A Home For Everyone Wrap-up

I attended the A Home For Everyone Conference which took place Wednesday & Thursday in scenic La Crosse.  There were many good workshops.  Attendees saw the numbers behind the Homeless Prevent & Rapid Rehousing programs around the state, learned the sobering statistics after the Point-In-Time Surveys (of homeless residents) around the state, listened to legislators discuss housing issues, found out what was happening housing-wise in La Crosse, networked, and more!

Speaker Sheridan had an amusing bit when talking to a candidate running in La Crosse.  He said (from my memory), "On your first day at the Capitol, you will walk up the steps and say to yourself, 'How did I get here?'  After six months, you will say to yourself, 'How did they get here?'"

It was a very successful conference which pleased me because I'm on the planning committee for the conference.  I'm told many of the PowerPoint presentations will be available online, and I will link to them when they're up.

Save the date for next year's conference in Stevens Point on July 27-28 with the Homelessness Conference taking place on July 26 at the same location-the Holiday Inn Stevens Point Conference Center. 

Renting Down

During the New Berlin fracas, one recurring claim I've seen is that New Berlin already has the second most number of affordable units in Waukesha County.  I'm not entirely sure if this is a thing to be proud of as Waukesha County in general does not do a very good  job of providing affordable housing.  It's sort of like a player on the Detroit Lions crowing that he scores the second most number of points on the team.  Well, good for ya, but know what?  Your team still stinks! (It pains me to write this, actually, because my grandfather was a die-hard Lions fan.)

But I thought I'd take some time to talk about this a bit.

Is it the number of subsidized housing buildings?  Surely not-New Berlin has only one apartment with 47 subsidized units for the elderly.  Is it tax-credit units?  I count three buildings of 145 tax-credit units.  All elderly.  Not something available to the general population.

What about the vouchers?  True, I believe the Director of the Housing Authority may have said at a meeting that New Berlin has the second most number of vouchers (around 80, I believe) in Waukesha County.  But the number of vouchers used in the city has been going down over the years as housing costs have increased.

Ah, but what about housing that are market-rate, using neither subsidies nor tax-credits?  While I can't say for certain how many are considered affordable, I did make some calls to a few apartments listing availability from a rental website.  While many had rents that officially started at a lower range, most places did not have units actually available (at that time) at a rate that would be considered affordable. 

The only exceptions were two developments funded with bonds issues by the New Berlin Housing Authority.  Those buildings, I'm told, "has a 20% set-aside to households at 50% of median income, unless it was financed prior to 1986, in which case it is 20% at 80% of median income."  Assuming (for argument's sake) those buildings have 100 units each, that's what, 40 units that targeted at non-elderly low-income people in a city of over 35,000 people.  Even if we double that or triple that, that's still not much.

You see, that's a big problem.  Just because a market-rate unit is affordable doesn't mean that it's being used by someone who should be able to afford it at around 30% of the household income.

The Public Policy Forum did a report on Milwaukee County's housing in May 2009 that showed that 48% of the units affordable to people with extremely low income (at or under 30% of Area Median Income) in Milwaukee County are rented by a household "renting down."

The housing market is a free market where higher income households have the ability to outbid lower income households for cheaper rental units in an effort to reduce their housing expenses.  Further enabling this trend are landlords who are typically more inclined to rent to higher income households as a way to protect themselves against potential loss.

Let's look at the Census American FactFinder estimates as a rough estimate of renting down.  It shows that 46.8% of New Berlin renters are paying less than 25% of their household income toward rent, similar to the Waukesha County average of 45.9%, compared to 39.9% of West Allis households and 37.2% for Milwaukee County. 

So what we're seeing is a higher percentage of households in Waukesha County and New Berlin paying a smaller part of their income toward rental costs.  In an ideal world, this would be reflective of housing affordability.  But realistically, with many communities limiting the number of multi-family housing (and indirectly, rental housing), this shows that higher-income households are pushing out those with lower incomes.  Just because a market-rate unit is "affordable" doesn't mean it's actually being used by someone with lower income.

More of this kind of analysis, please

I've read now & then individual articles on how some costs are hidden-for example, residential development out in the "country" often cost more than is realized in terms of infrastructure, extension of service area for emergency services, etc.

But this analysis really pulls it all together.  Surprisingly, big-box developments aren't the gold pot that communities assume they are. 

Big box stores such as WalMart and Sam’s Club, when analyzed for county property tax revenue per acre, produce barely more than a single family house; maybe $150 to $200 more a year, Katz said. (Think of all those acres of parking lots.) “That hardly seems worth all the heat that elected officials take when they approve such development,” he noted in a related, written presentation.

Mixed-use developments in towns brought in the most revenue, although admittedly there's a limited market for that kind of development even if there were no NIMBYism.

Potential tax revenue shouldn’t be the only factor in determining appropriate development for any community, of course — especially not flawed assumptions about which type of development brings in the healthiest tax revenue.

Waukesha County Budget Town Meetings

Waukesha County is having Town Hall meetings on the 2011 budget.  The first meeting was on July 13th, but you can still make the other two meetings.

Thursday, July 22 9 AM
Town Bank
850 W. North Shore Drive, Hartland
(Corner of CTH "KE" and STH "83")


Monday, July 26 6 PM
Waukesha County Courthouse
515 W Moreland BLVD, Room 350, Waukesha
(SW Corner of Pewaukee Road (Hwy J) & Moreland BLVD

Specialized transportation available with 72 hour notice at (262) 548-7902.

If you go, I would suggest you talk about the need to ensure there are enough services and programs for people with disabilities, the elderly, etc.  According to the data from Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, Waukesha County has an absurdly (to me) low county tax rate of $1.92 (I believe it's per per $1,000) for 2009/2010 when the state average is $3.86.  So crying about the high tax rates won't cut it here, especially since the individual muncipalities also have low tax rates.  One way communities & counties keep tax rates down is to not provide services, or to cut services.  Don't let them balance the budget on the back of the people who need assistance the most.

HACM does good

I attended the Housing Authority of City of Milwaukee's annual meeting this morning at Highland Gardens Community Room. While I am familiar with much of HACM's work, this meeting, with a PowerPoint presentation and their annual report, really put the story together for me.

I've known for a while that HACM is one of the more innovative housing authorities, from their embrace of Universal Design and Visitability for increased accessibility, to their adoption of green building principles in their newer buildings that even Sierra Club recognized.

But I didn't realize-despite my knowledge of some of the programs they have-how much of an effort they make not only to improve the lives of the residents, but also the neighborhoods.  Whether it be through education, health, employment, or through their community and supportive services, HACM has been a real asset to the residents of the City of Milwaukee. 

During the annual meeting, a researcher gave some highlights from a study showing that the average home price in HOPE VI neighborhoods rose quicker than home prices in the rest of the city (well, until the market crashed, and it didn't fall as far as the rest of the city did).  It showed that the Housing Authority's work has a beneficial effect on the city. 

HACM also has been preserving homes by purchasing foreclosed homes, often damaged, to renovate them and selling them so that the properties remain on the city tax rolls.

HACM is currently planning an ambitious make-over of the neighborhood known as Westlawn which I'm excited about.  Not just because of improved housing units, but also because of the use of Universal Design and Visitability, which will make Westlawn one of the most (physical) accessible neighborhoods.

I'm not saying that the housing authorities in the suburbs should be able to replicate all that HACM does, but a good housing authority knows that it's more than just a provider of shelter, but a part of the community.

Affordable Housing Forum Slide Show

If you're an affordable housing advocate in the area, and are feeling frustrated by the New Berlin's Plan Commission's decision to reverse their support for an affordable housing development, check out the slide show on the right of the affordable housing forum we co-hosted with SOPHIA in May. It will remind you that you're not alone in wanting our Waukesha County communities to offer housing opportunities for people of all income levels. One of our upcoming challenges will be to educate groups in our communities about the benefits of developing more affordable housing, and to show them that people who live in less costly housing have much in common with people who live in more costly housing.

New Berlin Rejects "Workforce Housing"

Last night's outcome was not unexpected as New Berlin's Plan Commission, led by Mayor Chiovatero rejected MSP's proposal for City Center workforce housing & senior apartments.

What did surprise me was how...cowardly the Plan Commission acted.  First, they prohibited non-residents from speaking during their self-styled "Privilege of the Floor" so that advocates such as myself (I work for an organization serving people with disabilities, and our service area includes New Berlin) were denied an opportunity to speak.

Then they didn't even give MSP a chance to respond to the letter the city staff sent.  If you read my previous post on it, you'll know that there were some dubious items in the letter, and I speculated that some of those items were sprung at the last minute.  MSP has confirmed that some of those issues were not brought up previously.

The issues addressed during tonight's meeting are new points that were just recently brought to MSP's attention.  Tonight's decision leaves no opportunity for the developer to revise the project plans based on these new points.

Essentially, New Berlin brought up some new concerns after MSP submitted their revised plans, but then gave MSP no opportunity to respond to those concerns.  But some of those concerns would've applied to previous versions of the project, so if they have not brought up those concerns in the past, they'll be on very, very shaky ground and wide-open to a lawsuit.

MSP City Center issues in New Berlin

In light of tonight's Plan Commission meeting in New Berlin, I thought it'd be helpful to review what exactly the parking requirements are since that's what has drawn the most attention (At the link, do a search for parking spaces and select the first result).  Keep in mind that city staff has recommended that MSP's revisions be rejected. Below, listing only the relevant items in city codes:

Elderly housing One space per dwelling unit. Plan Commission may reduce the parking requirement when assisted care is provided. Plan Commission may require an additional 10% of the parking requirement for guest parking.


Multiple-family dwellings Two spaces per dwelling unit plus 1/10 of a space per dwelling unit shall be provided for guest parking. A minimum of one space per dwelling unit shall be provided in an attached or underground garage.

In the City Center PUD, we see that they have similar parking requirements as outlined above, but they add the underground requirement to the elderly housing.  There is nothing about carports (that I can see) in the PUD codes.

Also, in the accessory uses section of the city codes, we see that

Carports, provided that the following provisions are met:

     [a] The carport is a supplement to a required attached or detached garage; and

     [b] The carport does not extend into the front yard.

    
 
The first thing we need to figure out is what the MSP Development is.  There are two components to it-a "workforce housing" of 80 units in three buildings and a "elderly housing" of 100 units in a building that will be built in two phases.  I'm told that MSP has dropped the second phase of 24 market-rate senior housing in order to meet the parking requirements, which would make it 76 units now, not 100.  I think this is significant, as I'll explain later.

In the letter recommending denial, they list nine points, of which three (#2, #3 & #9) has to do with parking. To summarize;

• Carports are not allowed in this context since they are being used to replace the underground parking that MSP allegedly did not provide in enough numbers.
• They claim that the workforce housing is six short on parking spaces. They claim that the senior housing component has six extra spaces, but that they only have 76 underground spaces (100 is required).  
• They also point to the need for an updated water management plan due to the greater size of the parking lot. 

It should be noted that if MSP has dropped the 2nd phase of the development, the parking calculations change.  They now have more than enough parking for senior housing, and given that a chunk of the senior housing is gone, the surface parking for workforce housing can be extended, which is probably what MSP was counting. 

But even if Phase II is still on track, I think it's rather petty of them to say MSP does not meet the total parking requirements when it's basically the same lot. The update of the water management plan may be valid, but the question is, did they say that up front, or did they wait until the last minute to bring that up?

Of the other six points:

#1 has to do with the zoning permit.  Apparently the City is saying that MSP has to request that the first zoning permit be dropped before they'll approve a new zoning request with the changes.  I don't know about you, but asking the City to drop the request is the last thing I'd do given their behavior in this process.

#4 isn't even a real point, it's a paragraph saying the next points were concerns of the City staff.

#5 reflects some confusion about the status of Phase II, with the City understandably being concerned about the facade of the side of the building where Phase II would adjoin Phase I.  The City would like to see the facade finished in an appropriate manner. 

#6 is the desire of city to see more bricks/stones used in the building for better long-term maintenance.  Point to me where they say this to single-family home developers. 

#7 has to do with more landscaping.

#8 is concern over the lack of "real defined public space" in the plans. Quite frankly, given that the basic layout of the MSP plan has been the same throughout the process, I find it curious that they're now bringing this up.  If they have brought this up in the past, how did the MSP plan get so far in the process?

I'm not an expert in th permit process, but given that the MSP proposal apparently was pretty far along before the uproar, it seems as if the City now is intentionally throwing barriers in the way, trying to drag out the process.

Transportation & Housing/Economic Development

I came across two things today that, although coming from different sources, had a common theme:  mass (rail) transportation  and development.  First, via The Political Environment, the Wisconsin Technology Council has a post about mass transportation and the economic development that is sure to follow in its path:

In communities such as Brookfield, Oconomowoc and Watertown, which are proposed stops along the Milwaukee-to-Madison route, public and private leaders are hustling to persuade planners to build stations in their towns. Why? They expect a mix of commercial, retail and residential development to follow the trains like a caboose.

Tom Still notes the absurdity of raging against a mild $7.5 million per year subsidy over the proposed high-speed train when "Milwaukee’s Zoo interchange, the mix-master for I-94, I-894 and Highway 45, could cost $2.3 billion to rebuild once work begins in 2012."

And then in my mailbox I found a paper by an attorney, Robert Voelker, that discusses transit-oriented development (TOD).  It notes the economic growth that follows (rail) transit stops, and the risk of gentrification pushing out low-income people who, because they least can afford car ownership, often need access to mass transportation.  He suggests that communities ensure a mixed-income neighborhood by ensuring that there are affordable units created within the new developments.

Though there may be fears that market-rate apartment residents will not want to live near lower income people, Generation Y—a vast majority of the current apartment rental market—is much more open to multiculturalism and urban lifestyles and find mixed-income communities to be more interesting and less homogeneous places to live.

Waukesha County Housing bits

I have to attend a meeting soon, but before I do, here's some housing happenings in Waukesha County for your review.

First, a new proposal in Delafield.

The proposed development is intended to promote a more pedestrian-friendly and neighborly urban atmosphere than the more traditional Lake Country homes often built in less-densely planned developments usually featuring larger lots and a more-open environment.

Newly appointed Plan Commissioner Matthew Katz questioned the appropriateness of the design.

"It reminds me of something you might see on the East Side (of Milwaukee). Is that something we want in Delafield? Delafield is a rural community where people are used to houses on large lots," he added.

I'm seeing this again and again-people want a pedestrian-friendly environment, but are unwilling to increase the density and reduce the number of parking required that would create that environment. 

Speaking of parking, things didn't go so well for MSP as their parking changes were reviewed by staff in New Belin. It remains to be seen if MSP simply didn't add up the slots correctly, or if New Berlin moved the goal posts.  But this bit was puzzling:

There are also problems with the type of parking for the senior housing apartments. MSP plans show that some of the required 112 spaces would be provided by a carport. But city regulations do not permit the use of carports

The senior housing apartments would require 112 spaces. Of those, 100 would have to be underground or attached garage parking spaces, but MSP is proposing only 76 such spaces, city planners say.

Additionally, MSP would use a carport for the remainder of the required parking. However, carports aren't allowed to be used to meet the required parking spaces; they are only permitted for extra parking, city planners say.

Underground parking or attached garage parking is required to meet part of New Berlin's parking requirements, but carports cannot count toward that requirement?!?

Note: Minor spelling & grammar mistakes corrected after initial posting. 

Mis-Visions in New Berlin

It is apparent, even before MSP's proposal, that the City Center wasn't working out exactly as envisioned by New Berlin residents.  But was that vision accurate?  Or rather, the memory of that vision?  Jane Ford-Stewart explores that vision in NewBerlinNow.

Overall, it was a fair, even charitable, article that digs at the misperceptions about the City Center and where they may have come from.

What I found interesting was that it refutes some claims by opponents.  More specifically:

1) Opponents claim that City Center was always intended to be luxury condos & that the workforce housing is incompatible with that vision.

While many officials believe the vision calls for specialty shops and high-end condos, neither concept was formalized into the City Center Plan or into the city's 2020 Comprehensive Plan, said Carolyn Esswein, a consultant who was the project manager on the comprehensive plan.


Further, she pointed out that not only condominiums but townhouses and apartments already have been built in the center. Apartments are allowed under the center's zoning, Esswein said.

2) Claims that there is too much density are dubious in light of the fact that the land is zoned for exactly that.

The 180-unit project strikes some officials as being too dense for the City Center, but the zoning calls for medium to high density of residential development, Esswein said.

3) This is a new one for me, but Alderman Ament claimed that his recollection was of a rural character:

In the upcoming Plan Commission review, Ament strongly advocates creating an identity for the center, which was a goal of the 1999 plan. The city needs to be able to set the City Center apart from other commercial areas, he said.


His own recollection of discussions about the original plan is that the centers was to have a rural character or feel to it, he said.

I'm simply staggered by this.  This may be true (I wasn't there), but it's hard for me to imagine how realistic a rural character would be given the level of traffic around the City Center on National, Moorland & Sunnyslope.

As I noted in a previous post, the plans do call for changes to be made should market conditions change.  People have said the land should simply languish until the economy changes.  I'm doubt the same people saying that would be supportive of compensating the owners of such properties for the loss of development potential.

Sign a Petition for Affordable Housing

Take action to support the proposed affordable housing development for New Berlin's seniors and workforce. Click here to sign the online petition encouraging the New Berlin Plan Commission to approve this development.