Mr. Luce makes a great case for bringing the pre 1986 tax codes back. The non-profits are more expensive. They do not get the bang for the buck that the private sector would get. They do create a lot of administrative jobs that I just don't see in the private sector. Check out PPL and CCHT. How much staff per unit VS some of the larger operators. I won't embarrass the non-profits by comparing them to the small landlord operators staff per units comparison.
Craig Miller Former Fultonite [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1. Nonprofits generallly build housing for larger families with a higher percentage of three and four bedroom units. Private developers generally build smaller-- i.e. one to two bedroom units. A per unit cost ignores this difference (and Robert Anderson noticeably excludes the 4-5 bedroom units of CVI from comparison, with these units making up 6 of the 20 units). > > 2. Nonprofits generally include service facilities such as daycare or counseling--costs that should not be used in a per unit comparison unless the private developer is also providing such services. > > 3. Nonprofits usually have to assemble financing from a number of sources, increasing the cost of staff and development, whereas private developers have one or two sources of investment. > > 4. Because of nonprofit funding sources, nonprofit developers must abide by the Davis-Bacon federal regulations that require payment of prevailing wages during construction. Private for-profit developers escape these costs. > > 5. Nonprofits include developer fees up front. For-profit developers often make most of the profit after development (cash flow, sales, management fees) and these fees are typically passed on to tenants or buyers (obviously impacting affordability to the end user). > > 6. Nonprofit development at high-density and inner city locations is generally more expensive than for-profit development at lower-density sites at the surburban edge. That is, what's being compared? > > 7. Nonprofit developers typically design with an eye toward longevity, increasing initial costs. For-profit developers who sell the development after five years are more interested in short-term profitable investments, lowering initial costs. > > 8. Nonprofit developers must overcome neighborhood stereotypes about low or moderate income neighbors and must spend more to create attractive developments to dispel the misconceptions. CVI is a prime example. > > So, taking these things into account, can I take a look at the for-profit orange and peel away its cost? At the same time, feel free to slice up the nonprofit apple as well and, in keeping with the List Manager's rules, let's compare CVI or other Minneapolis projects on a true contextual comparison basis. > > Gregory Luce > N. Phillips (work) > > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
