Re: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor
A little over 2 years ago, MPHA sold on the private market 7 boarded-up, single family homes that were in very tough shape. They ranged in price from $2,500 to $45,000 with most of them sold in the $10,000 to $15,000 range. As part of the sale, each buyer had to agree to fix them up and use them for family home ownership purposes (not rental). Based on my windshield survey of the units several months after the sale, all them were fixed up and are currently occupied. I know for a fact that some of buyers really struggled with the magnitude of the rehab work involved, however they perservered and today 7 formally boarded up homes are nice, completely updated homes contributing to the neighborhood instead of detracting from it. Also more recently MPHA sold 2 homes that had been boarded up for 5 years (don't ask). MPHA required that a work program and financing needed to be in place as part of the terms of the sale. Both homes will receive close to $65,000 to $80,000 dollars worth of rehab work. These homes were in an extreme state of disrepair with the neighborhood recyclers taking anything they could, new roofs needed, all mechanics, kitchens, bathrooms, you name it. (It was fun telling Excel Energy and the water Department that we couldn't do a final meter reading when these homes were sold because there was no meter to read!!). The bottom line is that homes can be repaired and brought back up to code. It is extremely expensive and time consuming, and it isn't something a person can do on the weekends and evenings after work. It takes professionals and lots of dollars. Due to this experience, I can understand why it's difficult to justify the use of amount of taxpayer dollars needed to fix up all the boarded up homes in the City. If the public subsidizes the entire cost of the rehab or significant portion of it, not many houses will get rehabbed before the money runs out; if the subsidy is capped at let's say $10,000 to $20,000, other funds will be needed to get the house up to code. In my opinion, the rehabbing of the boarded up housing stock should be a private matter with the City making available the boarded up homes at a very low cost and let the private financing market provide funds for the rehab. On a related note, HUD has a commissioned a study looking at the barriers to rehabbing affordable housing. It is very academic and quite long (400 pages spread over 2 volumes). However some of it is pretty interesting. Volume II does provide case studies with pro formas. To download the pdf files or to order Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing, Volume I: Findings and Analysis and Volume II: Case Studies, visit the HUD USER Web site at: http://www.huduser.org/publications/destech/brah.html Dean E. Carlson (NOT the Project Manager for Hollman, but MPHA Development Coordinator) Ward 10, East Harriet - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 3:39 PM Subject: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor > David Piehl writes: > > Some months ago, there was lengthy discussion on the reduction in total number > of dwelling units available in the city of Minneapolis, based on census data - > it was something like 17,000 units less. The discussions that ensued - as well > as work done by several affordable housing groups - identified demolition as the > primary driver behind the reduction in the number of units available; hence the > (overly broad) statement to open the discussion. I believe many of the units > demolished are unneccessarily victims of the wrecking ball, sometimes because > they housed problem occupants, sometimes because they are just not part of a > larger plan that certain civil servants may feel is best for the area. It is my > opinion that demolition is the simple, band-aid solution of choice for certain > city staff. Our experience in Central with the houses that were sold by the > MPHA as part of the Hollman agreement a few years ago is a classic example. > Nine MPHA homes in Central were conveyed to MCDA in the first round, staff at > MPHA said they chose to convey to the MCDA so the homes would be thoroughly > rennovated and sold to owner occupants rather than investors. MCDA proposed > demolishing all of them. MCDA had "rehab estimates" for each of the properties > that were astonishingly high to support their assertions. The residents of > Central didn't buy into this thinking, and pushed for further assesments. One > of the homes was located on the corner of 33rd and Chicago Ave - MCDA claimed it > needed in excess of $100,000 of work to be up to code, including lead abatement, > and should be demolished. When the house was toured by some state officials, > neighborhood residents, and folks from some of the local non-p
RE: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor
According to a Planning Department 2000 Census Report and verified against Census Bureau website data, the number of Census-enumerated housing units in Minneapolis are: 1980: 168,828 1990: 172,666 2000: 168,606 Absolute decrease of 4,060 housing units. The number of occupied dwelling units went up from 1990 to 2000 by 1,670 increasing the occupancy rate. While not casting any claim on whether or not the City has been too aggressive in demolishing housing units over the past decade, the Census data does not claim anywhere near a loss of 17,000 units. Does anyone have the number of housing demo permits issued by the City as well as new unit production for Mr. Bonham? Matt Bower Office of Grants & Special Projects City of Minneapolis Nokomis Resident > Tim Bonham wrote: > > Statements like the following always seem to set my personal BS detector > ringing: > >Most of us are well aware that a major contributor to the affordable > housing > >crisis is the "demolition quest" the city has been on for almost a > decade. > > Whenever anyone starts out saying "we all know that...", I look to see > what > they are trying to sell me. > > So before I'm willing to agree that I am "well aware that...", I'd like to > see some figures from David supporting this assertion. For example: > - are demolition permits for past years significantly higher than > previous years? > - are the majority of these demolition permits obtained by the > city, or by individual owners? > - are houses being demolished because of a city "demolition > quest", or simply because of an aging housing stock? I.E., is the average > age of houses being demolished going down? > > snip > > David Piehl writes: > > Some months ago, there was lengthy discussion on the reduction in total > number > of dwelling units available in the city of Minneapolis, based on census > data - > it was something like 17,000 units less. The discussions that ensued - as > well > as work done by several affordable housing groups - identified demolition > as the > primary driver behind the reduction in the number of units available; > hence the > (overly broad) statement to open the discussion. ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor Wizard Marks wrote: Snip It's getting harder and harder to keep up with the demands of an old house. snip Empty nesters, whether suburban or urban or rural transplants, can probably say 'been there, done that' to all this house fussing. And be absolutely justified in so saying. David Piehl writes: I agree with Wizard that older homes may not appeal to suburban empty nesters; however, I think they are not the folks who are most impacted by the shortage of housing in Minneapolis. In fact, it may be the pursuit of those types of buyers that has contributed to the current housing crisis (just speculation) in the city, where a large, family sized apartment is far too expensive for many residents. New homes are overrated though, too. My brother lives in a home in Farmington that he and his wife had built two years ago, and already there is major moisture damage, and portions of the plastic siding have blown off twice in wind storms.but I digress. David Piehl Central/8th Ward __ The information contained in this message is private and confidential information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the message. Thank you. ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If one couples this experience with statements made by senior staff at the MCDA > about the value of new construction, and that new construction is the only way > to attract suburban buyers, then it lends credibility to the "demolition quest" > theory. <<>> To be fair to MCDA, suburban possible homeowners, and urban possible home owners, now that I own an old house, I can give much more credence to those who want a new home. I've been here 4 years and I'm a long way from having all the work that needs doing done. I'm very close to being 60 years old--two more years. It's getting harder and harder to keep up with the demands of an old house. So, had I the money, I would opt for a new house so that I could spend the next few years puttering around in the garden rather than sanding the wood work, remortgaging the house for big repairs, or otherwise using brain space to worry about plumbing and electric, and all the rest. Empty nesters, whether suburban or urban or rural transplants, can probably say 'been there, done that' to all this house fussing. And be absolutely justified in so saying. WizardMarks, Central > ___ > 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
[Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor
Tim Bonham wrote: Statements like the following always seem to set my personal BS detector ringing: >Most of us are well aware that a major contributor to the affordable housing >crisis is the "demolition quest" the city has been on for almost a decade. Whenever anyone starts out saying "we all know that...", I look to see what they are trying to sell me. So before I'm willing to agree that I am "well aware that...", I'd like to see some figures from David supporting this assertion. For example: - are demolition permits for past years significantly higher than previous years? - are the majority of these demolition permits obtained by the city, or by individual owners? - are houses being demolished because of a city "demolition quest", or simply because of an aging housing stock? I.E., is the average age of houses being demolished going down? snip David Piehl writes: Some months ago, there was lengthy discussion on the reduction in total number of dwelling units available in the city of Minneapolis, based on census data - it was something like 17,000 units less. The discussions that ensued - as well as work done by several affordable housing groups - identified demolition as the primary driver behind the reduction in the number of units available; hence the (overly broad) statement to open the discussion. I believe many of the units demolished are unneccessarily victims of the wrecking ball, sometimes because they housed problem occupants, sometimes because they are just not part of a larger plan that certain civil servants may feel is best for the area. It is my opinion that demolition is the simple, band-aid solution of choice for certain city staff. Our experience in Central with the houses that were sold by the MPHA as part of the Hollman agreement a few years ago is a classic example. Nine MPHA homes in Central were conveyed to MCDA in the first round, staff at MPHA said they chose to convey to the MCDA so the homes would be thoroughly rennovated and sold to owner occupants rather than investors. MCDA proposed demolishing all of them. MCDA had "rehab estimates" for each of the properties that were astonishingly high to support their assertions. The residents of Central didn't buy into this thinking, and pushed for further assesments. One of the homes was located on the corner of 33rd and Chicago Ave - MCDA claimed it needed in excess of $100,000 of work to be up to code, including lead abatement, and should be demolished. When the house was toured by some state officials, neighborhood residents, and folks from some of the local non-profit developers, everyone was astonished by the great condition of the home. Lead tests showed that lead abatement had already been done, and a large amount of rehab had already been done by MPHA. It was clear to many people present that the MCDA had generated rehab numbers without ever viewing the property. Maybe they used a standard calculation per square foot, I don't know, but in the end this home was nicely rennovated and sold to an owner occupant for about $75,000 or $80,000 - and there was no subsidy required!! The sale actually generated a profit that was put into less profitable rennovations! If one couples this experience with statements made by senior staff at the MCDA about the value of new construction, and that new construction is the only way to attract suburban buyers, then it lends credibility to the "demolition quest" theory. Further, the fact that inspections demolished houses if the cost of code compliance exceeds the cost of demolition (about $12,000) is another major issue. In the midst of a housing crisis, it seems that the cost of the demolition could be better spent on the rennovation. I could site dozens of homes that MCDA controlled that were demolished without ever making them available to the public. The dollar figures applied to rennovations are often absolutely bizarre. My opinion: If MCDA can't rennovate a property they receive, they need to do a "Request for Proposals" before a property is demolished. A moratorium on demolition of housing is probably over-broad, but it's a starting point for discussion. Realistically, properties that have had a fire, for example, might be clear cases for an emergency demolition. Properties that have never been accessable to the public should in no case be demolished until they are made available. To put a little perspective on it all, when the out-going council and mayor established the current demolition evaluation process, the city was very different than it is today. At that time, there was excess housing stock, and all the talk was about how falling housing values could be supported, and the need for less density. In that environment, less scrutiny of re-use options prior to demolition was less of an issue. Today, we have a housing shortage, and values have skyrocketed. It's time to start getting creative about finding ways to use what w
RE: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor
Statements like the following always seem to set my personal BS detector ringing: >Most of us are well aware that a major contributor to the affordable housing >crisis is the "demolition quest" the city has been on for almost a decade. >... >David Piehl >Central/8th Ward Whenever anyone starts out saying "we all know that...", I look to see what they are trying to sell me. So before I'm willing to agree that I am "well aware that...", I'd like to see some figures from David supporting this assertion. For example: - are demolition permits for past years significantly higher than previous years? - are the majority of these demolition permits obtained by the city, or by individual owners? - are houses being demolished because of a city "demolition quest", or simply because of an aging housing stock? I.E., is the average age of houses being demolished going down? I have no idea what the answers to these are. Maybe David does have these figures. But I personally would like to see some of these figures before accepting his assertion. Tim Bonham, Ward 12 ___ 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
RE: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor
I think a moratorium on non emergency demolitions has merit. When I moved onto the 2400 block of 17th Ave, in Phillips, there were three 1800's vintage duplexes across the alley. We bought the rattiest one and rehabbed it. Is it a palace? No. But it does provide affordable housing for two families. The other two were allowed to deteriorate and were torn down. A moratorium will at least give us some time to get things sorted out. Exceptions can be made of course. Old housing is affordable because it is already paid for. It is a rare building that could not be fixed up cheaper than putting up something new. When buildings come down, they should be made available to scavengers first--let us get everything useful out before the wrecking ball arrives. There is a market for used building materials. An aspect of affordable housing that is not being talked about is energy efficiency. Green buildings cost less to operate. At the Green Institute we have what we call the "1-10-100 formula". Simply put this formula says that for every $1.00 that you put into constructing a building you will, over the life of that building, spend $10.00 on utilities and maintenance AND if it a commercial building, you will spend $100.00 over the life of the building on your staff(on salaries, health care, etc.) This formula tells us that if you can slightly increase the cost of the initial construction of the building in order to cut your energy savings in half, you will save big time. So if you can change the formula to $1.25-$7.50-$100.00 you have huge savings over the long run. For this to have any practical application, we need to work with the lending industry in order to restructure mortgages in reflect this savings. It is in a way like TIF, in that it uses future savings to finance up front costs. Also, buy greening the building you can make a building more pleasant and healthy in order to cut down on absenteeism and health costs, the savings are huge. Dean Zimmermann Commissioner, Mpls Park & Rec Board City Council Member, elect Ward 6 612-722-8768 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor Most of us are well aware that a major contributor to the affordable housing crisis is the "demolition quest" the city has been on for almost a decade. Clearly, the most affordable housing is the housing that we already have. A lot of funny math and "functional silo" behavior on the part of city departments and agencies has contributed to the problem. MCDA and Inspections both are guilty of excessive demolition of properties that could have otherwise become affordable units for folks, whether homeowners, condo-owners, or renters; everyone who would live in the city has suffered. Our landfills have suffered, the timber we use is not old enough to vote (thus poor quality with heartwood and sapwood everywhere), and increasingly we turn to plastic (petroleum based) for new construction, which has a pretty short shelf life. Clearly other agendas contributed to the demolition quest. In some cases, I believe otherwise salvageable houses were demolished simply because that was easier for the staff person involved (as opposed to cost effectiveness or social agendas). In some cases, staff have stated that they believe new construction is the only way suburban buyers can be drawn into the city (even if it's true, why is that desirable?). In light of this history, I challenge the new council (re-elected and newly elected) as well as mayor-elect Rybak to call for an immediate city-wide moratorium on non-emergency demolition of housing until recycling policy options can be reviewed. A moratorium on demolition would make a strong statement about how serious the new council is about the affordable housing problems. I have actually already spoken with a number of council members regarding this issue, and it was well received. So folks, how about it? David Piehl Central/8th Ward __ The information contained in this message is private and confidential information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the message. Thank you. ___ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe,
[Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor
Most of us are well aware that a major contributor to the affordable housing crisis is the "demolition quest" the city has been on for almost a decade. Clearly, the most affordable housing is the housing that we already have. A lot of funny math and "functional silo" behavior on the part of city departments and agencies has contributed to the problem. MCDA and Inspections both are guilty of excessive demolition of properties that could have otherwise become affordable units for folks, whether homeowners, condo-owners, or renters; everyone who would live in the city has suffered. Our landfills have suffered, the timber we use is not old enough to vote (thus poor quality with heartwood and sapwood everywhere), and increasingly we turn to plastic (petroleum based) for new construction, which has a pretty short shelf life. Clearly other agendas contributed to the demolition quest. In some cases, I believe otherwise salvageable houses were demolished simply because that was easier for the staff person involved (as opposed to cost effectiveness or social agendas). In some cases, staff have stated that they believe new construction is the only way suburban buyers can be drawn into the city (even if it's true, why is that desirable?). In light of this history, I challenge the new council (re-elected and newly elected) as well as mayor-elect Rybak to call for an immediate city-wide moratorium on non-emergency demolition of housing until recycling policy options can be reviewed. A moratorium on demolition would make a strong statement about how serious the new council is about the affordable housing problems. I have actually already spoken with a number of council members regarding this issue, and it was well received. So folks, how about it? David Piehl Central/8th Ward __ The information contained in this message is private and confidential information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the message. Thank you. ___ 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
