Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

New 5-Story Mixed-Use Development Proposed for High Street

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development New 5-Story Mixed-Use Development Proposed for High Street

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 79 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #461799

    rory
    Participant

    surber17 said:
    So here is an argument that I think I’m seeing “Maybe we shouldn’t build nice new buildings for renters because it will move good people out of the current overpriced crappy house they currently rent” …….. I really don’t think you need to worry about the neighborhood going downhill because of new/better housing stock. All this will do is up the desire to live there and thus up the value of the land. I said this before on another thread, but the only way we can get slum lords (and that’s what they are, my friend is one of them) to really start taking care of their properties is to up the competition around them.

    And I hope that that is the case, that competition will spur some renovations. But I also think that the neighborhood culture will hinder it. There are a lot of behaviors that get a blind eye turned because they are students. Imagine if the project based Section 8 developments in Weinland Park had street parties every spring that shut down Fourth, burned cars and pelted police with bottles. The National Guard would be there the next day evicting people at bayonet point. It doesn’t happen on Woodruff or the other streets that in any other context would be termed as civil unrest. I think that is what will kill redevelopment and renovation.

    #461800

    SusanB
    Participant

    Walker said:

    Is there any way that the University District Area Commission or The City of Columbus can limit or restrict Section 8 conversions/applications in this area to clear that option off the table for campus landlords?

    There is no legal way to limit Section 8 vouchers- where the tenant brings the voucher to the landlord. That is currently what most if not all “affordable” (read low income) housing is shooting for these days. the days of “certified” Section 8 units is over (where the structure itself is directly subsidized and restricted to low income tenants). However anything built with Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) must be rented to people at 30-60 percent AMI. The most profitable way to do this is with Section 8 voucher clients, as that vouchers now pay way above market rate in most areas. Otherwise the LIHTC homes are limited in that they can only charge as rent up to 30% of the monthly income of the low income tenant. SO basically LIHTC housing is designed (incentivised) for the vouchers. Neat trick.

    #461801

    shirtandpants
    Participant

    Honest question here: where DO you people think that Section 8 housing should go? Nobody wants it in their neighborhoods, so where should we put it? Where do you expect that Section 8 residents and other low-income folks will move when they get priced out of their own neighborhoods?

    The irony here, of course, is that the people who seem to be the most vocal opponents of Section 8 housing are the ones who apparently moved into low-income areas on purpose, presumably for the low cost of housing. I’m just really confused about why, if you are so anti-Section 8 housing, did you move into an area full of it? So you could get a bargain house and bragging rights when you finally run all the poor people out and your neighborhood becomes cool? Franklinton, Merion Village, Hungarian Village, OTE, and others all seem to be vying for this right now….so where are all of those poor people supposed to go when you run them out?

    Seriously, please someone answer this because it makes no sense to me that a board full of people could be this selfish.

    #461802
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    shirtandpants said:
    Honest question here: where DO you people think that Section 8 housing should go?

    Everywhere. Section 8 housing should be spread as evenly as possible throughout all communities and not consolidated into specific areas.

    shirtandpants said:
    Seriously, please someone answer this because it makes no sense to me that a board full of people could be this selfish.

    I originally asked a simple question to find out if Area Commissions had any say on Section 8 housing. I don’t live in the University District, so I have no self-interest in how much or how little section 8 is in that neighborhood.

    Don’t be so quick to assume people’s opinions are simply a matter of selfishness.

    #461803

    cbus11
    Member

    I think the issue is generally that there is a threshold in percentage of section 8 housing where it may become a burden to neighborhood health. Ideally an area has a healthy mix of demographics, owner occupants, renters and some would add students.

    The problem usually lies when unscrupulous landlords use section 8’s generally higher than market rate rents to subsidise property that barely meets acceptability standards. The landlords see little need to fix up the properties as other landlords are doing the same in an area and this takes on a downward spiral as the tenants have little to care about. I think many have an issue with section 8 density more than section 8 housing.

    eta- I started writing this before Walker’s post. I think he answered it much more succinctly then I have.

    #461804

    The Section 8 element and project people contingent is great it contributes to the diversity and creativity…seriously, these projects and residents are often times crime magnets and draw all the mommy, daddy, baby, drama, crime and drugs. Sad to say, but only so very true. Too much money is to be made in this business and afforable housing advocates and investors (the orgs that promote it and super nrich that get all the tax breaks to invest in it) by the elites to keep it out where it has already existed. The best defense is a very vocal neighborhood opposition…keeping it out of WP will be like boiling the ocean…good luck

    Section 8 should be deconcentrated whenever and where-ever possible…Dublin and Marysville, for example probably have 0 percent. This isn’t fair either to places like WP that are burdened with so much of this demographic and the issues and probelems it brings with it

    #461805

    labi
    Participant

    shirtandpants said:
    The irony here, of course, is that the people who seem to be the most vocal opponents of Section 8 housing are the ones who apparently moved into low-income areas on purpose, presumably for the low cost of housing.

    The irony here, of course, is that the people who seem to be the most vocal defenders of concentrated Section 8 housing are the ones who apparently have never lived in a neighborhood that has it.

    Also interesting is that people who apparently have never used a Section 8 voucher or talked to anyone who has seem to be quick to assume that all “Section 8 people” prefer to live in neighborhoods overwhelmed by crime, violence, and unemployment.

    #461806

    jimbach
    Participant

    shirtandpants said:The irony here, of course, is that the people who seem to be the most vocal opponents of Section 8 housing are the ones who apparently moved into low-income areas on purpose

    If one were to think about this for a bit the reason would be obvious – people who don’t live in neighborhoods with low-income housing have little or no opinion on the matter, because it doesn’t affect them in any way. But your inability to come to this understanding is expected, since, to quote A.E. Housman, “Three minutes’ thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time.”

    #461807

    berdawn
    Member

    shirtandpants said:
    Honest question here: where DO you people think that Section 8 housing should go? Nobody wants it in their neighborhoods, so where should we put it? Where do you expect that Section 8 residents and other low-income folks will move when they get priced out of their own neighborhoods?

    The irony here, of course, is that the people who seem to be the most vocal opponents of Section 8 housing are the ones who apparently moved into low-income areas on purpose, presumably for the low cost of housing. I’m just really confused about why, if you are so anti-Section 8 housing, did you move into an area full of it? So you could get a bargain house and bragging rights when you finally run all the poor people out and your neighborhood becomes cool? Franklinton, Merion Village, Hungarian Village, OTE, and others all seem to be vying for this right now….so where are all of those poor people supposed to go when you run them out?

    Seriously, please someone answer this because it makes no sense to me that a board full of people could be this selfish.

    I’m not sure how much you know about Section 8 housing, so I will start by explaining there are four types of subsidized housing: vouchers that a landlord may choose to accept; multiple, multi-unit buildings owned by an individual or company that are federally designated (for 25-years) and rented to individuals and families; very large multi-unit buildings that are owned an operated by a municipal organization (the CMHA in this case), and tax-credit units that are typically mid-size complexes that are rented to income-eligible individuals and families for 15 years before being able to be sold as market rate (I’ve not seen evidence this works in Columbus). The majority of the subsidized housing in Weinland Park is federally designated and new tax credit units are in the works.

    Increasing the percentage of non-market rate housing does nothing other than make it more affordable for investors to purchase and less likely that individuals and families with any other option will choose that particular neighborhood. Distributing subsidized housing throughout a county is more expensive but ultimately better serves those who need it by providing them with a neighborhood with more assets.

    #461808

    jimbach
    Participant

    But it’s always more convenient to warehouse poor people in a few neighborhoods, so most people can ignore their existence.

    #461809
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    jimbach said:
    But it’s always more convenient to warehouse poor people in a few neighborhoods, so most people can ignore their existence.

    Why do you hate poor people?

    #461810

    SusanB
    Participant

    Another great irony about LIHTC houses is that none of the developers (CHP, NRP, etc.) live anywhere near the crap that they build. They (the upper tier of the employees of the corporations) always seem to live out in the wealthy burbs.

    #461811

    jimbach
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Why do you hate poor people?

    It’s self-loathing, mostly. :-)

    #461812

    Unfortunately, free housing is not a constitutional right and I don’t believe we owe these folks a decent place to live. We owe them an environment and society that treats everyone equally and fairly (regardless of race or social class) where they can work and earn a living not free housing, free heat, free food, free heathcare, free phone, free utilities, etc.

    WTF..we are creating a culture of dependency compliments of Uncle Boob and Sugga daddy Uncle Sam (BTW that is you and me and every other working stiff trying to pay their own way in the world) Then they head to UDF to buy a lottery ticket and smokes and trade their food allotments for cash for more booze and 80% of African American Children are being born and raised by unwed mothers under 20…so the cycle continues

    The other economics of this housing model for anyone looking under the hood and doing a deep dive is that Affordable Housing and its advocates and zealots aka (subsidized) by organizations like CPO, developing these projects with LIHTC is that they get tax benefits they pass to the ultra rich buying these bonds and general limited partnerships that they can use to offset taxes on other passive investments read stock dividends and interest on certificates of deposit (pay the leadership to live in New Albany or UA) and then charge the tax payer and government ($850 rents Section 8 voucher) for an apartment that on the real market might rent for $550.00 -so they make more of a margin – a serious racket or passive tax breaks to offset passive income i.e non- W2.

    This is a game (business enterprise) with big money on the line, which is why you will not see the deconcentration in places like Weinland Park that is needed and once again a royal fucking for the average working tax payer (who is getting hosed) in these schemes….they are paying way too much for the housing that is being given the poor and then paying more in tax breaks to the ultra rich benefiting from underwriting a (no risk investment) imho. The developers then tell everyone how great the “economic development” is for the neighborhood and people where they locate it, but never live with or near “affordable” housing concentrated in a dense urban place themselves. More Affordable housing needs to be in the ex-urbs where the users can send their kids to better schools and perhaps break the cycle, but this won’t happen in my lifetime

    #461813

    cbustransit
    Participant

    not even touching that one…not even getting close to it…no way, noooooo thank you

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 79 total)

The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: