D-Squared, part of the Pinnacle Housing Group, held a public meeting on the Parkside Village site redevelopment on December 8. This is a mandated community input meeting in order to secure tax credits.
Readers of previous columns should be aware of my bias toward affordable housing developers. Sadly, the performance by D-Squared only reinforced my view. However, in the interest of transparency, I will offer both their presented points and my take on what was and was not said. My commentary will be in bold.
The developer will have a pool on site. There will not be a lifeguard but it will have a punch code and fencing so as to restrict its use to residents. This is not atypical for apartment complexes. Someone will need to know about pool maintenance (more on staffing below).
The developer will also have an outdoor fitness area and improve the park area. Well and good.
The developer will have retail facing Colcord. They will rely upon current zoning laws and the ground lease with the city to keep out check-cashing stores, payday loan stores, pawn shops and the like. This is more of a city criticism--current zoning doesn't keep out these parasitic enterprises now. D-Squared also didn't mention how they would recruit retail stores; there seemed to be a Field of Dreams mentality that retail would just magically appear. In this economy, that outcome is not likely. I do applaud that these units will be multi-use with residential above retail.
The developer will not build the single family units until they are needed, i.e. buyers to purchase them. Here is where they got elusive. D Squared will build a 85/15 affordable/market rate rental housing complex to include senior housing. When asked about the single family homes, they kept referring to Waco CDC, Habitat for Humanity and NeighborWorks. D Squared seemed uninterested in this piece and I understand that these other organizations have not officially signed onto this partnership. The single family units are on an adjacent piece of property but will be separate from the D Squared complex and that seems to be how D Squared is looking at it. They won't make money off this aspect and seemed very detached from it.
The developer said that they have a May 1 deadline to submit an application to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. That state agency will announce funding recipients in late July. If this goes well, D-Squared anticipates an occupied housing complex by early 2014. In response to a question, they also noted that these tax credit, most likely originating with a major bank, would supply 60-70% of the financing for this endeavor. $30 gets you $100. This doesn't need anymore comment than has been supplied in previous posts.
The developer noted that they will have after-school programs. When asked, these programs will not be funded or administered by D-Squared but rather by volunteers. I asked what their annual budget would be for these programs as they said that they would dedicate funding. The answer was $15,000/year. So they promise programs but in reality they won't be doing anything hands on. They will not be on-site (though they will be sitting by the phone--more on this below) and won't staff. What exactly are they bringing to these after-school programs, other than a physical facility? Even that contribution seemed ironic as we met in the Dewey Community Center.
The developer will do background checks on all residential applicants and anyone with previous felony or drug convictions will be rejected. As well, the City and State will conduct annual inspections of the property. The management company will conduct monthly inspections. The equity investor may also do this twice a year. The income qualifications will be set by HUD, which is standard. The development will not accept Section 8 vouchers. D-Squared also puts in 5% of rent into escrow for residents to use in the future as down payment assistance. The 5% down payment piece is a sweetener, though I would like to know how often this has been utilized in previous developments (sounds like a letter I need to write). The background check stuff is standard and legally most renters have their hands tied. I was very disappointed that the inspections of this facility won't change from the standards under the previous Parkside incarnation. The City and State didn't do enough previously; those entities are the watchdogs on this. While residents will start with a new facility, what has changed inspection-wise?
The developer will not manage the property. They will not have a subsidiary manage the property. They will hire an outside group to manage the property. The D-Squared VP who drove down from Dallas, and was late by the way, argued that this arrangement was more favorable to the residents b/c D-Squared could fire the management company if the management company didn't do their job. The same VP, whose name I did not get, said that she would take calls of complaint against the property manager. They do have a particular management company in mind. What is more reassuring: that D-Squared lacks confidence in their management company hiring practicies so that the ability to fire that hired manager is a selling point or that the developer's involvement past construction is limited to its willingness to answer the phone? I'm undecided. This arrangement also provides evidence that profit in affordable housing comes in building it, not managing it. Expect that dynamic to impact management.
The developer noted that the City would own the land and lease the property to D-Squared for two 40 years leases. Our council representative even said that they could fire D-Squared if need be. I would like to see the language in that contract authorizing that. But, again, D-Squared gets it's return after completion of the project. It might prove more beneficial for them to cut ties to the development after it's developed. A way around this would be to include benchmarks over the course of the lease tied to incremental payments/tax credits allotments. That is probably not in the contract however.
I asked the developer about on site security. They won't provide any. They will have a live-in manager and possibly a courtesy officer [This didn't make a lot of sense. The VP said something about giving a law enforcement person a cut rate on an apartment if they too would live on the property and open and close from time to time. I can't see a police officer or sheriff doing this though.]. They could have up to 30 cameras on the property viewable on the web and with recording ongoing. The development will be part of the Crime Free Multi Housing Program city program. I ask again, how does this markedly improve on what was there before? The cameras could help but they are passive deterrents. No one will officially watch the cameras, only look at them after the fact. Will those cameras be maintained? The CFMHP is compulsory for new apartment complexes.
The developer will supply washers and dryers and use high end materials [we hit upon a "ceramic tile" chorus at one point]. Well and good. Will they also enter into a binding agreement to establish an independent tenants association with the ability to take D-Squared to court should it (or its hired management company) fail to abide in upkeep, security or other fiduciary responsibilities of the renting agency?
D-Squared is a private company and will not release its financial statement to the public; I asked this one. They did let the City look over this but then the company retrieved the data. Our Council rep remained silent during this portion of Q & A. I'm not sure this temporary glance would be legal in NJ. If a document is submitted to a public entity, particularly as public money is to be used, that document should become public. Perhaps not in Texas. However, other than the assurances of our public officials, assurances that did not come last Thursday by the way, how do we know the company is viable. The previous developer/owner of Parkside seemed flush with cash initially but was crying poor later as building were no longer maintained and families had to heat their apartments with gas ovens. I would like something in writing, but maybe that's a me problem.
I was probably in the minority with my disapproval. Most questions concerned aesthetics. There was some levity, at least as I heard it. I have pulled a quote below from a Trib article that was loudly repeated by our council representative. Her nomenclature aside, my fears of Parkside Village II, by any other name, have increased, not lessened.
“We need something that doesn’t say Park, side or village,” said Councilwoman Toni Herbert, who represents the North Waco neighborhood around Parkside. “We need a clean break. So many people are afraid of seeing Parkside Village II."--Waco Tribune, October 19, 2011.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
finale for christopher hitchens
Douthat really encapsulates my sentimentality towards Hitchens well in this piece.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
book review: toxic charity
I just finished Robert Lupton's Toxic Charity. This book focuses on Christian charity, its practice and effects. It is in the same vein as When Helping Hurts, arguing that most Christian benevolence fosters bondage, rather than providing liberation. He advocates, correctly in my opinion, that churches need to move from a relief model of charity (meeting immediate needs) to a rehabilitation and development model (partners to build self-sufficiency).
One mild criticism is that the book is filled with too much anecdotal evidence. I like a good story and save many for sermon illustrations. I believe that he could have supplied some economic and sociological data to augment his assertions (assertions I readily agree with even excluding this additional evidence).
Notes from the book are below:
Over last 50 yrs., Africa has received $1 trillion in aid. Dambisa Moyo, African economist and author of Dead Aid, says, “it’s a kind of curse, the disease of which it pretends to be the cure.”
Food Security for Atlanta, builds co-ops that leverage buying power of members, turning $3 to $30 worth of food.
Oath for compassionate service: 1)never do for the poor what they have (or could have) the capacity to do for themselves; 2)limit one-way giving to emergency situations; 3)strive to empower the poor through employment, lending, and investing, using grants sparingly to reinforce achievements; 4)sub-ordinate self interests to the needs of those being served; 5)listen closely to those you seek to help, especially to what is not being said—unspoken feelings may contain essential clues to effective service; 6)above all, do no harm.
Jacques Ellul in Money and Power: It is important that giving be truly free. It must never degenerate into charity, in the pejorative sense. Almsgiving is Mammon’s perversion of giving. It affirms the superiority of the giver, who thus gains a point on the recipient, binds him, demands gratitude, humiliates him and reduces him to a lower state than he had before.
Three essential elements to successful microloans: borrower must have 1)an ingrained work ethic; 2)a demonstrated entrepreneurial instinct; 3)a stable support system.
John McKnight, Asset Based Community Development, concludes 1)service systems divert money away from poor people to service providers; 2)programs are based on deficiencies rather than capacities; 3)services displace the ability of people’s organizations to solve problems. He asks: does the proposed activity strengthen the capacity of neighborhood residents to prioritize and address their own issues? Will the proposed activity be wealth-generating or at least self-sustaining for the community? Do the moneys generated for and/or by local residents remain at work in their community? Does the proposed activity have a timetable for training and transferring ownership to indigenous leadership?
Neighborhood ministry asks: is capable, indigenous visionary leadership behind the effort? Is the plan neighborhood-specific and does it focus on one and only one target community? Is the effort comprehensive and the programmatic pieces all have as a primary objective the ultimate self-sufficiency of the neighborhood? Does the plan emanate from local churches and/or people of faith? Does the plan protect against displacement or reconcentration of lower-income residents? Does the plan promote interdependency rather than continued dependency? Does the plan attract, retain, and/or develop indigenous leadership in the community? Does the plan attract new achieving neighbors into the community? Does the plan utilize grants and nonprofits as catalysts for development that can eventually reduce the need for external subsidies? Does the plan lead to economic neighborhood viability, as measured by its ability to attract and harness market forces?
Friday, December 9, 2011
christopher hitchens, death and Jesus
Very good read here on an article about avowed atheist Christopher Hitchens and how cancer has changed his outlook on the nature of things.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
user friendly
I had a chat with a friend not long ago. This friend has visited a number of churches in his town over the past year, seeking to find a place to put down some roots. As an outsider, with previous inside-church experience, his take on church's user friendliness is fascinating and instructive.
His best story concerned a traditional church that he has visited the most over the past year. We may consider it his church home by default. Each Sunday as he enters, the same older gentleman greets him at the door. They shake hands, say hello, perhaps engage in a bit of banter. My friend felt like they were building a relationship. One Sunday, my friend got there late and no one was at the door. But, he did see his greeter-friend in the congregation and during the time of welcome, when congregants leave their seats to say hello to one another, he rushed over to greet him. As he walked up to the man and said hello, he added, "I missed you at the door this morning!" The man returned his cordial introduction with a blank stare of befuddlement. In a moment, the oblivious response revealed the perceived connection and relationship as fraudulent.
Clearly, this greeter had no idea who my friend was and performed the perfunctory task of saying hello to all who entered. Perhaps the faithful greeter understood his position to entail only that. But, for someone seeking to form a tie to a church, this entrance does not suffice. Most of us have a story about walking into a church and feeling excluded (intentionally or otherwise) and ignored. Those are rarely churches that we return to and seldom places where we encounter Jesus in our midst.
In chewing on this episode for some weeks, I have considered how user-friendly Calvary is. Do visitors know where to go when they enter our church? Are they welcomed and met (implying more than just a standard hello and handshake)? Do they feel appreciated and do we seek to make connections to them? Is there a transcendent spirit of hospitality and care made manifest in the words and actions of these followers of Christ?
These are some things for all of us to consider.
His best story concerned a traditional church that he has visited the most over the past year. We may consider it his church home by default. Each Sunday as he enters, the same older gentleman greets him at the door. They shake hands, say hello, perhaps engage in a bit of banter. My friend felt like they were building a relationship. One Sunday, my friend got there late and no one was at the door. But, he did see his greeter-friend in the congregation and during the time of welcome, when congregants leave their seats to say hello to one another, he rushed over to greet him. As he walked up to the man and said hello, he added, "I missed you at the door this morning!" The man returned his cordial introduction with a blank stare of befuddlement. In a moment, the oblivious response revealed the perceived connection and relationship as fraudulent.
Clearly, this greeter had no idea who my friend was and performed the perfunctory task of saying hello to all who entered. Perhaps the faithful greeter understood his position to entail only that. But, for someone seeking to form a tie to a church, this entrance does not suffice. Most of us have a story about walking into a church and feeling excluded (intentionally or otherwise) and ignored. Those are rarely churches that we return to and seldom places where we encounter Jesus in our midst.
In chewing on this episode for some weeks, I have considered how user-friendly Calvary is. Do visitors know where to go when they enter our church? Are they welcomed and met (implying more than just a standard hello and handshake)? Do they feel appreciated and do we seek to make connections to them? Is there a transcendent spirit of hospitality and care made manifest in the words and actions of these followers of Christ?
These are some things for all of us to consider.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
the profitability of affordable housing, #2
This post has been a long time coming but here it is.
As I asserted in a previous companion to this post, affordable housing is a bit of a misnomer. The housing is affordable for the resident. However, it is obscenely profitable for the developer. Altruism does not get these units built. I am loathe to attribute this to greed but profitability certainly does enter into the equation.
Thus we arrive at the Parkside Village Development, on Colcord & 9th. A number of community activists worked tirelessly to force the previous owner, American Housing Foundation, to provide dignity & decent housing to its residents. This developer/complex management had fallen into financial difficulty and the ramifications of this fell upon residents. Vacant apartments were cannibalized to fix occupied apartments. Maintenance was spotty. The complex lacked basic services and security. Eventually, due in large part to public outcry, the City of Waco got control over this project.
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development retained some influence on this site. In keeping with federal bureaucracy, communication on ideas and plans moves at a slow pace. However, as I understand it from public meetings and press accounts HUD gave the City of Waco four years to redevelop this site as of January 2011. This encompassed actual development so the planning timeline was probably closer to 3 years. Credit goes to the City leadership for fighting for control and HUD openness to mixed use development (i.e. retail). The City also fought for any new development to include demolition of the current structures. Kudos on these great points. This timetable for redevelopment began this Fall.
Everyone hoped for some private development to augment affordable housing. Mixed income neighborhoods are healthy, encourage additional private investment including retail and foster upward mobility among low-income residents. The downtown master plan even included some planning points for this property so that it would fit into the matrix of development spanning from downtown to Cameron Park.
Suddenly, a plan was publicly presented to the City Council at 3pm on Oct 18 to name a developer, D-Squared, who planned to build a development with 90% affordable housing and 10% market-rate. The ratio has recently changed to 80/20, better but not good enough. Included in this development will be Senior restricted dwellings and that number, originally at 50 seems to be moving up as well. I hastily wrote a letter on 10/18 that is below:
Dear Honorable Elected Officials of the City of Waco,
I write to express my dismay over the Parkside Village Redevelopment plan that the Pinnacle Group will present to you later this afternoon for your consideration this evening. While the plan does contain some laudable elements, including the of inclusion retail property and mixed use zoning as well as the replacement of the current physical structures, the development plan fails to remediate the problems the led the community and the City of Waco to this point in the first place.
Parkside Villages has historically served as a repository for low-income residents. This concentration of poverty contributed to both generational poverty and to a high crime rate within the community and larger neighborhood. This style of urban planning, very reminiscent of 60’s style segregated public housing, fails to promote advancement for residents and hampered the revitalization of the greater community. Furthermore, the social service and public safety costs outweighed any short-term financial benefits the City may have received. At this juncture, when there is an opportunity to reject the failed the development models of the past and to promote diverse, healthy mixed-income neighborhoods, why would the City return to prior mistakes?
To this point, your body has fought for a brighter future and dignity for residents of Parkside. You argued for HUD to expand its criteria to include mixed income and mixed use development. You insisted that any redevelopment include new physical structures. You spoke positively about the Downtown Redevelopment Plan’s inclusion of this area in its intentions for this area. I urge you to hold fast to this stance in accord with your previous comments and those of the community, voiced repeatedly during public comment opportunities about the Parkside site.
As a resident of this community and pastor of one of its churches, I cannot support a plan that calls for 90% low or moderate income housing. This community needs mixed income housing, in keeping with the fabric of the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to affirm the Pinnacle Group where they got the plan right but also to send them back to the drawing board until they present a plan that is truly mixed-income and will benefit this community and Waco at large.
Sincerely,
James H. Coston
Senior Pastor
Only several hours after this initial public presentation, Council voted for it. The plan is below.
Can we agree that this process lacked some transparency? Can we agree that it appeared as an urgent and forced decision? Can we agree that this was not on its surface good government? I understand that the developer came with a sob story about needing to apply for federal tax credits (I read "federal tax credits" as "their profitability") before a deadline expired. It's been my experience that this is the typical modus operandi for affordable housing developers; it's akin to a timeshare sale. There is not enough time for additional consideration as some contrived obstacles force a quick decision. Rather than feel squeezed to make a decision, perhaps the developer should engage in better planning.
Furthermore, if it's a great plan, it can not only withstand public scrutiny but also win over those passionate souls who desperately want something more for the community than a third iteration of a failed public housing model. If the City had four years to make a decision--and I hear that HUD wanted a 'shovel-ready project' sooner rather than later but they did give the City 48 months--then why hitch this wagon to one developer using a 80/20 ratio only 10 months into that timeline? The housing market will come back; private capital would build on that site when things turn around. Is ten months even enough time to survey the myriad options available? Additionally, why undercut the downtown master plan with this development?
One possible retort is that HUD was adamant that demolition of the site take place immediately. Apparently, HUD extended a deadline on demolition by 6 months but the City was still going to have to cover this cost. The D-Squared plan does take the City off the hook for this service as ultimately the developer will pay for demolition. However, if that is the impetus for the deal, D-Squared has leveraged a minimal investment to Wall Street proportions.
There are a lot of pieces to this that just don't make sense on their surface. Public service is often thankless and an exercise in putting out fires. While I start from a place of distrust of affordable housing producers and management companies, I start from a place of respect for our public officials. Perhaps there is a sound explanation for a quick decision that will discourage private development and continue the concentration and cycle of poverty in the Brook Avenue community.
Perhaps we can hear this sound explanation next Thursday, December 8, 6pm, at the Dewey Community Center, 925 N. 9th St. Please join me as we seek enlightenment.
As I asserted in a previous companion to this post, affordable housing is a bit of a misnomer. The housing is affordable for the resident. However, it is obscenely profitable for the developer. Altruism does not get these units built. I am loathe to attribute this to greed but profitability certainly does enter into the equation.
Thus we arrive at the Parkside Village Development, on Colcord & 9th. A number of community activists worked tirelessly to force the previous owner, American Housing Foundation, to provide dignity & decent housing to its residents. This developer/complex management had fallen into financial difficulty and the ramifications of this fell upon residents. Vacant apartments were cannibalized to fix occupied apartments. Maintenance was spotty. The complex lacked basic services and security. Eventually, due in large part to public outcry, the City of Waco got control over this project.
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development retained some influence on this site. In keeping with federal bureaucracy, communication on ideas and plans moves at a slow pace. However, as I understand it from public meetings and press accounts HUD gave the City of Waco four years to redevelop this site as of January 2011. This encompassed actual development so the planning timeline was probably closer to 3 years. Credit goes to the City leadership for fighting for control and HUD openness to mixed use development (i.e. retail). The City also fought for any new development to include demolition of the current structures. Kudos on these great points. This timetable for redevelopment began this Fall.
Everyone hoped for some private development to augment affordable housing. Mixed income neighborhoods are healthy, encourage additional private investment including retail and foster upward mobility among low-income residents. The downtown master plan even included some planning points for this property so that it would fit into the matrix of development spanning from downtown to Cameron Park.
Suddenly, a plan was publicly presented to the City Council at 3pm on Oct 18 to name a developer, D-Squared, who planned to build a development with 90% affordable housing and 10% market-rate. The ratio has recently changed to 80/20, better but not good enough. Included in this development will be Senior restricted dwellings and that number, originally at 50 seems to be moving up as well. I hastily wrote a letter on 10/18 that is below:
Dear Honorable Elected Officials of the City of Waco,
I write to express my dismay over the Parkside Village Redevelopment plan that the Pinnacle Group will present to you later this afternoon for your consideration this evening. While the plan does contain some laudable elements, including the of inclusion retail property and mixed use zoning as well as the replacement of the current physical structures, the development plan fails to remediate the problems the led the community and the City of Waco to this point in the first place.
Parkside Villages has historically served as a repository for low-income residents. This concentration of poverty contributed to both generational poverty and to a high crime rate within the community and larger neighborhood. This style of urban planning, very reminiscent of 60’s style segregated public housing, fails to promote advancement for residents and hampered the revitalization of the greater community. Furthermore, the social service and public safety costs outweighed any short-term financial benefits the City may have received. At this juncture, when there is an opportunity to reject the failed the development models of the past and to promote diverse, healthy mixed-income neighborhoods, why would the City return to prior mistakes?
To this point, your body has fought for a brighter future and dignity for residents of Parkside. You argued for HUD to expand its criteria to include mixed income and mixed use development. You insisted that any redevelopment include new physical structures. You spoke positively about the Downtown Redevelopment Plan’s inclusion of this area in its intentions for this area. I urge you to hold fast to this stance in accord with your previous comments and those of the community, voiced repeatedly during public comment opportunities about the Parkside site.
As a resident of this community and pastor of one of its churches, I cannot support a plan that calls for 90% low or moderate income housing. This community needs mixed income housing, in keeping with the fabric of the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to affirm the Pinnacle Group where they got the plan right but also to send them back to the drawing board until they present a plan that is truly mixed-income and will benefit this community and Waco at large.
Sincerely,
James H. Coston
Senior Pastor
Only several hours after this initial public presentation, Council voted for it. The plan is below.
Can we agree that this process lacked some transparency? Can we agree that it appeared as an urgent and forced decision? Can we agree that this was not on its surface good government? I understand that the developer came with a sob story about needing to apply for federal tax credits (I read "federal tax credits" as "their profitability") before a deadline expired. It's been my experience that this is the typical modus operandi for affordable housing developers; it's akin to a timeshare sale. There is not enough time for additional consideration as some contrived obstacles force a quick decision. Rather than feel squeezed to make a decision, perhaps the developer should engage in better planning.
Furthermore, if it's a great plan, it can not only withstand public scrutiny but also win over those passionate souls who desperately want something more for the community than a third iteration of a failed public housing model. If the City had four years to make a decision--and I hear that HUD wanted a 'shovel-ready project' sooner rather than later but they did give the City 48 months--then why hitch this wagon to one developer using a 80/20 ratio only 10 months into that timeline? The housing market will come back; private capital would build on that site when things turn around. Is ten months even enough time to survey the myriad options available? Additionally, why undercut the downtown master plan with this development?
One possible retort is that HUD was adamant that demolition of the site take place immediately. Apparently, HUD extended a deadline on demolition by 6 months but the City was still going to have to cover this cost. The D-Squared plan does take the City off the hook for this service as ultimately the developer will pay for demolition. However, if that is the impetus for the deal, D-Squared has leveraged a minimal investment to Wall Street proportions.
There are a lot of pieces to this that just don't make sense on their surface. Public service is often thankless and an exercise in putting out fires. While I start from a place of distrust of affordable housing producers and management companies, I start from a place of respect for our public officials. Perhaps there is a sound explanation for a quick decision that will discourage private development and continue the concentration and cycle of poverty in the Brook Avenue community.
Perhaps we can hear this sound explanation next Thursday, December 8, 6pm, at the Dewey Community Center, 925 N. 9th St. Please join me as we seek enlightenment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)