Steve Minn wrote:
The tax value of <Stone Arch> is determined by a combination of income stream, replacement cost and market comparison. Our income stream is constrained by the "affordable" housing rates we agreed to limit on 40% of the project. That limitation impacts value. Bill Cullen responds: Maybe someone on the board can help me. >From what I read (1), Stone Arch apartments received $20 Million dollars in Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), $3.6 Million in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and $750,000 Environment grants for a total of $24,470,000. The total project costs $33,500,000, so the consortium of owners ended up financing approximately $9M. In exchange for the $24 million dollars, Stone Arch will rent 44 units at 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and another 47 units at 60% of the AMI. I am confused about the following: 1) To keep 91 apartments affordable at Stone Arch, we paid $24,470,000. That is 268,901 per affordable apartment. That is more than the average home costs in the metro area. Did we (society) fund this project to create more affordable housing or to gentrify downtown? 2) The Area Median income is $76,400 (as set by HUD, not me). So, affordable housing at 50% of AMI can rent for $955/month and at 60%, $1,146/month. GVA Marquette reported in the newspaper this past Saturday that the average cost for an apartment in the metro area is $851/month. Does society think the affordable housing crisis is at 50% of the AMI? (I think it is at 30% of AMI and below). 3) Back to Mr. Minn’s comment above. If the valuation of a property is decreased due to “constrained revenue streams”, then should society combine the use of LIHTC and TIF? They seem to work against each other. Why do we have programs like this? Does ANYONE out there think that the affordable housing crisis has eased because society paid $24M towards Stone Arch? As I have said (many times on this board), there are better ways to solve the affordable housing crisis. It drives me crazy that HUD is cutting section 8 while we continue with the LIHTC programs. According to Rita Andr (St. Paul PHA/Section 8 leader) the average family income of her section 8 voucher holders is near $8000 per year. No where near 50% of AMI. I want to stress that my post is in no way an attack on Mr. Minn or Stone Arch. As long as society is willing to subsidize developments, developers will propose projects. From the bit I have read, everything Mr. Minn and Stone Arch did is proper. My question is why does society fund these projects? Regards, Bill Cullen Whittier Landlord (1) http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cped/stone_arch_apartments.asp -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005 REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
