not cheaper rents since they say this won't lower rents.  So is it parking?  Nope, those requirements remain.  So what is it?  HINT: It's the lower rent.  Per the Housing NOW! committee (https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/files/assets/public/initatives/housing-now/files/housing-demand-and-equity-march-2018.pdf, page 77), the historic fear was that smaller unit sizes and apartments would result in houses that more black people and "less privileged" people could afford (as they put it, a "social class elitism").  Those fears, of course, were entirely accurate.   Smaller unit sizes do result in lower costs, which does mean that groups of people who often have less savings and monthly disposable income can afford them.  That was true then, and it remains true now.  

To be clear, I am not calling the HHNA, ECA, or WGNA a bunch of racists or elitists.  I doubt there is any open racial animus in their opposition.  But is there elitism?  The arguments being shouted out against this are nonsense and self-contradictory.  So what really lurks behind the curtain? I can deal with honest disagreement.  I can deal with (apparently disenfranchised, if HHA is to be believed) people in Byron Center having a fit and voting out their commissioners who voted for more apartments because the residents really did not want a lot of people making lower incomes packing their schools full.  At least they were honest about it.  But when you protest "remov[ing] neighbors' voices", that's just the dissemblers  way out.  The voice to say what?  I don't have a "voice" to protest my neighbor's new fence, garage, or even an entire 4300 square foot single family home with a family of ten living in it.  Why do I need a greater voice to protest a duplex with six  people living in it who (probably) make less money than I do, and who I can only assume are perfectly nice people?  

This self-contradictory nonsense is coming from a bunch of supposedly progressive people who prattle on endlessly about "inclusion" and "housing affordability."  But when push comes to shove, it's little more than rank hypocrisy.  Their beliefs stop at their backyards. That's why these arguments need to be pointed out for the nonsense that they are.   The Commission should not be allowed to utilize nonsense as a shield for keeping an area more exclusive.  There is no[t much] shame in that.  If you don't want more people who make 40 grand a year living in your neighborhood, or don't want renters in your neighborhood, just say it.   Don't lie about it and claim that smaller housing units will result in more rich people.  The Commission needs at least a few neighbors to stand up and tell them the truth.

/endrant
 

I've been calling it "urban elitism" for a few years now. It's almost provincialism in a way, like they live in a vacuum/echo chamber. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

I've been calling it "urban elitism" for a few years now. It's almost provincialism in a way, like they live in a vacuum/echo chamber. 

It is the hip/urban version of a gated community. People want to live near downtown and close to amenities, but they want to keep the neighborhood full of single family homes and keep the population low. So they block new construction and denser housing in the name of "preserving neighborhood character."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2018 at 8:51 AM, Pattmost20 said:

It is the hip/urban version of a gated community. People want to live near downtown and close to amenities, but they want to keep the neighborhood full of single family homes and keep the population low. So they block new construction and denser housing in the name of "preserving neighborhood character."

They also don't want "outsiders" or people who think differently than they do. Or god forbid, those "renters."  You can be of a different minority group as long as you ride a bike everywhere, know what a walk score is, and have a Bernie sticker on the car that you never use. :rofl:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Talk about triggered elitism, particularly from folks that don't live in any of the potentially affected neighborhoods.

For what we're hearing at JBAN, most residents are in support of the Housing NOW! Recommendations but not the Planning Commission Recommendations. The PC recommendations take the HN! recommendations and extend them five fold when it comes to proximity to a TBA, TOD, TCC or C zone district. Why not go with the original HN! recommendations? Check out the side by side comparison of all the contentious recommendations 3, 6, 8 & here: https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/files/assets/public/initatives/housing-now/files/housing-amendments-analysis.pdf

 

Alright, come at me ... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thebeerqueer said:

Wow! Talk about triggered elitism, particularly from folks that don't live in any of the potentially affected neighborhoods.

For what we're hearing at JBAN, most residents are in support of the Housing NOW! Recommendations but not the Planning Commission Recommendations. The PC recommendations take the HN! recommendations and extend them five fold when it comes to proximity to a TBA, TOD, TCC or C zone district. Why not go with the original HN! recommendations? Check out the side by side comparison of all the contentious recommendations 3, 6, 8 & here: https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/files/assets/public/initatives/housing-now/files/housing-amendments-analysis.pdf

 

Alright, come at me ... 

I just calls em likes I sees them. :) Not you specifically but from many. Too many.  Read some of the opposition letters, both for this and the projects in Heritage Hill. Many, many people say "those people," ie, they don't want "those people" moving in and lowering property values. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, thebeerqueer said:

Wow! Talk about triggered elitism, particularly from folks that don't live in any of the potentially affected neighborhoods.

For what we're hearing at JBAN, most residents are in support of the Housing NOW! Recommendations but not the Planning Commission Recommendations. The PC recommendations take the HN! recommendations and extend them five fold when it comes to proximity to a TBA, TOD, TCC or C zone district. Why not go with the original HN! recommendations? Check out the side by side comparison of all the contentious recommendations 3, 6, 8 & here: https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/files/assets/public/initatives/housing-now/files/housing-amendments-analysis.pdf

 

Alright, come at me ... 

... Nothing to come at.  JBAN is pretty even-handed, at least on their website.  But if you look over at Eastown or Heritage Hill,  letter writing campaigns are front and center on the websites.  The planning commission packet was LOADED with Heritage Hill types... They are mobilizing this hardcore, and are NO NO NO NO NO added density.  The irony is that the neighborhood is like 75% renters...  500 vs 100 feet is a tough call.  Grab the PC agenda packet for January 25 http://grandrapidscitymi.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3183.  Go to page 75 where the maps start.  100' did very little.  500 feet might be too much, might not be.  The real tempest in a teapot wasn't the 100ft or 500ft... it was making it "by right" and removing the "right" to gripe.  Dozens and dozens of letters of people whining about their right to whine... :rolleyes:  Not surprisingly, adding a ... what.. $6000+(?)... "griping penalty" on average hearing costs, architects, lawyers, delays, uncertainty) basically makes sure almost nothing happens and 2-4 unit housing starts stay at zero.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am one of those Heritage Hill types! 

And, if it wasn't for us, Heritage Hill would be a parking lot for the hospitals and downtown....Just look what happened to the near West side where the Y is and that parking lot next to it. Look what happened on the near north side. There used to be low income housing there, that the city tore down. Now, the city is screaming there is no low income housing....I wonder why???? 

Now, for renters....They have NO vested interest for their neighborhood. If they they don't like it, they get a U-Haul, and move to a nicer area. They are the laziest people, they can't spread salt that is supplied, or shovel their walk for the old people living in the building. My 20 year old neighbor girl was beotching about shoveling snow around her car, while I shoveled the shared driveway all winter long, and they didn't do it once! Don't tell me about renters....blocking the driveway, parking in the driveway.....even caught one renter washing his car with my water in the driveway!

This proposal  brings back the time after WW2, when a lot of the houses got split up, and ruined. Landlords came in and sucked the place dry,  with very little maintenance, and when renters got better paying jobs and married, had a family, they moved to the burbs, leaving the apartments to lower income people, yes, white people, then after the riots, they moved out to worse types that the slumlords were forced to rent to.......Get your history right....

Then, young people like me, came in, and fixed up the houses, I fixed up three of them....Now, City Hall bought this report from outsiders to fix the housing problem.  They want a free ride to cover up their mistakes! It ain't going to happen, if they don't want a recall or want to be re-elected. 

When a majority of the neighborhood goes from owners living there to just plain rentals, the area goes downhill fast!

Learn from history, and don't make the same mistakes.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is you're implying that renters will only be replaced by even lower-income renters in a vicious drive to the bottom, and that's just not the case. That's something that was unique to the post-war era as a result of huge improvements in travel / commuting capability and lots of cheap land.  Those are no longer factors.  If anything, especially in an area like Heritage Hill, it's more likely for renters to be replaced by higher-income renters, as demand for the neighborhood will only increase as Downtown grows from here on out, which is exactly what I've observed happening (albeit slowly).  And Heritage Hill is a historic district. It's not going to magically become a massive parking lot so long as it remains a historic district.

As someone who used to live in Heritage Hill as a renter (and would love to move back) the most frustrating thing about the neighborhood was people like you who would look down upon me just because I can only afford to rent and wasn't a homeowner.  Constantly surrounded by conversation about how y'all wished I could lose all of my opportunities to live in the neighborhood and be kicked out into the suburbs just so y'all could be surrounded by higher-income homeowners instead of renters. You can dress it up however you want but it's still elitism. And I can think of some words I'd like to say to your types but I certainly shouldn't here.

It was especially noticeable during the home tours. Tour guides would often say things like "thankfully we're getting rid of many of the renters and converting these homes back to single occupant."  To me, not knowing I was a renter just two streets down.

"And, if it wasn't for us" during the 80s and 90s there wouldn't even be slumlords keeping the homes standing because clearly no-one else was even interested in living there at all.

Edited by tSlater
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Morris said:

I am one of those Heritage Hill types! 

And, if it wasn't for us, Heritage Hill would be a parking lot for the hospitals and downtown....Just look what happened to the near West side where the Y is and that parking lot next to it. Look what happened on the near north side. There used to be low income housing there, that the city tore down. Now, the city is screaming there is no low income housing....I wonder why???? 

Now, for renters....They have NO vested interest for their neighborhood. If they they don't like it, they get a U-Haul, and move to a nicer area. They are the laziest people, they can't spread salt that is supplied, or shovel their walk for the old people living in the building. My 20 year old neighbor girl was beotching about shoveling snow around her car, while I shoveled the shared driveway all winter long, and they didn't do it once! Don't tell me about renters....blocking the driveway, parking in the driveway.....even caught one renter washing his car with my water in the driveway!

This proposal  brings back the time after WW2, when a lot of the houses got split up, and ruined. Landlords came in and sucked the place dry,  with very little maintenance, and when renters got better paying jobs and married, had a family, they moved to the burbs, leaving the apartments to lower income people, yes, white people, then after the riots, they moved out to worse types that the slumlords were forced to rent to.......Get your history right....

Then, young people like me, came in, and fixed up the houses, I fixed up three of them....Now, City Hall bought this report from outsiders to fix the housing problem.  They want a free ride to cover up their mistakes! It ain't going to happen, if they don't want a recall or want to be re-elected. 

When a majority of the neighborhood goes from owners living there to just plain rentals, the area goes downhill fast!

Learn from history, and don't make the same mistakes.....

Honestly Morris your comments are tame to some of the stuff I've heard. Obviously there's a good ratio of "renters to homeowners" in any housing area. I mean seriously, duh. No one is suggesting urban renewal. 

Whatever, create your own little Ann Arbor Lite and when no one worthy can live in your hood you'll be sad when one day you wake up and realize you're no different than a gated community in Ada. Maybe you should move to Ada they're doing a bunch of construction there and there's no way poor renters can afford it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Honestly Morris your comments are tame to some of the stuff I've heard. Obviously there's a good ratio of "renters to homeowners" in any housing area. I mean seriously, duh. No one is suggesting urban renewal. 

Whatever, create your own little Ann Arbor Lite and when no one worthy can live in your hood you'll be sad when one day you wake up and realize you're no different than a gated community in Ada. Maybe you should move to Ada they're doing a bunch of construction there and there's no way poor renters can afford it. 

I live in Midtown, an area definitely affected by the Housing Now and Planning Commission proposals. I couldn't tell you which of my neighbors are renters and which are homeowners. And would it bother me if they tore down a house across the street to build a duplex or tri-plex? Absolutely not. I lived there for 3-4 years before realizing the house kitty-corner from me was in fact split into 2 apartments. If people are so against large apartment developments, they should embrace 2-3 unit townhouses and even a handful of those 4-6 unit apartment buildings like the ones spread across Chicago neighborhoods. It is an amazing way to add density and increase the tax base with out loosing the residential feel of neighborhoods. Or we could just keep everything single family until you can't tell where the suburban sprawl of GR ends and the suburban sprawl of Lansing and Kalamazoo begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Morris said:

I am one of those Heritage Hill types! 

And, if it wasn't for us, Heritage Hill would be a parking lot for the hospitals and downtown....Just look what happened to the near West side where the Y is and that parking lot next to it. Look what happened on the near north side. There used to be low income housing there, that the city tore down. Now, the city is screaming there is no low income housing....I wonder why???? 

Now, for renters....They have NO vested interest for their neighborhood. If they they don't like it, they get a U-Haul, and move to a nicer area. They are the laziest people, they can't spread salt that is supplied, or shovel their walk for the old people living in the building. My 20 year old neighbor girl was beotching about shoveling snow around her car, while I shoveled the shared driveway all winter long, and they didn't do it once! Don't tell me about renters....blocking the driveway, parking in the driveway.....even caught one renter washing his car with my water in the driveway!

This proposal  brings back the time after WW2, when a lot of the houses got split up, and ruined. Landlords came in and sucked the place dry,  with very little maintenance, and when renters got better paying jobs and married, had a family, they moved to the burbs, leaving the apartments to lower income people, yes, white people, then after the riots, they moved out to worse types that the slumlords were forced to rent to.......Get your history right....

Then, young people like me, came in, and fixed up the houses, I fixed up three of them....Now, City Hall bought this report from outsiders to fix the housing problem.  They want a free ride to cover up their mistakes! It ain't going to happen, if they don't want a recall or want to be re-elected. 

When a majority of the neighborhood goes from owners living there to just plain rentals, the area goes downhill fast!

Learn from history, and don't make the same mistakes.....

I think you might be overestimating Heritage Hill's value in the minds of the kind of people you want to occupy it. I love some of the homes in Heritage Hill. I would snap one up in a second if I was a bachelor that could afford one of those mansions on my own. However, I'm a 30-something with a family/child. With a combined income, we could afford one of those homes. However, we don't want to with where we're at in our life. The decisions made now revolve around the child and what area/school district we want her to grow up in. I'm not the only one in this situation. Unless it's a high-income millennial, childless middle-age person/couple, or empty-nesters, the chances of finding someone that can afford a whole house in there that actually wants to live there is not as high as you'd like to believe. Your options are either landlords keeping up the homes and renting them out or having a shortage of demand on the market leading to a drop in home values and thus a further drop in the quality of the neighborhood. Just my $.02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the major reasons why there is opposition to the proposals is that many of the residents feel like the current options for development have not been utilized.  Looking at available land and properties one can see that there are many areas along major corridors that have not been built out, or have been started then stopped.  Look at buildings like the Kregel building, the proposed Apartments on Fuller and wealthy.  Developments proposed along lake drive, and cherry street.   Part of the problem is that many land and property owners are charging inflated costs.  These proposals make it easy for a developer to pay 1/2 for the same sq. footage of property and build in residential areas after tearing down 1 or 2 100 year old homes, while allowing them to jump the more applicable property because they can reduce cost.  Overall increasing density is not a bad thing, many of us in the area welcome it.  But some feel that the growth and transition should happen in the areas and properties where it makes most sense.  Then we relook at the density, cost and demand. And work to align the proposals with the new need.   Many in eastown feel that this is too much too soon, and that smaller steps help guide the changes in a way that meets neighborhood needs with housing needs.  To a degree it is fear.  Give and inch take a mile, is the worry. 

In relation to Morris's post. Many of the issues with "renters" are bad landlords.  In areas like Eastown and East Hills, many of the landlords do not live in the area and purchased the homes only as investment.  That alone is not an issue but many of them do not do any upkeep on the property, do not take an active role with the renters.  As an example, there is a property on our block that is a rental, the landlord lives in Holland, the landlord only visits the home when turning it over to new renters, or when something goes drastically wrong with the property.  These renters are sophomores and juniors in college, They have no clue how to take care of a home, how to take care of a yard and do not understand the responsibility that living in a residential area can imply.  Is it the landlords job to advise them, remind them, encourage them?  How does that happen when the landlord only visits once every 3 months.  This is why some renters get a bad wrap.  

These new developments do not fit into that issue, mainly because they have property management companies or individuals, whose job it is to take care and monitor any issues like shoveling, cleaning or repairs. Yet the fear and issues are carried over because the type of renters we are used to are from the local single family style home with bad landlords.

Fill the main corridors first,  build strong streets, with active commercial density, then allow the density to flow into that 250 ft off these commercial districts.  

Edited by EastownLeo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Pattmost20 said:

I live in Midtown, an area definitely affected by the Housing Now and Planning Commission proposals. I couldn't tell you which of my neighbors are renters and which are homeowners. And would it bother me if they tore down a house across the street to build a duplex or tri-plex? Absolutely not. I lived there for 3-4 years before realizing the house kitty-corner from me was in fact split into 2 apartments. If people are so against large apartment developments, they should embrace 2-3 unit townhouses and even a handful of those 4-6 unit apartment buildings like the ones spread across Chicago neighborhoods. It is an amazing way to add density and increase the tax base with out loosing the residential feel of neighborhoods. Or we could just keep everything single family until you can't tell where the suburban sprawl of GR ends and the suburban sprawl of Lansing and Kalamazoo begin.

I agree. as long as they do them tastefully. The problem I have is the type of apartments that have been built in the city over the last 10 yrs have been buildings budgeted to hell with steel clad and so focused on income. I feel they will just be eye sores in 15-20 years. If only we could build more buildings like this in our neighborhoods...  

image.png

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pattmost20 said:

I live in Midtown, an area definitely affected by the Housing Now and Planning Commission proposals. I couldn't tell you which of my neighbors are renters and which are homeowners. And would it bother me if they tore down a house across the street to build a duplex or tri-plex? Absolutely not. I lived there for 3-4 years before realizing the house kitty-corner from me was in fact split into 2 apartments. If people are so against large apartment developments, they should embrace 2-3 unit townhouses and even a handful of those 4-6 unit apartment buildings like the ones spread across Chicago neighborhoods. It is an amazing way to add density and increase the tax base with out loosing the residential feel of neighborhoods. Or we could just keep everything single family until you can't tell where the suburban sprawl of GR ends and the suburban sprawl of Lansing and Kalamazoo begin.

I lived by one of those "evil" split up houses that has something like 6 or 7 small efficiency units in it.  I never even saw anyone who lives in the place except for a guy in the yard once tending a little garden.  Now, I did have a bad neighbor once years ago who was a renter.  The guy lived there for 30+ years and thought he owned the neighborhood.  Fortunately, we could just call the landland and take care of it.  When his behavior got too out of line, he finally got the boot.  Good thing he didn't own the place!  

But the attitude Morris has is endemic in Heritage Hill.  Looking back at the planning commission minutes reminded me just how bad it is.  Tenants are basically regarded as unwelcome interlopers.   tSlater is exactly right.  And now all of these associations are using their CDBG money which is supposed to be FOR HELPING lower income people to FIGHT THEM.  That's just... well... yeah.  

10 minutes ago, EastownLeo said:

One of the major reasons why there is opposition to the proposals is that many of the residents feel like the current options for development have not been utilized.  Looking at available land and properties one can see that there are many areas along major corridors that have not been built out, or have been started then stopped.  Look at buildings like the Kregel building, the proposed Apartments on Fuller and wealthy.

That's large scale stuff though.  20+ units.  The costs of construction like that is much higher, and it does not put people into a neighborhood setting.   Cities like GR were build on small-scale neighborhood rentals.   Then the post-war weirdness and the slums and crack dens happened, and they were made illegal.  If you want to build now, the only option is to buy an entire block, tear it down, and start over.  What an awful way of doing things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, x99 said:

I lived by one of those "evil" split up houses that has something like 6 or 7 small efficiency units in it.  I never even saw anyone who lives in the place except for a guy in the yard once tending a little garden.  Now, I did have a bad neighbor once years ago who was a renter.  The guy lived there for 30+ years and thought he owned the neighborhood.  Fortunately, we could just call the landland and take care of it.  When his behavior got too out of line, he finally got the boot.  Good thing he didn't own the place!  

But the attitude Morris has is endemic in Heritage Hill.  Looking back at the planning commission minutes reminded me just how bad it is.  Tenants are basically regarded as unwelcome interlopers.   tSlater is exactly right.  And now all of these associations are using their CDBG money which is supposed to be FOR HELPING lower income people to FIGHT THEM.  That's just... well... yeah.  

That's large scale stuff though.  20+ units.  The costs of construction like that is much higher, and it does not put people into a neighborhood setting.   Cities like GR were build on small-scale neighborhood rentals.   Then the post-war weirdness and the slums and crack dens happened, and they were made illegal.  If you want to build now, the only option is to buy an entire block, tear it down, and start over.  What an awful way of doing things.

Not true, Wealthy and fuller, not a full block.  Cherry and eastern, not a full block.  Woodmere and Wealthy was not a full block. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, tSlater said:

As someone who used to live in Heritage Hill as a renter (and would love to move back) the most frustrating thing about the neighborhood was people like you who would look down upon me just because I can only afford to rent and wasn't a homeowner.  Constantly surrounded by conversation about how y'all wished I could lose all of my opportunities to live in the neighborhood and be kicked out into the suburbs just so y'all could be surrounded by higher-income homeowners instead of renters. You can dress it up however you want but it's still elitism. And I can think of some words I'd like to say to your types but I certainly shouldn't here.

It was especially noticeable during the home tours. Tour guides would often say things like "thankfully we're getting rid of many of the renters and converting these homes back to single occupant."  To me, not knowing I was a renter just two streets down.
 

My wife and I got our first place together in HH as renters. It was close to both our workplaces as well as classes, and we really loved the foot traffic of people of all ages going up and down Wealthy St. at all times. Made us feel safe.

Eventually we moved on to buy a home in East Hills, but we still drive by our old front porch and fondly remember our days as rotgut lowlife renter scum with our sin and blight. :lol:

I wasn't aware how utterly ungodly we were apparently.

 

But my experience there makes my appreciate the renters we have on our street. Yeah, they are young and a bit inexperienced, but that's part of the charm.  They also love to stay on the porch late into the night (like we used to). I can appreciate that because it's just more eyes on the street, which equals a safer neighborhood. I rather have them here than in Ramblewood.

 

HH was saved from demolition because of the law, but it was saved from virtual abandonment because renters filled in spaces few people wanted to occupy themselves.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

My wife and I got our first place together in HH as renters. It was close to both our workplaces as well as classes, and we really loved the foot traffic of people of all ages going up and down Wealthy St. at all times. Made us feel safe.

Eventually we moved on to buy a home in East Hills, but we still drive by our old front porch and fondly remember our days as rotgut lowlife renter scum with our sin and blight. :lol:

I wasn't aware how utterly ungodly we were apparently.

 

But my experience there makes my appreciate the renters we have on our street. Yeah, they are young and a bit inexperienced, but that's part of the charm.  They also love to stay on the porch late into the night (like we used to). I can appreciate that because it's just more eyes on the street, which equals a safer neighborhood. I rather have them here than in Ramblewood.

 

HH was saved from demolition because of the law, but it was saved from virtual abandonment because renters filled in spaces few people wanted to occupy themselves.

 

I had a similar experience living in Heritage Hill and share similar memories near Wealthy. I loved living there. Our block would host a party every year to get all the homeowners and renters together (it was about 50/50 homeowners and renters). Great community of people. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, EastownLeo said:

Not true, Wealthy and fuller, not a full block.  Cherry and eastern, not a full block.  Woodmere and Wealthy was not a full block. 

Remember, this whole ordinance grew out of the Housing Now initiative, to address the housing affordability crisis. I didn't even use air quotes because it's really a crisis. These projects like the ones you're talking about don't do anything to address that. In fact, I think they're inflating values and nearby rents. And honestly the neighborhood associations have some of it right: will adding duplexes and accessory dwelling units really bring prices down, or add lower priced residential units to the market? Is there data to support that? Maybe not. Probably not. Splitting big HH homes back up again into 3 and 4 units would. 

In my truly honest opinion, barring a major economic crash (which nobody wants), the housing affordability issue in Grand Rapids has passed the point of no return.  The only solution is to get out ahead of it in neighboring cities like Wyoming, Kentwood, Walker, etc, because that's where everyone is going to go, who can't afford GR. I did see recently a massive new development being planned for the city of Kentwood. I can't remember the last time I saw that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.