------------------------
The Bozeman City Commission has chipped away at some of the issues surrounding the city’s affordable housing shortage. (Chipped away, as in offered up yet another government "solution" bound to fail.)
A roundtable discussion on the issue was held at the end of Monday night’s commission meeting with members of the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board, including members of the Human Resource Development Council and city staff. (No members of the community at large? No dissenting voices? No diverse interests?)
The discussion was to let commissioners hear recommendations from the board and get direction on possible affordable housing policies. (Can we guess what solution a government advisory board would offer? Would it be, maybe, a government program? No, couldn't happen...)
More affordable rentals are needed in Bozeman, especially for households with incomes at or below 40 percent of the area median income, said Wendy Thomas, the city’s director of community development. In 2012, the median income for a family of three in Gallatin County was $60,900, according to calculations presented by the city. (Problem identified. Good. We need affordable housing. Logical, since people who are poor need to find places they can afford. So, what will be the solutions they offer? Read on.)
Thomas laid out several challenges that the city faces when it comes to affordable housing: decreased federal funding, too few staff members and increasing prices. ("...challenges that the city faces..." Oh. I thought we were talking about challenges that the poor face. My mistake.) Home prices increased 9 percent in 2013 for a single-family home and 14 percent for townhouses and condos. (So we aren't talking about housing the poor, we are talking about them buying houses. And because home values have increased after years of plunging decreases, all of the sudden there is a problem. Hmm.)
HRDC community development director Tracy Menuez suggested that Bozeman is not getting federal funding for affordable housing because other areas of the state have more needs. (So doing something about affordable housing is contingent on getting money from the Feds, money the Feds don't have.)
“The needs of eastern Montana are immense this time,” Menuez said.
A roundtable discussion on the issue was held at the end of Monday night’s commission meeting with members of the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board, including members of the Human Resource Development Council and city staff. (No members of the community at large? No dissenting voices? No diverse interests?)
The discussion was to let commissioners hear recommendations from the board and get direction on possible affordable housing policies. (Can we guess what solution a government advisory board would offer? Would it be, maybe, a government program? No, couldn't happen...)
More affordable rentals are needed in Bozeman, especially for households with incomes at or below 40 percent of the area median income, said Wendy Thomas, the city’s director of community development. In 2012, the median income for a family of three in Gallatin County was $60,900, according to calculations presented by the city. (Problem identified. Good. We need affordable housing. Logical, since people who are poor need to find places they can afford. So, what will be the solutions they offer? Read on.)
Thomas laid out several challenges that the city faces when it comes to affordable housing: decreased federal funding, too few staff members and increasing prices. ("...challenges that the city faces..." Oh. I thought we were talking about challenges that the poor face. My mistake.) Home prices increased 9 percent in 2013 for a single-family home and 14 percent for townhouses and condos. (So we aren't talking about housing the poor, we are talking about them buying houses. And because home values have increased after years of plunging decreases, all of the sudden there is a problem. Hmm.)
HRDC community development director Tracy Menuez suggested that Bozeman is not getting federal funding for affordable housing because other areas of the state have more needs. (So doing something about affordable housing is contingent on getting money from the Feds, money the Feds don't have.)
“The needs of eastern Montana are immense this time,” Menuez said.
Bozeman is unique because it is too big for rural development funding but too small for entitlement city funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which requires a city have a population of at least 50,000, Menuez added.
“We’re the largest nonentitlement community in Montana,” she said.
Survey data cited in the city’s Affordable Housing Action Plan for 2012-2016 predict a tighter housing supply and rising rents, especially in the affordable price range — “and thus a need for rental construction.” (I thought we we talking about house prices increasing by 9%? So are we talking now about affordable rent? And if there's a need for rental construction, won't contractors build them, as they have been doing on Davis Road, for example? You know, supply and demand?
“We’re the largest nonentitlement community in Montana,” she said.
Survey data cited in the city’s Affordable Housing Action Plan for 2012-2016 predict a tighter housing supply and rising rents, especially in the affordable price range — “and thus a need for rental construction.” (I thought we we talking about house prices increasing by 9%? So are we talking now about affordable rent? And if there's a need for rental construction, won't contractors build them, as they have been doing on Davis Road, for example? You know, supply and demand?
And note the City's Action Plan was wrong. I.e., planning for things that don't happen because things change. This is the problem with the City's version of planning. It assumes a static equation, where one action will not cause ripple effects elsewhere. In fact, we can make this observation about all central planning advocates. They are economic illiterates convinced that they possess the knowledge and skill to "guide" the economy to better outcomes. Unfortunately [actually, fortunately], they have failed every time, but this doesn't seem to deter them a bit.)
Federal subsidies have been available to Bozeman rental housing developers but were not used after a drop in demand during the recession. (*Sigh* A drop in demand means that people were not buying/renting housing. No demand means no additional supply needed, i.e., there isn't a need for affordable housing when there's no demand. Crikey.)
Demand for subsidized and unsubsidized (i.e., "rentals." There are only two possibilities, subsidized and unsubsidized. It is unnecessary to note categories.) rentals increased again in 2011, according to the plan. (Does the author of the article intend to say that the economy operated in accordance with the plan, or the plan makes an observation about 2011? Sloppy writing.) At that time the vacancy rate was just 2 percent — below the 5 percent, which is considered “a healthy balance between supply and demand.”
Meanwhile, the median sale price of all homes sold in Bozeman in 2011, including condos, was $207,000, according to the plan. That year, more than 80 percent of all homes sold were priced above the affordable price point of $152,000. (Which means that somewhere around 20% were "affordable." Apparently this isn't enough, so what's the solution?)
Homes that sold for less than $152,000 were subsidized or were typically older homes, the plan said. More affordable homes, priced between $95,000 and $130,000, hit the market in 2012, with about half of them subsidized. (Which subsidies? Federal? I thought they weren't being used. If they are, then developers are building affordable housing. So why is the City discussing this at all?)
Mayor Jeff Krauss suggested inviting people to present ideas and to open the conversation about increasing the amount of affordable, workforce housing, instead of passing an ordinance. (What? Public input?)
Deputy Mayor Carson Taylor disagreed. While he is open to inviting people to come with ideas, he said an ordinance should be adopted regarding workforce housing because people want predictability. (Whaaa? People want predictability? You mean like affordable housing subsidies that are not used, then used? Ordinances that are suspended [see two paragraphs down from here.]? Endless reviews and red tape? And so, the Mayor supports, what? Another ordinance! THAT will stabilize things!)
“In my mind, we need to have the next workforce housing ordinance ready, and I think we need to do it as soon as we can,” Taylor said. (Not deterred by past failures, bad predictions, and a resurgent problem that invalidated their prior Plan, by all means, move as fast as you can...)
The commission suspended the city’s old workforce housing ordinance in 2011 to encourage housing development when building slowed. Commissioners decided to continue that suspension until November.
The ordinance meets a certain segment of affordable housing needs, but it isn’t meant to meet every need, Thomas said. (Well, how about that. It won't solve the problem.)
“Housing needs are as diverse as the population itself. So you need a multi-pronged approach to meet housing needs across the board,” she said. (...she said, in spite of the fact that government is always about the one-size-fits-all approach to things.)
Thomas also updated commissioners on two projects that could bring more single-family homes to the area. Plans are in the works to build more small homes in the Norton Ranch development on the west side of town as well as in Valley West, Thomas said.
Thomas said the commission understands the affordable housing issue and wants to improve the situation. (Clearly the commission doesn't understand. And good intentions are always enough for the Left. results? Well, the fact that the situation is never improved is not relevant. And anyone who disagrees must want people to live under freeway overpasses. That's the way the Left thinks.)
“I was encouraged to see, across the board, the commission’s concern and commitment for the creation of affordable housing,” Thomas said. (Which will eventually work out to be the worst possible thing that can happen to affordable housing in Bozeman.)
Federal subsidies have been available to Bozeman rental housing developers but were not used after a drop in demand during the recession. (*Sigh* A drop in demand means that people were not buying/renting housing. No demand means no additional supply needed, i.e., there isn't a need for affordable housing when there's no demand. Crikey.)
Demand for subsidized and unsubsidized (i.e., "rentals." There are only two possibilities, subsidized and unsubsidized. It is unnecessary to note categories.) rentals increased again in 2011, according to the plan. (Does the author of the article intend to say that the economy operated in accordance with the plan, or the plan makes an observation about 2011? Sloppy writing.) At that time the vacancy rate was just 2 percent — below the 5 percent, which is considered “a healthy balance between supply and demand.”
Meanwhile, the median sale price of all homes sold in Bozeman in 2011, including condos, was $207,000, according to the plan. That year, more than 80 percent of all homes sold were priced above the affordable price point of $152,000. (Which means that somewhere around 20% were "affordable." Apparently this isn't enough, so what's the solution?)
Homes that sold for less than $152,000 were subsidized or were typically older homes, the plan said. More affordable homes, priced between $95,000 and $130,000, hit the market in 2012, with about half of them subsidized. (Which subsidies? Federal? I thought they weren't being used. If they are, then developers are building affordable housing. So why is the City discussing this at all?)
Mayor Jeff Krauss suggested inviting people to present ideas and to open the conversation about increasing the amount of affordable, workforce housing, instead of passing an ordinance. (What? Public input?)
Deputy Mayor Carson Taylor disagreed. While he is open to inviting people to come with ideas, he said an ordinance should be adopted regarding workforce housing because people want predictability. (Whaaa? People want predictability? You mean like affordable housing subsidies that are not used, then used? Ordinances that are suspended [see two paragraphs down from here.]? Endless reviews and red tape? And so, the Mayor supports, what? Another ordinance! THAT will stabilize things!)
“In my mind, we need to have the next workforce housing ordinance ready, and I think we need to do it as soon as we can,” Taylor said. (Not deterred by past failures, bad predictions, and a resurgent problem that invalidated their prior Plan, by all means, move as fast as you can...)
The commission suspended the city’s old workforce housing ordinance in 2011 to encourage housing development when building slowed. Commissioners decided to continue that suspension until November.
The ordinance meets a certain segment of affordable housing needs, but it isn’t meant to meet every need, Thomas said. (Well, how about that. It won't solve the problem.)
“Housing needs are as diverse as the population itself. So you need a multi-pronged approach to meet housing needs across the board,” she said. (...she said, in spite of the fact that government is always about the one-size-fits-all approach to things.)
Thomas also updated commissioners on two projects that could bring more single-family homes to the area. Plans are in the works to build more small homes in the Norton Ranch development on the west side of town as well as in Valley West, Thomas said.
Thomas said the commission understands the affordable housing issue and wants to improve the situation. (Clearly the commission doesn't understand. And good intentions are always enough for the Left. results? Well, the fact that the situation is never improved is not relevant. And anyone who disagrees must want people to live under freeway overpasses. That's the way the Left thinks.)
“I was encouraged to see, across the board, the commission’s concern and commitment for the creation of affordable housing,” Thomas said. (Which will eventually work out to be the worst possible thing that can happen to affordable housing in Bozeman.)
The original ordinance authored by HRDC guru and former City Commissioner Jeff Rupp was designed to provide housing for teachers, police firemen; who worked in Bozeman but could not afford to live in Bozeman. It is confusing to the casual observer because the idea of "affordable housing" conjers providing housing for people who cannot afford housing. The "shelved ordinance" required builders/developers to provide a %age of a subdivisions lots/houses at a reduced rate and on a lottery basis. I often wonder why co-op housing never entered the discussion, but that is a concept that requires work. Bob Chase
ReplyDelete