Jump to content

The "Affordable Housing" Discussion in GR


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts


16 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

Dave-

just curious, how much interior work has to be done once the “pieces” are in place? I assume the drywall is hung in the factory, but does a crew have to go in and finish the drywall? How about the flooring?

Joe

Joe, the walls are not only drywalled and finished they are also primed with a special type of primer, cabinets on the walls, lights installed, pretty much 90% done.  We have some drywall patches to do where the two walls come together.  On these first three we got them without flooring installed, but moving forward, we will have flooring done as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, KCLBADave said:

Jeff, reading MLive comments is about as constructive as watching grass grow.

The key to it all is having a home that has a State stamped approval. Michigan is WAY behind the times on this issue. LARA has to approve the drawings. We got one approved in two weeks, another took 90 days, no rhymn or reason to it.

We will soon have 13 different house designs approved, and several of those can have 4 or 5 variations.

With an approved plan, one we order a home it is no more than 4 weeks and the home is built and ready for delivery. Our first 3 were done on two weeks.

All of our homes meet all local zoning and building codes. We are provided with a full set of stamped fully engineered specs. A local architect did our foundation plans. These plans detail loads for the foundation and how the house connects.  These drawings are done for all of our homes.

We then pay the architect to do a site plan for the home and the lot. Going forward, that’s our only cost on architectural.

With building and site plan approval we are good to go do excavate and prepare the site for the house.

I would say 90 days start to finish is the maximum length of time to have the house done and ready to move in, if pre ordered or hit the MLS is it’s spec.

As someone who has grown grass at multiple properties, I happen to LIKE watching grass grow. I get excited when it looks like little green hairs popping up. :rofl:

Good info, that's impressive. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
2 hours ago, GVSUChris said:

Okay PLEASE FORGIVE ME because I know this is going to look like I'm soliciting business but I really do mean this in all sincerity - we are having the author of The Color of Law at our store (Books & Mortar) on August 23 at 4pm. This is an amazing book and author and we have been coordinating this with the mayor's office to go alongside these community conversations. Like I said, I don't want to look like I'm trying to use this thread as a sales-pitch BUT I really think a ton of people in this forum would love to hear this guy speak and it is right on the head with the conversations we are having in GR. 

I think it's fine to let people know about this on here. Not much different than a developer doing a lunch-n-learn at a new project they're working on. Thanks for the heads up!

And that video looks good, I'm looking forward to hearing more. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2018 at 9:00 AM, organsnyder said:

The City of GR has produced an excellent video to promote the upcoming community meetings that will discuss four of the Housing Now proposals:

It is an excellent video;  but does anyone believe this will move the needle of the discussion?   The so-very-earnest "progressive" Neighborhood Association types are already mad as hornets about it being clearly implied they are defenders of systemic racism - - - WHICH THEY ARE - - - so, what does this do?  Makes them even madder.  After sitting through quite of bit of "conversations", I don't see them getting on the Self Reflection train. 

I went to the first round of meetings, several of them, even the pre-draft-text meetings.  What a waste of time all that was.  I sat there as the NAs muttered about crack houses and one NA guy straight-up told a younger person that Yes, he should be the one to decide what gets build in his neighborhood.  When I objected he told me he spoke for what "the people" wanted; and not a single other person in the room objected to his narcissistic ravings.  They constantly, the entire meeting, interrupted other people when they tried to speak.  They interrupted the city staff when they were speaking.

I went to the City Commission meeting where they tabled the proposals.  

Honestly, I am doubting I can bring myself to waste anymore time on this calamity.

Why didn't they handle these one-by-one?  Continuing to keep four significantly different proposals makes no sense.  One of these is to change the MINIMUM WIDTH of a unit by a few feet - - I mean, that is administrivia, there is no reason for anyone to care;  what are we protecting the neighborhoods from?  The potential horror of a 15ft wide housing unit?  GASP, OMG!

Why didn't they just revert the proposals to the pre Planning Commision version?  Which they could have done.

The City Commissions handling of this whole thing is a mess.

Edited by whitemice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sudoclam said:

Could someone explain, exactly what affordable housing costs? I keep seeing this brought up, but do not know what is considered affordable.

I would say taking whatever is the median household/family income in Kent County (I think it's $60,000) and then using the standard underwriting guidelines of 28% of your gross pay as a house payment. Working that backwards would give you a house purchase price. Rent per month could be a tad higher due to the fact that rent usually includes taxes and insurance buried in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

I would say taking whatever is the median household/family income in Kent County (I think it's $60,000) and then using the standard underwriting guidelines of 28% of your gross pay as a house payment. Working that backwards would give you a house purchase price. Rent per month could be a tad higher due to the fact that rent usually includes taxes and insurance buried in it. 

So, that would be $1400 a month in mortgage payment. Assuming that is monthly payment with taxes, insurance.
On a $100,000 house, wouldn't that be between $600-$700 a month for a house mortgage?
I'm seeing rent for 3 bedrooms, going for about $1200.
Is it really an affordable issue or just a housing availability issue?
Just trying to put the numbers together.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sudoclam said:

So, that would be $1400 a month in mortgage payment. Assuming that is monthly payment with taxes, insurance.
On a $100,000 house, wouldn't that be between $600-$700 a month for a house mortgage?
I'm seeing rent for 3 bedrooms, going for about $1200.
Is it really an affordable issue or just a housing availability issue?
Just trying to put the numbers together.

 

Yes, you're about correct on the $1400/month. That equates to about a $240,000 loan/mortgage. The problem is if you're looking at renting, $1400/month is only getting you about 700 square feet in and around downtown, and $240 - $260,000 homes are hard to find in good areas lately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I would say taking whatever is the median household/family income in Kent County (I think it's $60,000) and then

The issue gets tricky because you have many urban neighborhoods - like mine, Highland Park - where the median income is ~$21k/yr - ~$38k/yr.  Getting housing built at a price point affordable to that level of income is very very difficult.  I have an income breakdown of my 'hood @ http://www.whitemice.org/iccf022018 related to an ICCF development here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, sudoclam said:

Is it really an affordable issue or just a housing availability issue?

BOTH + AND.

Also, equating Mortgage Payment to Housing Cost is very specious in IMNSHO.  Owning - and living in - a single family home costs a lot more than the mortgage payment; it also involves taken on some significant financial risk.

Utilities [like heat] in older "affordable" homes can be crippling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, whitemice said:

The issue gets tricky because you have many urban neighborhoods - like mine, Highland Park - where the median income is ~$21k/yr - ~$38k/yr.  Getting housing built at a price point affordable to that level of income is very very difficult.  I have an income breakdown of my 'hood @ http://www.whitemice.org/iccf022018 related to an ICCF development here.

That actually can't happen. There's no way housing can be built that cheaply with current zoning in the city. Only through government subsidies and then it's income restricted.

54 minutes ago, whitemice said:

BOTH + AND.

Also, equating Mortgage Payment to Housing Cost is very specious in IMNSHO.  Owning - and living in - a single family home costs a lot more than the mortgage payment; it also involves taken on some significant financial risk.

Utilities [like heat] in older "affordable" homes can be crippling.

That's why I think older suburbs like Wyoming, Kentwood and Walker are the next pioneer for millennials and first time home buyers. Housing stock is 1950's and newer, generally well built homes, many have been updated, and still relatively affordable. Like $125 to $150,000 affordable for a decent home in a safe neighborhood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

That actually can't happen. There's no way housing can be built that cheaply with current zoning in the city. Only through government subsidies and then it's income restricted.

That's why I think older suburbs like Wyoming, Kentwood and Walker are the next pioneer for millennials and first time home buyers. Housing stock is 1950's and newer, generally well built homes, many have been updated, and still relatively affordable. Like $125 to $150,000 affordable for a decent home in a safe neighborhood. 

I think Wyoming and Kentwood are definitely serving those purposes right now. Kentwood is in a better position between the two in terms of school district. Wyoming never adapted to its city status by forming a single school district, but it does have the luxury of having Grandville Public Schools occupy its southwest panhandle. Older millennials are getting to an age now where this is a factor in their decision making process, but the money isn't necessarily there to move into one of the better districts in the area with their higher taxes and home values. Walker has Grandville and Kenowa Hills occupying 50% of the city each. Neither seem to be growing though. There is a lot of unoccupied land in Walker to take advantage of with entry level home construction. It's a great opportunity for both lower income housing potential and  school quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

This is an interesting concept:

GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- Developers who accept public funds would be required to pay residents, who are displaced because of commercial or residential real estate projects, upwards of $3,500, under a proposal being considered by the city of Grand Rapids.

The idea is modeled after policies in cities such as Seattle, Austin, Texas, and Mountain View, California, city officials said, and is designed to help renters who are displaced - due to demolition or building renovations - pay for moving expenses and the first three months of rent at another apartment.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2018/11/grand_rapids_developers_that_a.html

I don't see an issue with it as long as it's just for residents who are "directly" displaced by a project.  ie someone down the street from a project was displaced because of increased rents in the neighborhood, should not be eligible. And if someone owned a house that was purchased for a fair market price to make way for the development, they shouldn't be eligible for the payment either.  Right?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- Developers who accept public funds would be required to pay residents, who are displaced because of commercial or residential real estate projects, upwards of $3,500, under a proposal being considered by the city of Grand Rapids.

The idea is modeled after policies in cities such as Seattle, Austin, Texas, and Mountain View, California, city officials said, and is designed to help renters who are displaced - due to demolition or building renovations - pay for moving expenses and the first three months of rent at another apartment.

Renters aren't displaced. You are renting, you should have no expectation that the building you rent in will always be there to rent in. Sure, maybe something for people that have to move on really short notice can be worked out where the cost of a U-Haul and the deposit + 1st month's rent can be worked out, but $3,500 is excessive.

The hint is if it is modeled after something in Seattle, then it's best to avoid replicating in GR.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

Renters aren't displaced. You are renting, you should have no expectation that the building you rent in will always be there to rent in. Sure, maybe something for people that have to move on really short notice can be worked out where the cost of a U-Haul and the deposit + 1st month's rent can be worked out, but $3,500 is excessive.

The hint is if it is modeled after something in Seattle, then it's best to avoid replicating in GR.

I would imagine this will impact smaller buildings more than big projects (that take time to plan). If someone has a 1 year lease and six months in, the building is sold and they want to renovate / tear down within the tenants leasing period, it seems fair that they would be compensated. Also, I think the definition of excessive is tricky. If someone is 10 months into a 12 month lease, then yes, moving fees and a months rent seems fair. But if they're 2 months in and comparable living conditions are much more expensive, I could see $3500 not being excessive.

Also, people that get assistance (Section 8, etc) aren't necessarily able to move at the drop of a hat. 1) there is a lot of red tape, 2) there is a long wait in certain situations.

Again, I think bigger projects, or longer-term plans would easily negate that. They can either not renew leases, or move people to month-to-month knowing that a project is coming.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

I would imagine this will impact smaller buildings more than big projects (that take time to plan). If someone has a 1 year lease and six months in, the building is sold and they want to renovate / tear down within the tenants leasing period, it seems fair that they would be compensated. Also, I think the definition of excessive is tricky. If someone is 10 months into a 12 month lease, then yes, moving fees and a months rent seems fair. But if they're 2 months in and comparable living conditions are much more expensive, I could see $3500 not being excessive.

Also, people that get assistance (Section 8, etc) aren't necessarily able to move at the drop of a hat. 1) there is a lot of red tape, 2) there is a long wait in certain situations.

Again, I think bigger projects, or longer-term plans would easily negate that. They can either not renew leases, or move people to month-to-month knowing that a project is coming.

Joe

It's probably only going to be for larger projects because it only would come in effect if you seek tax incentives or assistance from the city. Most small projects do not. 

The one big issue I have is that it's tied to Brownfield, which was enacted so that developers could clean up contaminated properties. The State came up with Brownfield because trying to track down the polluter on property when it may have been 100 years ago and the business no longer exists, is fruitless. It was meant to make developing blighted urban properties more realistic for redevelopment, and it has worked marvelously since its enactment in Michigan. Now they have to turn around and give part of that money back to the current tenants. What if it is 20 people? That's potentially $70,000 out-of-pocket from the developer before a shovel is even turned. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is baffling.  How can a tenant possibly be displaced unless the lease was up anyway?  Putting a tenant out before the lease is up is going to require action from a judge, who I assume would not permit it.  Once the lease is up, the tenant could have been put out anyway for any reason or no reason at all.  How is anyone supposed to figure out whether that tenant ever would have had that lease renewed by the former landlord?  This whole concept just seems like its ripe for abuse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, x99 said:

This is baffling.  How can a tenant possibly be displaced unless the lease was up anyway?  Putting a tenant out before the lease is up is going to require action from a judge, who I assume would not permit it.  Once the lease is up, the tenant could have been put out anyway for any reason or no reason at all.  How is anyone supposed to figure out whether that tenant ever would have had that lease renewed by the former landlord?  This whole concept just seems like its ripe for abuse.

I think you're right x99. This has a lot of potential pitfalls and is ripe for abuse. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2018 at 8:24 AM, GRDadof3 said:

Developers who accept public funds would be required to pay residents, who are displaced because of commercial or residential real estate projects, upwards of $3,500, under a proposal being considered by the city of Grand Rapids

Emphasis: "considered"
Shrug.

Nobody needs to worry about this - does anyone believe this will survive this City Commission?  Look at the tangled little mess they turned the Rental Application Fee regulation into.

Have no fear, they won't do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whitemice said:

Emphasis: "considered"
Shrug.

Nobody needs to worry about this - does anyone believe this will survive this City Commission?  Look at the tangled little mess they turned the Rental Application Fee regulation into.

Have no fear, they won't do anything.

Do you think the program is a good or bad idea? 

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.

×
×
  • 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.