P_McLane

"Evening Rose"

Recommended Posts

P_McLane    0

Today's Democrat has a little more information about K2 Urbancorp's 36-acre residential/commercial development at Mahan and Capital Circle NE. This should get us started.

"A Tallahassee builder said Wednesday he's starting construction on the first housing development to conform to the city's new "inclusionary housing" ordinance, which has been challenged in court as unconstitutional.

"The city asked us if we could voluntarily show we could set aside 10 percent of the homes," Dave Wamsley, owner of K2 Urbancorp, said of the Evening Rose development near Mahan Drive and Capital Circle Northeast."

Tallahassee Democrat: Builder goes "inclusionary"

How does Urbanplanet feel about the "inclusionary housing" ordinance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


stjoe    0

I am against it for many reasons:

*First was this...

"Wamsley said he thinks the voluntary arrangement will work as long as the city lives up to its promises of faster permitting process, less land dedicated to green space and other modifications that might not be approved in a development without inclusionary housing."

Less green space? Bad idea. We need more green space not less. Bad environmental move IMHO.

*Second. Why is it the job of a private developer to fund cheap housing? We are a capitalist system correct? Past examples of artificial fixing the system turn out bad....this will also.

*Third, this only adds onto the anti business reputation our local govt has.

Sounds like the city is strong arming private developers to do the job they refuse and are to incompetent to do themselves.

*Fourth, this only punishes future developers and developments. Unless you force Killearn, Golden Eagle, etc, etc. to make some changes then what is the point? Might as well say "all the established rich folks...you are OK, but we are going to stick it to any new communities".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P_McLane    0

I am against it for many reasons:

I am also against it, and for many of the same reasons.

I do feel that housing prices are inflated beyond the level that most young working people can afford, but the answer is not to tack together a few efficiencies in among the luxury developments. If Tallahassee / Leon County wants to get serious about making more homes affordable, it should use its tax authority to reduce or eliminate the taxes paid on "low-income" family homes. While progressive to the extreme, if the first $200k of the private home's value were exempted and amounts over $200k were taxed at a higher rate, revenues could stay the same while reducing the cost of home ownership for working people. It might also see a general revision of the values of higher-end homes downward to sane levels.

The Democrat article said that K2 is planning for some "Evening Rose" homes to be in the $800k range - this is just silly, when you think of a 36-acre parcel densely built-up with condos, townhouses, etc. Why not build a village where homes are in the $150k-$300k range and leave the mansions for more exclusive neighborhoods? Who wants a new $800k home with $150k neighbors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
celebrated    0

How does Urbanplanet feel about the "inclusionary housing" ordinance?

I feel it is unconstitutional and when the current lawsuit is settled I suspect a judge will agree and the whole thing will be overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stjoe    0

One other major point against this is this. Home ownership in the US is at or darn near an all time high. I know prices are high...but if as many people now own a home as they ever had (truly it is MUCH higher), and you KNOW folks are living nicely (cell phones, cable TV, etc, etc), why the need to make this drastic move? I just find it more of a ideological move than a move that is necessary.

And again...at the cost of green space? That just bugs the environmentalist in me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cityboy05    0

What exactly is this "inclusionary housing" ordinance? I am with yall on this greenspace thing, if developments like this isn't in conjuction with the environment or doen't even respect the evironment they can take a hike. But really though, who would buy 800k house in a 150,000-300,000k hood. If I had that much money to buy a house I wouldn't even have neighbors. I have my own little piece of property somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P_McLane    0

One other major point against this is this. Home ownership in the US is at or darn near an all time high.

So is individual and family debt. And savings are at an all time low. MOST new home owners buy their houses with adjustible rate mortgages. These people are already living on the edge of their paychecks. When the prime lending rate moves up three or four points over the next two years, this will add several hundred dollars a month to the mortgage payments of people with new 200k-300k homes. Who out there could easily absorb a $300 increase in their monthly payment? Plus there is the issue of reappraisal for tax purposes. Only now are people beginning to realize that all of that 'equity' in their home is costing them thousands a year in taxes. When these 'higher-end' homes become unaffordable to working people, they will look to downsize, and there is nothing below. People will be trapped with high housing costs, and there will be much, much less left over for cell phones, cable TV, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, economics at tcc coming back to me... scary.

Nothing frieghtens me more than buying a home. I know alot of folks, maybe one or two are "home owners" and too many re-morgage everytime a vehicle dies, or a hospital visit occurs. It isnt easy in this town. thus all those who cannot afford it, live in the surrounding counties and make up for it in gas conusmption. cheap housing, poorer folks using mass transit, rich people driving in less traffic. sounds sound.

I doubt anyone living in a <200k home will vote to increase the taxes they pay for the "lazy less fortunate." But a great Idea i would support. Luxuary tax-ish.

A variation of this ordinance would be good for us. I heard of allowing the developer to utilize different property. that would help. Adding greenspace to replace the housing! my favorite! But i do think the developers are getting rich, they should help out. It is thier responsibility, A radio station cannot get a liscence without providing public service, same goes for everything i believe, including providing for everyone. Killearn got lucky. But that shouldnt be reason to hold back social progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relient J    0

celebrated, could you cite the section of the U.S. Constitution that this violates? I'd like a better education on this area of Constitutional law.

I'm opposed to it as I understand it from the article. Forcing developers into helping the city do social engineering is wrong. I'm also opposed to forcing affluent homeowners to bear the tax burden of poorer residents. The government shouldn't be in the business of robbing from the rich to give to the poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P_McLane    0

The government shouldn't be in the business of robbing from the rich to give to the poor.

The government IS in the business of protecting the health and welfare of its citizens. If fewer and fewer people can afford housing, the rich are going to be in real trouble. I am far from advocating a socialist model of income redistribution, but I would support tax laws that acknowledge the fundamental difference between a wage-earner's one family home (@ $150k) and a wealthy investor's second or third vacation home (@ $1mil.) Governments should tax essentials differently from non-essentials (that is why food is sales-tax free and alcohol and cigarettes are subject to vice taxes and yachts are subject to luxury taxes.) In virtually every case (within a progressive property tax schema) the rich will still be able to afford large, luxurious homes and vacation properties.

And by "POOR," I hope you aren't imagining a bunch of high-school dropouts. I am talking about teachers, clerks, restauraunt workers, retail workers, custodial workers, day-care workers, construction workers, librarians, graphic designers... nowadays these people cannot afford first homes. I do believe that society owes these hardworking and supremely important workers an opportunity to invest in real property. This is smart economics.

Edited by P_McLane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stjoe    0

"If fewer and fewer people can afford housing,"

A larger percentage of people own a home in the US than just about any other time in US history. This statement is completely false.

" but I would support tax laws that acknowledge the fundamental difference between a wage-earner's one family home (@ $150k) and a wealthy investor's second or third vacation home (@ $1mil.) Governments should tax essentials differently from non-essentials (that is why food is sales-tax free and alcohol and cigarettes are subject to vice taxes and yachts are subject to luxury taxes.) In virtually every case (within a progressive property tax schema) the rich will still be able to afford large, luxurious homes and vacation properties."

If the voters want this...fine (although I think it is socialism and I disagree with it). But this puts it on PRIVATE developers...not the government. I think this is wrong.

"nowadays these people cannot afford first homes. "

Again, last stat I saw showed that about 70% (give or take) owned a home. This is one of the highest percentages ever in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stjoe    0

So is individual and family debt. And savings are at an all time low. MOST new home owners buy their houses with adjustible rate mortgages. These people are already living on the edge of their paychecks. When the prime lending rate moves up three or four points over the next two years, this will add several hundred dollars a month to the mortgage payments of people with new 200k-300k homes. Who out there could easily absorb a $300 increase in their monthly payment? Plus there is the issue of reappraisal for tax purposes. Only now are people beginning to realize that all of that 'equity' in their home is costing them thousands a year in taxes. When these 'higher-end' homes become unaffordable to working people, they will look to downsize, and there is nothing below. People will be trapped with high housing costs, and there will be much, much less left over for cell phones, cable TV, etc.

So because US citizens insist on buying cellphones, big screen TVs, digital cable, TIVO,IPods, computers, very nice cars (often more than 1), dine out regularly, etc, etc, etc. this costs plus owning a home make them go in debt so a private developer should pay the price?

Seriously. Read that again. You are right, debt is bad for luxury items like you mention above. But if the average US citizen is greedy enough to demand all these luxury items and then go into debt for them...don't you find that a bit wrong? Should we subsidize this glutony? I don't think so.

Personally, I own a home, pay for my education, and save for my retirement FIRST.

I don't own a nice TV (it is 12 years old), no stereo. 2 used cars (one for my wife and one for me...we have a child also, so 2 is needed), never buy DVDs or CDs, rarely shop, just basic cable ($34 a month).

I am going without on many luxury items to pay for my own housing, my own education (student loans for my wife and myself), and been saving for my retirement since I was 22 years old. Should someone like me have to subsidize housing for folks buy luxury items they can't afford?

I am doing EVERYTHING to not be a burden on society, but decisions being made punish those who sacrifice, don't induldge, take care of themself, etc. Is this justice for me?

Truthfully, there are folks that need help. And I want them to be helped. But you have to be careful with decisions you make...and how they reward and punish people. It is NOT simple.

I do think though that private developers should NOT be bearing this burden. Whether the govt should is questionable also (where is housing garanteed in the constition?), but that is more right than mandating a private business do this job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P_McLane    0

ONE: I disagree completely with the inclusionary housing ordinance. It should not be the job of developers to subsidize housing for anyone.

TWO: From CNN Money: Homeowners: Upside-down is no way to be: Americans own a lower percentage of their homes than in the past, increasing risk. CNN Money

The fact that certain statisticians can spin "home ownership" numbers to record levels does not address the FACT that house prices are going up 10% a year (WAY ahead of income growth) and people are spending a larger percentage of their income on housing costs than they used to. Nor does "home ownership" address the unsustainable debt level of buying too much house relative to the income of the mortgage borrower. Much of this is a product of low, low interest rates, but there are a lot of predatory lenders out there who are willing to lend insane money ($300K+) to people who make $50K a year.

THREE: I completely agree with your assertion that Americans' rampant consumerism argues against my case for unreasonable of housing costs. If they have cell phones, cable TV, etc. then they must be able to afford their homes. Yes, to a point. But again we are faced with the credit borrowing habits of Americans and the pervasiveness of large credit lines being offered to people who cannot afford them. I do not suffer fools gladly, and I have very little sympathy for those people who let consumer debt get out of control. SO, what about raising "luxury" taxes on leisure consumption (electronics, cell phones, books, magazines, telecommunication services, alcohol, cigarettes) in order to offset the property tax reduction extended to the first $200K of EVERYBODY's home. After $200K property would be taxed at an equitable rate. This is not "socialism" - we already have a progressive income tax, and an extensive structure of luxury taxes. I am trying to come up with ways of maintaining tax revenues while shifting the burden from necsssities to leisure consumption.

FOUR: No, home ownership is not guaranteed in the constitution. BUT we all want to live in a country where hardworking people can afford homes. Again, I am concerned about the people whose incomes are falling behind home costs.

This thread is about considering alternatives to the odious inclusionary housing ordinance. How would stjoe recommend addressing housing cost for lower income families? Or is it a problem at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stjoe    0

"This thread is about considering alternatives to the odious inclusionary housing ordinance. How would stjoe recommend addressing housing cost for lower income families? Or is it a problem at all?"

I don't think it is any more a problem today than it was yesterday, last year, last decade, a hundred years ago, a thousand years ago. I would agrue it is more likely that a policemen owns his own home today than he did in the 70s, or 100 years ago. Same with a teacher.

Hell, in the 70s, interest rates were 19%. Nobody could afford it.

Believe it or not, I don't think we are that far off in opininion. You simply have to be careful with how far you subsidize people's stupid financial decisions. Debt levels are high because today people simply don't practice restraint, displine, responsibility, or implement appropriate priorities. Short of full blown communism (where the state controls all financial means), there is no way to protect the average citizen from making bad financial decisions and lacking the above qualities.

But I see no crisis here at all. Again, more folks own their home (regardless of debt) than at just about any other time in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P_McLane    0

Debt levels are high because today people simply don't practice restraint, displine, responsibility, or implement appropriate priorities.

I think you're right about our opinions being closer than our word parsing would suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relient J    0

The government IS in the business of protecting the health and welfare of its citizens.

It's not the role of the government to force rich people to pick up the slack for the rest of us. However, I would be in favor of lowering taxes across the board. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P_McLane    0

FROM FSU.EDU:

FSU Events

"Place-Making-The Importance of Creating and Sustaining Public Places That Build Communities"

David Wamsley, chief executive officer of K2 Urbancorp, will speak at Florida State University this week as part of the Evan D. Jennings Executive Speaker Series in Real Estate. His talk, "Place-Making-The Importance of Creating and Sustaining Public Places That Build Communities"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psycuda    0

I know we've strayed off the original topic a bit, but here's my (slightly biased) 2 cents on inclusionary housing. While in theory, the marketpalce should be able to provide for a wide range ofhousing choices, the reality is that it is not doing a very good job of doing so. While it is should not be the government's job to regulate housing in this manner, the reality is that the workers that administer the government, myself included (hence the bias), but more importantly the police officers, firemen, and teachers that people count on for a civilized society are being priced out of the communities that they are serving and forced to look elsewhere. These are the groups of people that end up being the real reason why housing ordinances wind up on the books, along with the density bonus, the less stringent concurrency requirements, and the streamlining of the process, shaving thousands of dollars off of the developer's costs and allowing the developer to make money quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jahi98    0

Playing to the other side...

It's always been the government's job to fill in the gap that the private market doesn't ie. housing for low-income households. Now, with that gap expanding to include moderate-income households, and government having to essentially do more with less, expect ordinances like this to continue to be implemented throughout the country. Shouldn't have to force developers to "do the right thing", but it's come to this. As our values as a society become more hinged on material gain and exclusivity, expect more heavy-handed measures on the part of the government to do it's job -- make sure that gap is filled. Besides, who better to develop housing than developers? That is what they do, right?

So, basically, the government can't afford it anymore. Developers don't want to do it as it forces them to be a more creative. In the meantime, the supply of low-cost housing continues to diminish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
poonther    0

Good points Jahi98! I also agree w/you psycuda. I've got mine and now I'm ready to help others get theirs. This to me is a good way to accomplish that objective. I live in a neighborhood w/ 300K to 400K homes all the way down to cheaper rental apartments. I enjoy that type of diversity in the neighborhood and that is part of the reason I bought here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Relient J    0

It's always been the government's job to fill in the gap that the private market doesn't ie. housing for low-income households.

Since when? If we're talking about the Federal government, please site the part of the Constitution that authorizes this. If we're talking about the state government, that would be determined by the state constitution (the city too perhaps, though it's been a long time since I've read the Florida constitution).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Relient J    0

David Wamsley, chief executive officer of K2 Urbancorp, will speak at Florida State University this week as part of the Evan D. Jennings Executive Speaker Series in Real Estate.

The FSView & Florida Flambeau have a write up of the talk here:

http://www.fsunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/441df8424a239.

To me the most exciting thing mentioned by Wamsley (as reported in the article) is that K2 plans to expand beyond Tallahassee in the future. Perhaps I should email them again and reiterate my desire for them to come to my city. Murfreesboror, Tennessee could use a few K2 developments! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cityboy05    0

Evening Rose is trying to get a permit for a 120,000 sq ft town center yesterday. It was in the Tallahasse Democrat newspaper under the business section.

Edited by cityboy05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.