That article really relies on some pretty rickety arguments with no good data to back any of it up (imo). The city has not been “demanding that the private market soley solve the issue”, they’ve been tackling it head on a number of different ways (penny on the rate, bonds, Neighborhood Revitalization areas, etc) and asking the private market to step up and respond to a call for more diversified housing [especially when the rest of the city has been supporting the infrastructure and cultural investments that make this “private market” so attractive] is not some pie-in-the-sky request, it’s actually quite common in many cities and data is showing it can and has worked well. Is the city’s current approach perfect? No, it’s hamstrung by the GOP legislature that ties its hands on some commonly used solutions simply for political (see contributions) reasons, and is still wrestling with finding other ways to tackle this problem. But when Mises pops up you can bet that it will usually be extremely heavy on “free market” dogma and less on finding proven solutions. Just my two cents.
Hey JJ, thanks for the reply. And understood about Mises; I’m not trying to be political, but I believe every view has some truth to its perspective.
I think it’s valid to realize this is an issue that didn’t pop up overnight, and the silver-bullet solution likely won’t either. I agree with the article that the focus on improving housing standards instead of focusing on increasing housing units has played a large roll in creating the issue, and priced people out. I believe we need more multi-tenant focused development that’s not these new complexes targeting millennials with all the amenities so they can charge $2.50/SF. How can our leadership drive the development of this type of housing product where the cost of construction is comparable to the income of those who are targeted to occupy?
Without accurate statistics, and also lacking legitimate ideas for solving the “Problem” based on factual data, “Affordable” “Housing” seems nothing more than a political bargaining chip.
Also, the ideology that “homelessness” should even be considered to be a problem in the same murky expanse of “affordable” “housing” is absurd and truly fails to be proven to have a connection by any logical or factual evidence.
I’ll admit that I’m not that plugged into the thought processes of activists or politicians around this particular issue, but I certainly hope that’s not the case. I recognize that there aren’t many “micro-units” or whatever out there being proposed, but that because developers are trying to maximize profits and that’s not where the money is. They’re going to have to be enticed through subsidies or forced through regulation.
This is way outside of DTR but think worth posting. It’s a shame it’s going to be car dependent. Is this even on a bus line?
A Virginia-based nonprofit organization is looking to build seven apartment buildings in Raleigh.
Volunteers of America National Services filed site plans with the city this week to build The Sussex Apartments, a seven-building apartment complex across three tracts of land near the intersection of North Rogers Lane and Interstate 87. Together the buildings would hold 216 apartments, including one-, two- and three-bedroom units.
Volunteers of America is a faith-based organization dedicated to providing assistance services and affordable housing to those in need.
Last year, Volunteers of America started construction on 353 units of affordable housing, according to a release by the company.
I don’t know how far the New Bern BRT is going to go, (I’m guessing to the Beltine) but if it extended up to almost 540 this would be really close.
While it’s not an ideal location, adding to the housing stock helps.
Yeah there’s definitely no transit options there. At least it’s walkable to the new elementary school and Anderson Point Park, which is pretty nice. This is essentially an expansion of the dozen or so townhome buildings already located there.
I ask this in all seriousness, what mandates that affordable housing has to be in a walkable neighborhood? That’s not something that’s afforded to a million+ market rate residents in Wake County.
Let’s face it, nearly everyone in Wake has a car, even residents of affordable housing that’s not a medicaid facility. Why else would we have suburban style affordable/subsidized housing in the city center surrounded by surface parking lots? If we have residents that need affordable housing that don’t have cars, then we should specifically plan for that and make that housing more affordable by not providing parking. We shouldn’t default to providing inefficient land use solutions based on the car, on the most expensive land in the city, for the exception rather than the rule. If it’s a demonstrated need, then let’s solve for it with appropriate urban and walkable solutions, or by placing the housing to be supported by the best transit service that is available.
Depending on how “affordable” we’re talking about, it helps to not NEED to own a vehicle. If we are talking teachers, police, etc level of income, no, walkability is not important. If we are talking Walmart associate, Food Lion cashier, Bojangles cook, then being able to live without a car does makes a difference. It’s all relative. When you are the poorest of the poor, a car means a monthly payment you can’t afford, or costly repairs you can’t afford.
Exactly. Cost of ownership (possible car payment, auto insurance, use tax) and maintenance of a vehicle can be costly, especially if you have to put lots of miles on it just getting to and from work. And for some people, having to rely on a car that may be unreliable (because it’s all they can afford) can in some cases cost them their jobs if they’re left stranded and unable to make it to work reliably.
There should be a mix of housing available for a mix of incomes across the city, IMHO.
[quote=“scotchman, post:128, topic:329”]
It’s a shame it’s going to be car dependent
My original comment was reference to cost of ownership of a car that someone needing “affordable housing” may not be able to afford. I’m guessing that for most anyone that has a car, ownership cost is one of the biggest items on their budget.
I have always been a buy 3-4 year old used and drive it until can not keep it running. I guess my cost is >$5000 a year. Currently driving a 15yo and do most of maintenance my self (oil change, breaks…) and average less than 15,000 miles a year. If my income was say 30k ( fortunately is much higher) that would be a huge expense.
Just a quick list of things government can do for affordable housing.
Allow greater density (smaller houses on smaller lots)
Support public transportation
Removed rules that drive of development cost
Remove fees on new construction (many only for affordable housing).
Changes in building code that do not effect safety, such as min room sizes
Maybe getting into over reach, but raise local minimum wages limits.
Every one does not need to live in 1500+ sq ft house on 1/4 acre if can not afford it.
I’m sure there are other ways as well, feel free to make suggestions. maybe can come up with list to provide CC.
The first thing a new Council or Mayor needs to do after the election is hire an outside/independent land use consulting firm to review our UDO and make a list of all code sections that promote disparity in housing development.
Right now the code effectively allows 2 types of townhome development. You have a low end development with a large parking field in front, and a high end product with rear entry garages which actually requires a road in front and a private alley in the back, adding to the cost. There are many provisions in the that severely limit and effectively disallow practical development of a front entry garage townhome, which I view as a mid range product. You have low end with shared parking and high end with custom design and hidden garage doors. No real in between. You literally have to have an attorney to negotiate what the city is allowed to regulate by law in order to get front entry garage Townhomes approved. I don’t think this is right because the front entry garage by itself isn’t a problem. If you put 100 of them together you have a sea of garages, but put 3 together on an infill street instead of a McMansion and it does nothing to harm the neighborhood. The thing that bothers me most about this that if you want a garage, and a back yard, you’re effectively being forced to buy a single family detached home. I’m not talking about a huge backyard either. Just something other than an alley where you can have a grill, small table, a birdhouse or let your dog lay in the spot of grass. If it doesn’t take up any more room than an alley loaded townhome they should let people have that option and a scaleable middle product, with some of the 2 car TH on the lower end and some on the higher end. It promotes diversity in your housing.
After that I would look at the single family detached regs. There is no reason not to have an R-8 class with a 5000 sf lot size. You go R-2, R-4, R-6 then skip to R-10 which allows townhomes. Why not have that R-8 option? Why not have an R-20? Currently the Townhome lot widths start at 16’ and the single family detached lot widths start at what, 45’? Is it not possible to have a detached house narrower than 35’ (with 10’ in setbacks)? If you want a 34’ wide house, does it really have to be a duplex, townhome unit or jump through zoning and board of adjustment hoops? This is just encouraging the new single family detached homes being built in Raleigh to be above the median house level. If you had the option to build smaller you could have new houses at a wider range of price points.
To me, the net effect of both of those code sections is to promote development that’s either higher end or ultra low end. They’ve removed the middle ground from Townhomes and Single Family detached and are promoting a housing disparity between the haves and the have nots. Every time I look at the code I feel like the City wants everyone who can’t afford the median $330k home price to eventually live in an apartment and let the low end get gentrified out of existence.
This is especially grating when I see them holding John Kane hostage on affordable housing, when their own ordinance does more to discourage fair housing options than any single developer could ever do.
When the Cotton Mill’s renovation was envisioned a quarter century ago, it was done so with the idea that artists would buy them and that they’d provide housing for what today might be called young hipsters. After all, they were being renovated next door to a halfway house for federal furloughed prisoners and near a very dangerous public housing project. Who else was going to buy them? This was an example of a developer actually thinking about providing housing for an under served segment of the market. Well, as most of you know, that’s not who bought the units at the Cotton Mill. Its buyers were professionals, early empty nesters and those who yearned for a more urban lifestyle. Since its occupancy as a condominium, the units have been renovated, upscaled, and even featured in magazines. It was like Raleigh’s very own little Brooklyn experience.
The reason I share this story is that an intention in a free market system is just that: an intention. There’s no guarantee that an affordable product will remain so after its initial offering. The market will dictate where that goes in the future.
If we want to have housing that’s affordable, we need to look at all of the levers that can be pulled, but all the pulling in the World isn’t going to stop the free market from doing what the free market does. That said, you can probably pull some levers with how the housing is provided that will keep the values more reasonable over time. As others have suggested, you can create micro-units. You can also deprive a project of amenities that tend to drive prices higher like onsite gyms, pools, and other things. You can build them with 1 basic bathroom and don’t provide them with walk-in closets. You can also eliminate parking, or provide it only as a monthly rental option for those who need it. Lastly, you can choose to put it in less expensive locations where land values alone don’t drive future costs skyward.
That all said, none of these things will actually prevent future values from escalating. If we want there to be more affordability, we are going to have to build a program for it that may include the property be city owned, or have a voucher program to subsidize rents, or something. Building affordable housing today and leaving it to the market doesn’t work, unless you anticipate that the free market allows the property to fall into disrepair; We then have something all too common: slum lords.
Interesting article about NIMBY-ism in supposedly progressive cities (some MUCH more so than Raleigh). Most of it revolves around residents and “neighborhood activists” aggressively fighting affordable housing and transit plans in their areas.
“It’s a pretty short leap from ‘We don’t want homeless people living here’ to ‘We don’t want refugees’ or ‘We don’t want immigrants”
Ain’t this the truth. This kind of NIMBYism is in many ways xenophobia at its kindest and straight up racism at its worst. And this is in the Seattle and NYCs and San Franciscos of the world!
I really hope that we can get a city council that won’t bend to these types of people when it comes to affordable housing and transit (because they certainly do now).
I thought this nugget was appropriate for this thread. Zimmer development company, the developer purchasing the SE Corner of Peace and Capital requesting DX-40 also bid on the RBUS project. They said the included over 30% affordable housing and they didn’t even make it to the next round. Make of that what you will and I don’t have any other information about the RBUS project as it was a side comment in context of the Peace/Capital rezoning CAC meeting tonight but again, thought it was interesting and appropriate for this thread. They also said they would absolutely include AH in the Peace/Capital project and/or would contribute $1,000,001 (to better Kane) to the City’s fund.
Here is some outside the box thinking for forming coalitions that will support denser development by allowing multifamily housing in any part of town through rezoning. As has been mentioned here before. More housing being developed leads to more affordable housing. Time to break the stranglehold of the sfh?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/11/housing-crisis-single-family-homes-policy-227265
Durham making moves again while Raleigh leaders sit around… https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article232731762.html
Check out East College Park, Martin and Haywood, Idelwild Avenue in addition to previously well done mixed neighborhoods such as Halifax Court and Chavis Heights. Raleigh is committed to building 500+ affordable units per year and has committed a percentage of tax funding specifically to affordable housing. Not to say we couldn’t do more but people complain without acknowledging the great work that has been done and is currently under way.
As a new East College Park resident I agree.