New Berlin Housing

The proposed MSP development in New Berlin's City Center discussion is getting ugly. Reportedly a public meeting on May 25th showed anger and disenchantment with the development. In fact, according to an observer, according to what people were saying at the recent public meeting, you would've thought people who could pay $1,100 for a 3-bedroom unit were the lowest of the low, scum of the earth, etc.!

A group has formed over this issue.

Some of those at the library meeting said that workforce housing is not the vision the city presented to residents when the city center plan was developed 11 years ago. Upscale condominiums were envisioned. The condominium residents were seen as being able to support the high-end shops that city officials hoped to attract to the retail section of the city center.

The original vision obviously is not working. That's sort of what happens when every community seek to only permit-I mean, attract-the upper echelons of the population. I think that's called social engineering.

There have been plenty of research disproving many, if not all, of the fears that people have about this type of development. Housing Tax Credits does not equal low property values and crime. If anything, property values have been shown to increase. Tax-credit housing also has a rigorous tenant screening process, so crime & safety is not the concern people claim.

This is pure NIMBYism.

The next meeting with this on the agenda is June 7 at 6 PM at New Berlin's Council Chambers in the City Hall at 3805 S. Casper Drive. Please come to show your support for affordable housing.

Higher Density for Green Developments in Waukesha?

In this article by Sean Ryan, we learn that the City of Waukesha is considering allowing higher density and other incentives for green developments. In the Daily Reporter summary we see a proposal to streamline the process, reduce requirements, etc.


Honestly, I think their projects being first on the agendas for the public meetings & hearings would probably have developers lining up to be involved!


Sustainable development is much needed in many communities, but I wonder why this can't include minimum accessibility such as Visitability? It's not hard to have one no-step entrance, a path of travel to the home & in the interior of the main floor, and a usable bathroom.

Small Area Demonstration Rents

HUD is embarking on an intriguing experiment to change the size of Fair Market Rent areas. Fair Marekt Rent is the rent standard used for the Section 8 Voucher program, the HOME program, and some other programs. It is pegged to the 40th percentile of the standard rental units. In other words, it's set at the dollar amount of 40% of the recent rents (within the past 15 mins prior to publication of FMR).

Historically, the income and the fair market rents have been determined by the county or the metro area. In the case of Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis metro area (which includes Washington & Ozaukee Counties), the income disparity between the City of Milwaukee and the City of Waukesha (not to mention other communities in Waukesha County) has created problems. For instance, Waukesha residents with vouchers have a difficult time finding a place that is affordable due to Waukesha's higher rents, but their voucher amounts are dragged down by the influence of rent in Milwaukee. HUD is seeking to remedy that by creating smaller Fair Market Rent areas within metro areas.

HUD is doing a demonstration, and have created a sample listing following zip codes.

Currently the Fair Market Rent in the metro area is $602 for studio/efficiency, $718 for 1-bedroom, $858 for 2-bedroom, $1,081 for 3-bedroom, and $1,114 for four-bedroom.

53186 zip code in the City of Waukesha would have a rent of $625(studio/efficiency), $750(1-bdrm), $900(2-bdrm), $1,125(3-bdrm), and $1,150(4-bdrm). (Note the map in the link is centered near Stevens Point(!)-you need to drag the map to Waukesha to see the zip code boundary.)

Compare this with the lowest FMR which would be $425, $500, $600, $750, and $775 for the zip codes of 53025 and 53233 which cover the areas west of downtown from North Ave. down to Menonomonee Valley.

The highest FMR is in Brookfield's west side (53045) with rents of $825, $1,000, $1,200, $1,500, and $1,525.

So what effect would this Small Area FMR have? It would make it easier for voucher-holders to migrate toward higher-rent areas, to be able to live closer to their jobs, to be able to have their children attend better schools, etc. It'd reduce the effect of NIMBYism because of the greater mobility of vouchers. But on the minus side, it'd likely make some vouchers more expensive for the Public Housing Authority, and possibly reduce the voucher amount for urban housing authorities (such as Milwaukee's). People in higher-poverty areas wouldn't be able to afford (relatively) nicer buildings with their voucher amount.

This seems to fit with HUD's goal of reducing poverty by increasing the ability of voucher holders to move toward areas of better opportunities and education even while they work to improve circumstances in high-poverty neighborhoods.

Update: Sentence removed that was not entirely correct.

HUD's new Income Limits

HUD has released their new 2010 Income Limits. Those limits are used by many programs, not just HUD-funded ones.

For the Milwaukee metro area, which is defined as Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, the median family income is $71,100. The actual income limits are broken down into household sizes. You can go to the link for details on Milwaukee's, or you can look up another county's.

New Tax Incremental Financing law

A new law to extend troubled TIF districts from 27 years to 40 years in response to some Tax Incremental Districts (TIDs) around the state running into trouble. While some larger municipalities have the ability to use revenues from successful TIDs to cover another underperforming TID, smaller municipalities not having enough TIDs to share the pain do not have that luxury. Hence the change.

Interestingly, it only covers TIDs created before Oct 1, 2008. So this seems to be intended to be a temporary measure due to the current economy, rather than being a permanent tool for future distressed TIDs.

This new law not only extends the life of a distressed TID, but it also allows communities to extend the life of a "donor" TID (one that is being used to help pay off the troubled TID) up to 40 years after it was created, although it must terminate as soon as the distressed TID is paid off. It also expands the definition of a distressed TID to include mixed-use or industrial districts. Previously, distressed districts had to be blighted, for low-income housing rehab, or for environmental clean-up in order to receive money from a donor TID.

I suppose this law is useful in that it allows communities to avoid defaulting on their debt, although I don't think some communities have used Tax Incremental Financing the way it was originally supposed to be-for redeveloping blighted areas. Corn and trees are not blight.

Update: This was the website's 100th post according to Blogger. If I'd known, I'd have chosen something more exciting!

Smart Growth Review

An interesting business-oriented article on Smart Growth. I found this quote striking, from the Builders Association Executive Vice-President Jerry Deschance.

Builders don't want to use as much land" as local ordinances require....

One positive benefit of Smart Growth is a better understanding of land use in communities. LaCrosse County realized they had a 40-year supply of vacant developed lots. Many communities now do a better job of managing farmland and forests. Planning is proactive instead of reactive.

Check out your community's Smart Growth Plan sometime.

Homelessness on the Radio

Executive Directors Donna Rongholt-Migan of The Cathedral Center and Ken Schmidt of Hope House will be on NPR's Lake Effect show Friday May 14th at 10:00 AM. It'll be on the AM station WWM 89.7, although you should be able to access the podcast through the website.

They will be discussing the issue of homelessness.

And don't dare to think this is just a Milwaukee thing; there are people who are homeless in Waukesha County, too!


(Thanks to Kari at Community Advocates for spreading the word!)

UPDATE: I'm told the station may be FM rather than AM.
UPDATE 2: You can find more details and listen to it here.

White Flight: The Next Generation

An article looking at a report from Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program on the trend of increasing numbers of residents in cities who are white even as suburbans continue to trend toward a higher percent of minorities.

I wonder how much of this "white flight" is due to the youths' perceived desirability of cities (i.e. transportation, amenities, etc.) and how much are due to increasing cost of living in suburbans for younger people?

The City of Milwaukee has bragged about their population increase, attributed partially to the growth of downtown condos.

In any case, the article notes on the report:

Among its recommendations: affordable housing and social services for older people in the suburbs; better transit systems to link cities and suburbs; and a new federal Office of New Americans to serve the education and citizenship needs of the rapidly growing immigrant community.

Update: The Washington Post also notes this report.

Accessibility

For years people have constructed buildings a certain way. Sure, the design varies greatly, but often they all had one thing in common; they were physically inaccessible for people with disabilities. We're talking about steps to get in, narrow hallways and doors impassable for wheelchairs, poor design for people with sensory disabilities, etc.

Then in the late 1980's and the early 1990's, something happened.

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) was amended to include people with disabilities, with accessibility requirements for people with physical disabilities and for people with sensory disabilities. This covered multi-family housing designed and occupied after March 13, 1991.

And the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on July 1990. It included accessibility requirements for public and commercial spaces.

So it has been two decades under those laws. How are we doing with those laws? If this study, "Access Denied" from New Orleans is any indication, not so well.

One hundred (100%) percent of the complexes examined failed to comply with at least one of the seven Design and Construction requirements. Eighty-one (81%)percent of the complexes tested failed to comply with two or more of the requirements. On average, the complexes examined failed to comply with three of the seven Design and Construction requirements. Failures to comply were broken down in the following manner:

* 16% of complexes had units that lacked accessible entrances.
* 58% of complexes lacked accessible public and/or common use areas.
* 32% of complexes had units with doorways that were not accessible.
* 42% of complexes had units that lacked accessible routes and/or passageways within the units.
* 63% of complexes had units that lacked accessible electrical and environmental controls.
* 32% of complexes reported that units may lack reinforcements of bathroom walls for grab bars.
* 89% of complexes had units with inaccessible bathrooms or kitchens.

An issue is that many architects are not familiar with the requirements of Fair Housing and ADA, and building inspectors lack the training to check newly constructed housing for accessibility. There is no proactive enforcement of the two laws, and the only way for enforcement is through complaints and lawsuits. While I would hope Wisconsin would do better than that, many people looking for housing have complained to me about landlords claiming that their buildings were accessible, the term "accessible" apparently expanded to include "only one or two steps."

The Report set forth seven recommendations which I'll be paraphasing here:

1. State building code should be reviewed & revised to comply with FHA requirements.
2. Tax-credit grantees should receive mandatory training.
3. The state architects association should also have mandatory training for its members.
4. Every building permit issued should have a brochure on accessibility requirements.
5. Multi-family housing built prior to 1991 should be able to receive funding for accessibility modifications.
6. People with disabilities and advocates should be trained to identify violations.
7. Lenders should require assurance of accessibility compliance as part of their lending process.

Those are not bad ideas at all. And this court decision should be a wake-up call for builders to not be so complacent about accessibility. The builder was sued for violating the law, and the builder tried to recoup the costs from the architect. The decision said that the builder is ultimately responsible for non-compliance.

Update: End of first paragraph somehow got deleted; fixed.

Our crumbling roads

I've never understood the lack of accountability in building new roads even as older roads crumble. If we can't keep up with the maintenance of our existing roads, what makes people think we can also maintain the newer roads?

That's a question that a new study, Road Work Ahead, looks at. Perhaps predictably, the study points the finger at politicians who favor new roads to keeping older roads in shape. I've drove on roads that made me livid-particularly Highway 100 west of Howell Avenue in Oak Creek-because they were over-designed and over-engineered but under-used.

I'm sure you all know of a road like that-a brand-new road with multiple lanes and turning lanes that doesn't appear to be justified by the actual traffic (or destinations). Yet near the airport, there is a road with a single lane in each direction and no turning lanes which serve many hotels on it and is quite literally crumbling. Not the image Wisconsin wants to present to tourists and business travellers, is it?

There are similiar overbuilt roads in Racine County, Waukesha County, and I'm sure many other counties. My suspicion is that they were designed and built to encourage development. Nothing wrong with that by itself, but what I'm seeing often seems nothing more than land speculation at the expense of existing businesses.

This, of course, is subsidized by the federal government, the state government, and municipalities. But ultimately, we all pay for it with our tax dollars.