Example of TID & Housing

Last fall, I mentioned a new law relating to Tax Incremental Districts and Tax Incremental Financing.  To summarize it, the law allows municipalities to pretend that their newly closed Tax Incremental District is still active and direct up to a year of that revenue toward housing, with at least 75% going to affordable housing and up to 25% used to improve the housing stock.

Thanks to this article, I have an example of how this could've worked in Milwaukee.

The Common Council's Zoning, Neighborhoods and Development Committee on Tuesday unanimously approved a resolution dissolving the district, along with two other tax districts created for developments that didn't occur.


As a result, the $25 million in improvements at City Hall Square, 104 E. Mason St., will be generating around $640,000 annually for local governments, according to a Department of City Development report.

If the City of Milwaukee had taken advantage of this law with the $640,000 in revenue, they could've directed at least $480,000  toward the City of Milwaukee Housing Trust Fund, giving it a much-needed boost, and up to $160,000 toward lead prevention programs targeting lead paint.

Any community with a closing TID can do the same, directing the money toward some kind of housing programs (such as rehab, homeowner loans, development grants, etc.).

SOPHIA Open Letter

I attended the meeting the letter refers to, and I can attest to the rudeness and the hostility that many speakers experienced there.  Many attempted to paint SOPHIA as some kind of evil participant in a nefarious conspiracy involving socialists, President Obama, and who knows....when the fact is, SOPHIA churches and members are residents of Waukesha County and New Berlin. 

An Open Letter to New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero, Plan Commission Members, and Concerned Citizens of New Berlin Members

June 29, 2010

SOPHIA participated in the New Berlin Plan Commission’s meeting on June 7 to support the MSP Real Estate proposal for affordable senior and workforce housing units in the proposed development in City Center. We were shocked by the atmosphere of disrespect and incivility that was allowed to prevail at the hearing. We were pained by the number of inflammatory statements and innuendos we heard. We were disappointed and ashamed that those running the meeting did nothing to stop the angry, disrespectful outbursts – including booing and hissing - while those in favor of the MSP proposal gave their statements.

We call on the Concerned Citizens of New Berlin to join SOPHIA in publically repudiating the disrespectful language and behavior of many of those who participated in the June 7 hearing, and we ask them to urge their members to work to ensure that future gatherings do not include such incivility. We further call on the Plan Commission to insist that commonly accepted norms of dignity and respect are followed on July 12 and at any future public meetings.

SOPHIA believes that our community is well-served when there is a robust, open exchange of ideas. We believe that such an exchange can take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect. We will insist on civil speech and behavior from our members, and we reject any statements or behaviors that carry any suggestion of personal attack or threat.

SOPHIA continues to support the proposed City Center development for a variety of reasons. First, as people of faith, we believe working individuals, families, and seniors in Waukesha County need and deserve more opportunities to live within the county. Second, the development will be a very high quality addition to the City Center, generating jobs and hundreds of thousands of dollars of property tax revenue to the City. Third, MSP has complied with every requirement necessary for approval, and rescinding the previously granted approval would leave New Berlin in a very vulnerable, and potentially costly, legal position.


Rev. Amy Becker, Co-chair, SOPHIA Religious Leaders Caucus, New Berlin Resident
Rev. Ralph Schultz, Co-chair, SOPHIA Religious Leaders Caucus
Joel Gaughan, SOPHIA Vice-President, New Berlin Resident
Don Johnson, Chair, SOPHIA Workforce Housing Task Force
Betty Groenewold, SOPHIA President

Contact: Joel Gaughan, 262-789-9736, jgaughan1@wi.rr.com

New Berlin Plan Commission Special Meeting

The Plan Commission has a regularly scheduled meeting on July 12th (delayed one week due to the July 4th holiday weekend), but they apparently are holding a special meeting tomorrow (June 29th at 6 PM).

The only business items on the agenda are:

1. PG-10 Plan Commission Bylaws – Possible Update and Action.

2. PG-830(15) CITY CENTER - A special Plan Commission meeting to deal with the topics of the historical perspective of the City Center.

I am encouraging everyone-advocates and opponents both-to attend this meeting.  I'd appreciate a report from this meeting as I'm unable to attend.  You can find the minutes from the last meeting here.

I'm told the meeting will likely cover:

Primary topic to be discussed is the historical perspective of the City Center, what was adopted in 1999 plan, what was adopted as part of the original PUD, and track the last ten years as to what has taken place, discuss the pros and cons, past proposals, issues, infrastructure, conservation efforts – basically, ‘roadblocks’ that have risen in the past

To include a PowerPoint presentation (approx. 1 hour) illustrating historical background

Not positive as to whether a specific public speaking session will be scheduled; depending on time, Q&A to potentially take place following presentation

Follow-up meetings will most likely follow to allow for citizen discussion

Potential for focus groups (current idea on the plan commissions radar)

MSP development will be addressed

Evaluation of future developments

Journal-Sentinel Columnist tries being homeless

In a bit of good timing as an unintentional follow-up to my previous post, Columnist James Causey tries his hand at being homeless for 72 hours.

His concluding paragraphs echoes my summary of the new emphasis in homelessness policies; prevention and rapid re-housing.

Is it expensive? Yes and no. Getting people off drugs and into permanent housing is less expensive and more productive in the long run than continually housing them in homeless shelters. To do this requires a big-picture approach.


I've just given you a 72-hour snapshot. The cheapest way to fix this problem is to keep those families at risk from ever becoming homeless in the first place.

Homelessness in the Future

I attended a workshop at the National Low-Income Housing Coalition conference earlier in the spring with the Executive Director of the Interagency Council on Homelessness, Barbara Poppe and a co-presenter, Mark Johnston from the Office of Community Planning and Development.  During the workshop, they discussed HUD has learned what works and what doesn't work in working with the homelessness.  They spoke of the challenges of serving people who are homeless. 

According to Poppe and Johnston, the best strategy is prevention, but how do you identify who truly needs help?  How do they meet the "if not for this, then..." standard?  I think this is probably something that will be struggled with for a long time.

Of those that are homeless, currently 74% of the homeless are in shelters, and 26% are participating in a Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP).  That statistic has to change.  I'm not sure where "on the streets" fit in this, but perhaps this represents the people "in the system."  It should be noted that using HPRP, communities have already "reduced the number of chronically ill, long-term homeless individuals by one-third in the last five years."  Although to be clear, the overall number of homelessness has grown.  With families becoming eligible for HPRP programs, we should see increased effectiveness.

Let me pause here to explain something.  There are two different types of homelessness; there are people who have had some bad luck, who perhaps made some bad decisions, perhaps went through a foreclosure, and become homeless. But they don't always stay homeless for long-they find some other housing and move on with their lives. Maybe they need a helping hand getting back on track.

 And then there's what's called the chronic homelessness, those that have been homeless for quite a while, and can use up a large percentage of the resources in the system, and often cost communities a substantial amount of money in emergency contacts (police, emergency room, etc.).  They often struggle with mental illness and/or alcohol or drug abuse (AODA). This is what much of the research efforts have centered on.

Studies have shown that providing supportive housing, whether it is called Housing First or Rapid Re-housing, has reduced  the costs and the incidences of homelessness.  Results have been so encouraging that it has been embraced nationally. Congress passed the HEARTH Act of 2009 which gave additional emphasis on prevention and more re-housing activities, also gave HUD a legislative mandate to create regulations within 18 months to implement the Act.

HUD officials have been working on developing performance-based standards measures for accountability to be used by the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH), a council of 19 federal agencies chaired by HUD Secretary Donovan. 

Using research and feedback from more than 500 public comments, the ICH created a new plan to end homelessness. The result is Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to End Homelessness.

The Plan is focused on four key goals: (1) Finish the job of ending chronic homelessness in five years; (2) Prevent and end homelessness among Veterans in five years; (3) Prevent and end homelessness for families, youth, and children in ten years; and (4) Set a path to ending all types of homelessness.

The plan has 10 objectives and 52 strategies.  Go take a look.  It's only 74 pages with generous margins.  For a plan this far-reaching, that's pretty concise!

PETRA

No, not PETA, but PETRA.  Preservation, Enchancement and Transforming Rental Assistance is the proposal to modernize rental assistance.  Among its more controversial aspects is the proposal for public housing authorities to, in essence, privatize their buildings.

Peter Dreier has a guest blog at TPM in which he summarizes the history of public housing and discusses whether or not public housing has a future.  It's a thoughtful discussion on some of the pros and the cons of the PETRA proposal.

I know that Barbara Sard, who used to work for the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, is now involved with HUD.  She's a brillant woman who has been deeply involved in housing policy analysis for many years.  Her being part of this process gives me more confidence in the outcome, but:

"As the National Low-Income Housing Coalition stated in its Congressional testimony: 'Private resources could be public housing's savior or its greatest enemy."

It's a good read. 

MSP in New Berlin receives WHEDA Tax Credits

Thanks to The Political Environment and Land and Space , we now know that the MSP proposed development has received tax credits from WHEDA.

I believe the New Berlin Plan Commission was hoping that WHEDA would not award tax credits to the MSP development, thus making the whole headache go away, even if temporarily.  Now MSP has to sell those tax credits, something which is not guaranteed.  I've heard of developers having to return tax credits after being unable to sell them for enough money to fund the development.

The next step is the next meeting of the Plan Commission.  You can see the minutes from the last meeting which, unfortunately, does not include the colorful commentary from the "Privilege of the Floor."   MSP has to submit their revised plans which does not include the various waivers New Berlin granted and then revoked after the outcry.  MSP stated that making those changes would not be an issue.

The next Plan Commission will be on Monday, July 12 at 6 PM. However, keep checking the Plan Commission page for updates, to make sure the MSP development is on the agenda for that meeting.

Homeownership subsidization follow-up

To follow up on my previous post on homeownership subsidization which discussed how federal housing policies subsidizes homeownership to a much greater extent that it subsidizes rental housing, I'd like to point, via Ezra Klein, a David Wessel article in the Wall Street Journal further elaborating on how unnatural the homeownership process is in the United States.

Keep in mind that:

Home ownership rose from around 40% of households in the 1940s to about 60% in the 1960s and then hovered around 65% until the 1990s, when a government-backed push to spread ownership, particularly among minorities, helped lift the rate, reaching a peak of 69.4% in mid-2004.

What's stunning is how in hard-hit areas, how few households actually have any equity in their homes; in San Diego, it's 35-39%, and in Las Vegas, it's even worse, 15-19%. That's with a homeownership rate of 55% and 59%.

And there are the side effects. The cherished right to repay a mortgage and get a cheaper one creates a huge, lucrative refinancing industry whose value he (referring to Patrick Lawler, "chief economist of Fannie and Freddie's regulator") questions. And it creates a need for Fannie and Freddie, which may end up costing taxpayers more than any other element of the much-reviled bailouts. Without them to guarantee repayment of a loan and lubricate the market, the 30-year fixed-rate loan would be more costly and less common. But Americans might be better off.

People who believe that only rental housing and low-income people are subsidized are deluding themselves.  Based on what I've read on this issue lately, I'm starting to wonder if there's any housing in the United States that is not subsidized in some way.

May 8 Housing Forum with SOPHIA

Over a month ago, the Affordable Housing Taskforce in Waukesha County and SOPHIA hosted a Housing Forum at Steinhafel's.

The event was keynoted by Bernie Juno, Executive Director of Hebron House of Hospitality with other speakers including Joyce Smyth Keehn of Select Milwaukee, Don French from the Affordable Housing Taskforce, and Nikki Mills from Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA). 

The four participated in a panel discussion with Q&A from the audience afterwards.

The forum included exhibitors from housing organizations and developers such as Gorman & Company, shown here.

Many thanks to the people who organized this event, some shown here.

Defense of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac

I got this twice today, & thought I'd share with everyone. This is from a former critic of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE), AKA Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, who is now in the odd position of defending them.

Read it here.

Could Tax Credit Reform Reduce NIMBYism?

I really should start reading Tom Daykin more. Either that or just start linking this blog directly to his byline. This one briefly discusses a paper by Amy Roden at the American Enterprise Institute a non-partisan conservative think tank I'm not very familiar with.

The paper, Building A Better Low-Income Housing Credit, was of particular interest to me because it discusses something that has frustrated me with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, also known as Section 42. Currently the tax credit program has a rule that either 20% of the units must serve people under the 50% Annual Median Income (AMI) or 40% of the units must be for people under 60% AMI. Given that, I often wonder why more tax-credit developments are not mixed-income.

Ms. Roden discusses the LIHTC program-its history and how it works-and then compares the program to the national housing policy priorities which includes deconcentrating poverty. She refers to studies indicating concentrated poverty (defined as a census tract with over 40% of its residents living below the poverty threshold) leads to (italics mine)-"As Brookings scholar Edward G. Goetz explains, concentrated poverty ‘‘produces a range of social problems whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts. . . . Something about the extreme concentration of disadvantage begets even more community and individual dysfunction.’ "

The national housing policies over the past two decades-especially with the introduction of the Voucher program in 1983, has been trending toward deconcentrating poverty through increased mobility (through vouchers) and more integration of neighborhoods through mixed-income housing. HUD has identified healthier communities as a priority in its 2010-2015 Strategic Plan.

Ms. Roden points out that the LIHTC program has not followed the national trend in that the program currently encourages the concentration of low-income households, both in the location and the composition of the households within the development.

For instance, my frustration at the lack of mixed-income development. Ms. Roden shows that there is a disincentive for developers to limit the number of tax-credit units-the more units they have in the Section 42 program, the more tax credits they can be allocated. Even though mixed-income households are very possible under the current rules, it's clearly not happening often enough.

She also points out that the LIHTC program gives preference to what is called Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs) which are census tracts identified by HUD "in which at least 50 percent of households have incomes below 60 percent of the area median gross income." This has the effect of actually concentrating poverty. I don't consider the fact that "In 2007 more than 40 percent of units were located in QCTs" good policy.

She suggests three changes:

1) Rewarding mixed-income developments by reducing the total the number of LIHTC-assisted units. This can either be done through setting a maximum number of units that can be funded (such as 50%) or by reducing the amount of assistance beyond that 50% so a developer would see a diminishing return.

2) Remove the preference for Qualified Census Tracts, making the LIHTC program location-neutral. She does acknowledge that with a better mixed-income housing policy, a preference for QTCs would not necessarily be harmful, although she does not see a reason why a preference is necessary.

3) Reforming the funding to give greater priority to need (using income levels and/or poverty rate) rather than simply through population size. Currently all states receive $2.10 per person, except for the eight least populous states that receive the minimum amount per state which actually works out to as much as $4.46 per person for Wyoming. She suggests three formulas that can be used to remedy that, of which Wisconsin would gain in two ways ($2.13 or $2.30 per person) and lose with one method ($1.69 per person).

She touches on something-but does not follow up on- a study showing that "public transportation is twice as important for explaining the location of the poor as consumers’ price sensitivity to land." Given the importance of public transportation as a method of getting around for people with low income, a successful deconcentration of poverty will mean either people will have access to better opportunities, and are then able to afford cars, or that the public transportation network will need to be expanded. Most likey a combination of the two.

Update: Sorry about the misleading title. I started out intending to write the post one way, and it led me down a different path!

To get back to my initial point that I intended to make; reducing the number of low-income units within a project by ensuring that it is mixed-income could be benefical in reducing opposition to a development. Although I would cap it more at 40% or less rather than the 50% Ms. Roden used in her paper.

Worst Case Housing Needs

In my mailbox today comes HUD’s Worst Case Housing Needs report, which looks at what is called the-you guessed it-worst case housing needs.

Worst case housing needs (WCN) are experienced by unassisted very low-income renters who either (1) pay more than one-half of their monthly income for rent; or (2) live in severely inadequate conditions, or both. HUD defines “very low-income” as below 50 percent of the local area median income (AMI) and “extremely low-income” as below 30 percent of AMI.

Of interest given the recent backlash against affordable (tax-credit) housing in some suburban communities:

Most worst case needs renters in suburbs and non-metro areas lived in low poverty neighborhoods (reflecting both the overall proportion that such neighborhoods comprise in these areas and the lack of affordable housing options throughout these areas).

The report also notes that although there were enough affordable units available in many communities, there are not enough units available to people with low incomes. People with (relatively) higher income tend to rent down (renting a unit that is not necessarily the max they can afford), which reduces the number of units available to people with lower incomes. After all, if you were a landlord, which would you prefer-renting to someone with a low-paying job who has to struggle each month to pay the rent, or someone with a higher-paying job who can easily afford to pay the rent? So it's not enough to point to some (relatively) affordable market-rate housing and say, "there's plenty of housing," you have to look at who's occupying those units.

This goes a long way toward explaining the summary on people with disabilities, bolds mine:

In addition to the 602,000 non-elderly disabled households, there were an additional 404,000 families with children that also had an adult with disabilities present – bringing the combined total of these two types of house­holds with disabilities and worst case housing needs to more than 1 million. Disabled households were found to have the highest likelihood of having WCN among the four main family types (families with children, elderly, disabled and “other” households). Among unassisted very low-income households with disabilities, the likelihood of having worst case needs was 65.6 percent. This exceeds the second highest rate of elderly households (58 percent) and is far above the rates among families with children (47.8 percent) and “other” households (47.7 percent).

Many households with a member who has a disability depend on benefits, and are not able to "compete" for market-rate units to the same degree that others can. So many end up on less-than-ideal housing. This, in my opinion, is the strongest argument for subsidized and tax-credit affordable housing; to ensure that people with extremely low income do have access to some kind of decent housing. In Wisconsin, the tax-credit housing program does not do a good job of this-they mainly serve people with moderately low ("workforce") income, not those with extremely low income (defined as being under 30% of area median income).

It's easy for some people to say, "well, if you'd work harder, you'd be able to find something" but if you're the primary caregiver for someone, such as an elderly mother, a sibling with a disability, or a child, your options are limited. It's not easy to find time to go back to school. It's not easy to advance your career through promotions due to long hours. Even with retail and fast-food companies, some companies have the belief that if you want to be employed by them, you have to be available anytime they want you to work.

And if you have a serious disability, successfully advancing your career brings the risk of losing medical coverage that are income-based.

Some clarification attempted

Tom Daykin courageously attempts some clarification on the subsidized/workforce housing confusion that many opponents of tax-credit developments seem to have.

I'd like to add that in New Berlin, many people are claiming that they are upset because the area is supposed to be upscale with high-end condos. They say they feel betrayed that this is not happening, that they are a victim of bait & switch.

I went to the introduction of the City Center Design Guidelines and found this on the second page:

Common sense and reason should always be used to evaluate development proposals with the recognition that changing market conditions may suggest alternate development solutions that have not been anticipated by these guidelines.

If those times don't qualify as changing market conditions, I don't know what does.

Downtown Boom

Milwaukee is experiencing a downtown boom, which is on pause temporarily during this recession and expected to continue to grow. It actually is serving as a model for other communities.

And yes, subsidized housing and workforce housing are part of this.

The Evils of Subsidized Housing

For the past couple of weeks, I've been listening to the hysteria in New Berlin over the evils of subsidized housing and the decay, crime, school woes, and locusts sure to follow in its wake.

Here's some sampling from comments in response to Eugene Kane's recent article in The Journal-Sentinel.

The residents of New Berlin do not want any subsidized housing, be it a subsidy for the builder or a subsidy for the tenants.

Not sure how inserting a slum in the middle of New Berlin does any good.

We all know where subsidized housing leads, these facts are indisputable. So, any objection to the project is obvious except for those individuals that are without reason and responsibility.

...I love New Berlin. I would prefer to keep anything subsidized out of New Berlin....

Subsidized housing is Un-Constitutional on the Federal Level....
Milwaukee is a Socialist City. New Berlin is not! The Milwaukee Labor Press sez so!

The largest housing subsidy program in the United States is the mortgage interest deduction available to homebuyers.

The president's fiscal year 2010 budget reports that, in 2012, the MID will cost the federal Treasury an estimated $131 billion, much more than the total of all outlays by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ($48 billion). Homeowners also benefit from other federal tax preferences, including deductibility of residential property taxes on owner-occupied homes ($31 billion), and exclusion of tax on the first $250,000 ($500,000 for joint returns) of capital gains on housing ($50 billion).

I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page here. Homeowners receive a total subsidy nearly three times larger than renters does, just from the mortgage interest deduction. Throw in the other tax preferences & we're talking' real money.

According to the U.S. Census' 2006-2008 American Community Survey, New Berlin had 11,963 owner-occupied homes of which 7,986 still have mortgages on them. That's what, almost 67% of the homeowners? The median value of owner-occupied homes is $245,700. I'm not that good at math, but let's see, 7,986 mortgages X $245,700 median value = $1,962,160,200. I wonder how much the mortgage interest deductions on that are costing us taxpayers?

I know, it doesn't work out exactly that way as that's the value of homes not the value of the mortgages, but consider that the $245,700 median value includes homes that are paid off, which are probably older homes, and not worth as much. It's still going to be a lot of money.

So, yeah, New Berlin already has oodles of subsidized housing, and if you live in New Berlin (or anywhere else in America, for that matter), the odds are you live in subsidized housing. Maybe New Berlin should be rethinking its position on "subsidized housing."

Statement from City of Milwaukee Common Council President

Below is a statement from Milwaukee Alderman Hines, President of City of Milwaukee's Common Council.
----------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release:

June 8, 2010

Contact: Alex Runner
414-286-3771

The Poor Will Always Be With Us –
But Will They Be Allowed In New Berlin?

Two years ago, when New Berlin was in desperate need of non-contaminated drinking water, Mayor Jack Chiovatero wasted no time in reaching out to the City of Milwaukee to establish a regional partnership. He exhibited considerable energy and earnestness as he attempted to secure the best deal possible for his constituents. It is thanks to his efforts that current and future generations of New Berliners can rest easy knowing that they will be able to access Lake Michigan water for years to come.

I happen to be one of the few aldermen who voted against that water contract, because I thought Milwaukee could have gotten a better deal – perhaps one similar to Cleveland’s Lake Erie regional partnership with its suburban communities. Nevertheless, I came away from the process with great respect for the way “Mayor Jack” fought on behalf of New Berlin, relentlessly advocating for its future prosperity.

Part of our agreement for water required that New Berlin take a hard look at housing demographics and public transportation alternatives. As I have said on more than one occasion, any deal for Lake Michigan water is about more than mere H2O; it’s about commercial, residential and industrial growth for an area that could not grow absent water. As that growth occurs, either better transportation connections are necessary to bring employees into the region or suitable residential options must be created to house them. Significant population growth requires one or the other – upgraded transit or more diverse housing.

Mayor Chiovatero and others had attempted to blend an element of “workforce” housing into the overall plan for New Berlin’s City Center. Those efforts should be commended. Rather than opening the floodgates for poor people to take over his city, I believe that the mayor was attempting to put New Berlin in the best position to prosper. Workers are simply part of the equation for any expanding municipality.

After reading and hearing various perspectives from all over the region regarding New Berlin’s affordable housing controversy, I am compelled to lend my voice to the discussion. As someone who grew up in public housing as a child and now spends a good deal of time analyzing prospective projects as an adult, I know a thing or two about the subject.

First, affordable housing is not code for slum, ghetto or crime. As chairman of the Housing Authority for the City of Milwaukee, I have read study after study on the relationship between crime and housing. Crime does not increase when affordable housing units are constructed. To the contrary, high-quality, affordable housing actually helps to lower crime in most cases. There is no reason to think that this type of housing would attract criminal activity in New Berlin.

Second, the strong subtext for those who harbor such assumptions is that low-income individuals and families are more inclined to commit crimes than to succeed in life. This is simply not the case. From Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln to Barack Obama, the redemptive rags-to-riches story is not just for U.S. presidents – it is our national narrative. It is absolutely possible for people to move from affordable housing to middle-class housing to wealthy neighborhoods. In fact, it is commonplace in our country.

Third, and perhaps most important, the proposed housing component for City Center would target individuals and families with an income of $35,000 per year, which cannot truly be categorized as low-income or poor. True, people who make $35,000 per year are probably poorer than other residents in New Berlin, but college graduates, white-collar professionals, teachers and other strong contributors to society fall within that salary range. To say that this project will be a magnet for poor people is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

To those New Berliners with anxiety about property assessments decreasing or criminal activity rising, I encourage you to maintain high standards for your neighborhoods and for your city. But I would also ask that you be open to making space for “non-wealthy” citizens who want to positively contribute to New Berlin’s social fabric and local economy. Just because a person happens to have a little less money, doesn’t mean that person is morally bankrupt.

Update: Link added for pdf of statement.

Just Wondering

Is it better for an area to have 1,000 poor people spread out among ten communities or for the 1,000 poor people to be limited to one community?

Rationalize your answers in the comments. Compare and contrast with the New Berlin housing development.

Update: Also wondering where all the commenters went. Perhaps it's that they don't want to answer this question?

Open Letter from SOPHIA

An Open Letter to Mayor Jack Chiovatero, Members of the New Berlin Plan Commission and Common Council Members

June 4, 2010

Like you, we know that the controversy related to the proposed City Center development is not about parking spaces or green spaces. It is about people living in fear – fear of poor people, fear of minorities, fear of each other. It is about the way we make public decisions. And it is about the kind of community New Berlin chooses to be.

We do not want New Berlin to be an elitist community that imports its servants, then sends them away every night. We don’t want to have only one kind of people in our communities. We want New Berlin to be an open, welcoming community that provides opportunity for all people! We believe that those who work and provide valuable services to our community deserve a chance to live here

We are even more concerned about the tone of the current debate. We do not believe that most New Berlin residents are closed minded and unwelcoming. We do not believe that those who resort to vandalism, threats and name-calling speak for the majority. We believe that New Berlin is a community that believes in due process and in a civil search for the common good. We cannot turn over control of our communities to people who play on others’ fears and prejudices.

As people of faith, we abhor the willingness of some to embrace blatant racism in their cause. We need our leadership to refuse to be intimidated or respond to threats. We need for you to stand up for what is right and to model to the rest of us the values of democracy and the common good.

We call you to continue your initial support of the MSP development at New Berlin’s City Center. Do not mistake the shrill voice of intolerance for the will of the people. We encourage you and stand behind you as you make decisions for a vibrant, welcoming community.


Rev. Amy Becker, Co-chair, SOPHIA Religious Leaders Caucus, New Berlin Resident
Rev. Ralph Schultz, Co-chair, SOPHIA Religious Leaders Caucus
Don Johnson, Chair, SOPHIA Workforce Housing Task Force
Betty Groenewold, SOPHIA President
Joel Gaughan, SOPHIA Vice-President, New Berlin Resident

New Berlin Update

A quick update on happenings in New Berlin.

MSP Development is hosting an informational open house Friday (June 4th) from 3PM-7PM at the New Berlin City hall on the proposal that has generated so much backlash.

Then the Plan Commission is meeting Monday June 7th. Curiously, they have amended their agenda to include a closed session at 5:30 PM-6PM to discuss the MSP Development and their options.

(g) Conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who is rendering
oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with
respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved, more
specifically:
 City Center multi-family development

There is a Privilege of the Floor in which anyone can speak for three minutes immediately following the closed session. The MSP proposal is the first item after the Privilege of the Floor.


Keep in mind that MSP Development has modified their proposal to include more parking, which is the sole reason why the Mayor asked for this reconsideration; to withdraw the waiver for the reduced parking. Given that MSP now meets the requirements, there apparently is no rationale for the Plan Commission to reject the proposal after MSP has jumped through all the hoops.


It should be an interesting meeting on Monday.

More Evidence It Wasn't Fannie Mae's Fault

Go read Krugman if you think the housing crash was the fault of Fanne Mae, Freddie Mac, or the Community Reinvestment Act.

June is Home Safety Month

I didn't even know there was a Home Safety Month, did you? Since this is a housing blog, we should at least mention this!


Basic Home Safety Tips (compiled by a co-worker from various websites below)

• Keep emergency numbers on every phone; include fire, police, your doctor(s), ambulance service and the poison control hotline (1-800-222-1222).
• Make sure your house number is visible from the street.
• Be sure to have at least one telephone in your house connected to a land-line, because cordless phones do not work in power outages. In addition, cell phones run out of power, and their service may be interrupted in an emergency situation.
• If there is more than one person in the household taking the same or similar medication, consider using color-coded medicine caps to prevent mixing the dosages.
• Remove clutter. Don’t leave objects on the stairs or on walkways.
• Arrange furniture to create clear pathways and reduce the risk of falling.
• Keep an emergency ladder for upper levels of your home.
  

National Association(s)/Helpful Websites
Home Safety Council
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Wisconsin Department of Health Services
American College of Emergency Physicians

Take a few moments to review the information & tips at the links. Children & older adults are particularly vulnerable to injuries.

New Berlin Development Opposition Flyer

A flyer came my way from those opposed to the New Berlin Development by MSP. I am reproducing it below, with my comments in italics.

_______________________________________________________

New Berlin residents
This time…let your voice be heard!

A large low-income housing project is in its final stages of approval at City Hall.

We seem to have missed the February meeting in which the Mayor and Plan Commission discussed this development. They said was open to the public;
but no one seemed to know about it…that is…until they voted to approve it.
(This seems to imply that they were hiding this nefariously. Public meetings are a matteer of public record and have to be duly advertised beforehand. )

The target is for families of 3 or 4 people that earn less than $30k/year. (This according to the May 3rd article in New Berlin Now). The Plan was approved by the Mayor and the Plan Commission on May 3rd for the NB City Center that could have some devastating affects on our city and its residents such as:
(Tell me, what is the minimum income threshold to live in New Berlin? 40K? 80K? 100K?)

▪ Decreased land and home values in the surrounding area

(Studies have shown this is not true)
▪ Tax increases to expand or change the current school system for new kids

(Not true. The school system can easily absorb the estimated number of students.)
▪ A possible increase in security for local businesses

(Low income= criminal?)
▪A possible need for additional police presence

(That'd be true with any population increase)
▪ Parking issues and increased traffic in the heart of New Berlin

(Considering this area is projected to be developed, that's a weird argument)
▪ A possible expansion of Milwaukee City’s busing system

(And this is bad...why?)
▪ A possible increase in crime

(Can they do that? List the same reason in three different ways?)
▪ Destruction of land that supports wildlife in the “City of Trees”

(Again, since this area is to be developed eventually, an odd complaint)

Businesses continue to leave the heart of New Berlin, which means jobs are leaving our area. The City’s efforts should focus on bringing in new businesses to the area, not more people seeking those jobs!

(Based on what I read, businesses left Central City because it has not developed as projected and there is not enough local population to support them. In other words, this is precisely why this development should occur!)


There is an upcoming event that you need to know about!

Monday, June 7, 2010
Plan Commission Meeting, 6:00 PM
Council Chambers at City Hall

This meeting is open to the public and there will be privilege of the floor during the 15 minutes prior to the meeting. Those of you who are concerned about this development and the direction of your city, make a statement by coming to the meeting.


Mayor Chiovatero voted for this plan. His phone number is 262-797-2441. His email address is jchiovatero@newberlin.org.
The local Alderwoman for District 5 is Deena Liska. Her phone number is 262-424-4886. Her email address is dliska@newberlin.org.
(And what is yours?)

Spread the word - whatever the district - this is the heart of your city.

_______________________________________________________________

Many of those objections-if not all-would be true of ANY development. So why have I not heard of them protesting any other kind of development such as a middle-income single-family subdivision? After all, generally homeowners have more kids than apartment dwellers, so that's a bigger impact on schools. Let's see, hmm...fears of crime, fears of public transit....what's the word I'm looking for here, I can't quite think of it. I'm sure it'll come to me eventually.

The Political Environment: Clean Water Action Council Catalogs Sprawl Damage To Wisconsin

Anyone pushing for more freeways, more subdivisions full of single-family homes, more strip shopping centers without including, or even considering, any other options, should read this:

The Political Environment: Clean Water Action Council Catalogs Sprawl Damage To Wisconsin

This jumped out at me:

The costs of providing community services have skyrocketed as homes and businesses spread farther and farther apart, and local governments are forced to provide for widely spaced services. Owners of these dispersed developments seldom pay the full government costs of serving them, forcing the rest of us to subsidize them with higher taxes at the local, state and federal level.