Affordable Housing in Charlotte

[kermit]

More per capita permits issued than in Houston, yet the price of housing continues to increase in Charlotte...

Edited August 30, 2021 by kermit

[KJHburg]

Great news this community is breaking ground built by Habitat for Humanity

""An affordable-housing development set to break ground in west Charlotte today is significant for its scope as well as the history of the site it will occupy. The community to be built where the Plato Price School once stood will be the largest ever for the local chapter of Habitat for Humanity, that organization says.  Plans for the development were reported by multiple local news outlets earlier this summer (and noted in the Buzz around the same time). The school, founded in 1915, educated Black children for more than five decades during segregation. It was closed in 1966 amid integration efforts.  Called The Meadows at Plato Price, the project aims to create affordable homeownership opportunities for families in the community while paying homage to that history. A press release from Habitat for Humanity of the Charlotte Region cites the area's critical shortage of affordable housing.  It will contain 40-plus homes, according to a spokesperson, on about 9 acres off Morris Field Drive.  The city of Charlotte donated the land to be developed for the $7.8 million project. Other major supporters include the Ally Charitable Foundation and Myers Park United Methodist Church.""

BUZZ: The Meadows at Plato Price to break ground today - Charlotte Business Journal (bizjournals.com)

[kermit]

The only reason Charlotte isn't mentioned here is because we are invisible (it aint because we are still a cheap place to live)

[KJHburg]

Here is some affordable housing projects the city has approved investing in around the city.

Charlotte could soon spend $23 million on affordable housing | wcnc.com

and no Charlotte is not as affordable as it once was but in terms of cities and metros with growing jobs and population growth we are affordable to much of the country.   As the expensive coastal cities and cities of the Northeast have gotten more expensive as well. 

Edited September 14, 2021 by KJHburg

[KJHburg]

188 new units of affordable housing coming to N Tryon W Sugar Creek area.

NRP Group buys site near NoDa for affordable-housing development - Charlotte Business Journal (bizjournals.com)

""Cleveland-based NRP Group recently acquired 9.9 acres at Sugar Creek Road and North Tryon Street for $2.75 million. The site will be home to an affordable-housing project including 188 units for residents earning between 30% and 80% of the area median income. Deeds for the land purchase were recorded on Oct. 1, according to Mecklenburg County real estate records. Charlotte City Council approved a rezoning petition from NRP in March to allow up to 200 affordable-housing units at the site. The city is helping fund a portion of the project through its Housing Trust Fund. The site is in a Qualified Opportunity Zone and Qualified Census Tract, making it eligible for tax-exempt bonds through the state as well.""

[kayman]

On 9/13/2021 at 8:17 PM, kermit said:

The only reason Charlotte isn't mentioned here is because we are invisible (it aint because we are still a cheap place to live)

Charlotte is 3 million+ which is practically a Tier 1 that's just not a coastal city as the aforementioned cities. We'll be there in the next 10-15 years.  There's this notion that we're invisible when we're really not. 

[KJHburg]

This is great news for affordable housing and close to LYNX station.  

[tozmervo]

12 hours ago, KJHburg said:

This is great news for affordable housing and close to LYNX station.  

I'm a little confused. Why does Atrium even own this land? 

[KJHburg]

1 minute ago, tozmervo said:

I'm a little confused. Why does Atrium even own this land? 

Not sure but could be that they planned off site storage or laundry facilities there.  Novant Health occupies a large warehouse in Concord for example.  

[KJHburg]

This is interesting about ADUs and how they affect home values and which cities are truly leaders in this including Houston and LA.    Houston of course has no zoning .  

Study: ADUs Can Add 35% to Home’s Value | Realtor Magazine

 

[KJHburg]

UNCC report on housing and prices in the Charlotte metro area.  You think home prices went up and they did rental prices went up even more.  More supply of rental apartments will help with that as more supply of new for sale homes and townhomes. 

Check out the slide deck for a great overview

The State of Housing in Charlotte Report | Childress Klein Center for Real Estate | UNC Charlotte

summary story in Business NC

Unprecedented spike in Charlotte-area housing costs - Business North Carolina (businessnc.com)

[videtur quam contuor]

Article in The Economist this week about housing and Section 8 vouchers mentions Charlotte (without NC!). Comment is that with full funding for vouchers the cities with biggest impact would be Orlando, Charlotte and Nashville. Difficulties of the program are sketched within the article. Not a panacea.

Edited December 17, 2021 by tarhoosier

[KJHburg]

another big NOAH purchase to keep affordable.  The 265 unit Shamrock Gardens apartments purchased to keep affordable.   That is 500 units preserved this year.  

Housing Impact Fund Announces Large Affordable Housing Purchase (qcnerve.com)

[KJHburg]

@kaymanlets talk about impact fees and housing over here not in the Southend thread.

Land values in the upstate and midlands of South Carolina are much less than Charlotte area or Raleigh Durham for example.  Adding even a few thousand more to the cost of every home, townhome and apartment does raise prices.  Here is an academic study from Texas  NC already uses tap on fees for water and sewer in manner somewhat like an impact fee. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24861478   Texas study

another study http://www.impactfees.com/publications/burge-Impact_Fees_in_Relation_to_Housing_Prices-2016.pdf

To say there is not evidence of increased costs with impact fees as a blanket statement is incorrect.

I look at tax values all the time in this area.  Most new homes are assessed very close to their sales price not quite but very close.  Older intown homes in Charlotte have tax values much less than their market values.

For example a home closed on Kingston Ave in Dilworth its tax value is $634,500 and the home sold for $1,075,000. Built in 1895. 

Here is another home built in 2020 with tax value $1,165,000 that sold this year for $1,280,000 on Marshall Place.  It actually sold less than tax value.

( I picked these homes randomly from a list of Dilworth homes sold and one that was newer) 

Newer homes pay much closer to their tax values than older homes.  This is repeated all over the metro area.  New homes are paying MORE than their fair share of property taxes.  

Lets talk about SC property taxes.  When a home sells in SC the county is allowed to jump its value to a market value.  That is not done in NC.   I own a condo in SC and ,my tax value is based on what I bought it for 16 years ago and is capped at how much it can go up a year (usually a few % or less)  However when a condo in my same complex sells today they are jumped to a new market value and pay taxes 2x o r 3x what I am paying.   This is done all over SC.  

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by KJHburg

[kayman]

5 hours ago, KJHburg said:

@kaymanlets talk about impact fees and housing over here not in the Southend thread.

Land values in the upstate and midlands of South Carolina are much less than Charlotte area or Raleigh Durham for example.  Adding even a few thousand more to the cost of every home, townhome and apartment does raise prices.  Here is an academic study from Texas  NC already uses tap on fees for water and sewer in manner somewhat like an impact fee. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24861478   Texas study

another study http://www.impactfees.com/publications/burge-Impact_Fees_in_Relation_to_Housing_Prices-2016.pdf

To say there is not evidence of increased costs with impact fees as a blanket statement is incorrect.

I look at tax values all the time in this area.  Most new homes are assessed very close to their sales price not quite but very close.  Older intown homes in Charlotte have tax values much less than their market values.

For example a home closed on Kingston Ave in Dilworth its tax value is $634,500 and the home sold for $1,075,000. Built in 1895. 

Here is another home built in 2020 with tax value $1,165,000 that sold this year for $1,280,000 on Marshall Place.  It actually sold less than tax value.

( I picked these homes randomly from a list of Dilworth homes sold and one that was newer) 

Newer homes pay much closer to their tax values than older homes.  This is repeated all over the metro area.  New homes are paying MORE than their fair share of property taxes.  

Lets talk about SC property taxes.  When a home sells in SC the county is allowed to jump its value to a market value.  That is not done in NC.   I own a condo in SC and ,my tax value is based on what I bought it for 16 years ago and is capped at how much it can go up a year (usually a few % or less)  However when a condo in my same complex sells today they are jumped to a new market value and pay taxes 2x o r 3x what I am paying.   This is done all over SC.  

 

 

 

All you've said and posted links saying that some states caps the taxes to subsidized and offset prices. Classic bait and switch.  All you're doing is saying "kick the can down the road when it doesn't impact my pockets"  However, that still doesn't change my stance on impact fees enforcement. 

[KJHburg]

What I am saying currently in NC newer homes pay more than their fair share of property taxes which support infrastructure.  As older homes are not  assessed closer to their market values newer homes pay a lopsided burden as their tax values are at or close to market value.  So yes newer homes are paying more property taxes and thus contributing more to infrastructure costs than any older homes.  I don't want to go to a SC model but I merely point out their system of collecting tax revenue on properties is much different than ours.  ALL property owners in NC should be pay closer to to market value in taxes and this would reduce the rate for many.  

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2022 by KJHburg

[kayman]

That still doesn't change the need for impact fees. You also didn't even mention GA who is much more comparable to NC in pretty much all metrics yet enforce impact fees.  Impact fees don't have impact on housing prices at all except strongly encourages more infill development versus further greenfield development. Who wants to pay more for connections to infrastructure when it could be avoided? You're going to pay today or tomorrow. I'll rather see it paid up front. The Charlotte 2040 Plan and the accompanying appendix documents are basically saying that exactly I'm saying with stats, figures, and case studies.  

It's all whatever to me because you believe a clearly broken system is working when it's not here with both housing prices & avoiding adequately charging developers for more impact strains on infrastructure. *shrug*

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by kayman

[urbanlover568]

2 hours ago, kayman said:

That still doesn't change the need for impact fees. You also didn't even mention GA who is much more comparable to NC in pretty much all metrics yet enforce impact fees.  Impact fees don't have impact on housing prices at all except strongly encourages more infill development versus further greenfield development. Who wants to pay more for connections to infrastructure when it could be avoided? You're going to pay today or tomorrow. I'll rather see it paid up front. The Charlotte 2040 Plan and the accompany appendix documents are basically saying that exactly I'm saying with stats, figures, and case studies.  

It's all whatever to me because you believe a clearly broken system is working when it's not here with both housing prices & avoiding adequately changing developers for more impact strains on infrastructure. *shrug*

 

impact fee = extra tax

[KJHburg]

I did not say I believe the current system of paying for infrastructure is working. I said newer homes are paying a higher share of their market value in  property taxes which in turn pays for infrastructure.  I am concerned about impact fees raising the cost of homes across the board which those studies from Texas showed.   What what you suggest an impact fee be then?  $10,000 per unit? More less?  We live in a growing area with a growing population.  There are plenty of cities in this country that are not growing yet have infrastructure problems as well. 

[kermit]

2 hours ago, urbanlover568 said:

impact fee = extra tax

That is a well articulated perspective. Have you considered the alternative possibility that:

Impact fee = lower taxes for everyone

(since new development imposes costs on existing residents that need to be recouped somehow)

[urbanlover568]

1 minute ago, kermit said:

 

Impact fee = lower taxes for everyone

 

LMAO

[kermit]

2 minutes ago, urbanlover568 said:

LMAO

So how would you recommend that the city recoup the infrastructure costs created by new development?

[urbanlover568]

1 minute ago, kermit said:

So how would you recommend that the city recoup the infrastructure costs created by new development?

I'm waiting on you to explain how " Impact fee = lower taxes for everyone". LMAO

[kermit]

On 1/2/2022 at 4:16 PM, urbanlover568 said:

I'm waiting on you to explain how " Impact fee = lower taxes for everyone". LMAO

So all houses impose costs on the municipal and county governments. New houses impose more costs since they generally require new infrastructure -- they money to pay for that new infrastructure comes from everyone's property taxes. So I'll amend my model (by multiplying both sides by -1) to be the following:

               New development without impact fees = higher taxes for everyone

How do you propose CharMeck cover the costs of new development that are imposed on its taxpayers? Is it fair that you and I are currently required to pay those costs as part of our property taxes?

Edited January 4, 2022 by kermit

[kayman]

20 hours ago, KJHburg said:

I did not say I believe the current system of paying for infrastructure is working. I said newer homes are paying a higher share of their market value in  property taxes which in turn pays for infrastructure.  I am concerned about impact fees raising the cost of homes across the board which those studies from Texas showed.   What what you suggest an impact fee be then?  $10,000 per unit? More less?  We live in a growing area with a growing population.  There are plenty of cities in this country that are not growing yet have infrastructure problems as well. 

Yeah there are plenty who aren't growing but they will be able to handle their infrastructure issues with adequate support as it's maintenance for them.  However,  our issues are both maintenance and rapid expansion of infrastructure. Hence why the explosive infrastructures bursts like the one that occurred with Charlotte Water on the west side last year will become more common occurrences. Especially if we have to choose btwn regular maintenance versus the continued rapid expansion with no way to pay for either our growing needs because of developers incentives.  

That Texas study is one study but that's not looking impact fee case studies in other southern state peers.  Fear of change is how Charlotte wind up with this affordable housing issue in the first place.  Meanwhile several jurisdictions in the Triangle have impact fees right now yet their housing prices are comparably similar to Charlotte's current prices despite we both practically have the same growing rates.