Schaefer proposed a new housing development with homes in the $115,000 to $125,000 price range for low- and moderate-income owners. Hess told the commissioners that Madison already has housing available in the below-$100,000 price range. Schaefer said many of those homes are older houses.
Commissioner Scott Delzer agreed with Schaefer, describing many of the older, below-$100,000 homes in Madison as "fixer-uppers" that would require significant modernization to make them similar to a newly-constructed house [Chuck Clement, "City Moves Ahead with Tax Increment District," Madison Daily Leader, 2008.05.21].
Mr. Schaefer and Commissioner Delzer are correct: many of the houses currently available for less than the LAIC's $120,000 affordability criterion are older structures, and many could use some renovation. But Schaefer and Delzer both operate from the unstated and incorrect assumptions that old is bad and that everyone wants a house similar to a newly constructed house. Consider the beauty pictured here, the home built by Madison's first mayor at 401 NE 1st. You don't see newly constructed homes with that sort of character.Instead of dedicating $330,500 to building 11 new dwellings, might not the city have an interest in supporting the restoration of existing dwellings? Consider this radical notion: instead of providing a $330,500 subsidy to a single developer, the city could divide that money into $10,000 renovation incentives for 33 existing homes... which just happens to be the number of Madison homes I find listed this morning on HomeViewSiouxFalls.com for under $120,000. $10,000 could go a long way toward helping each of those homes move on the market and encouraging low- and middle-income buyers to move in and fix up these old gems.
Again, think big picture: What would make Madison look better? 11 typical new dwellings in one cluster out back of the strip mall, or 33 existing houses all over town with new owners ready to renovate?
Your objection to the special dispensation given to the single developer is well-grounded. It's a shame to allow the development to suck up land and resources when the city could use investment in restoring its grand old homes and other buildings, big and small alike.
ReplyDeleteCory, for as often as you and I disagree, you have found this issue on which we think alike! I also need to do some more checking, but I believe the city attorney (advising the city on this issue) is, as a law firm, collecting rent for Mr Schaefer and his partner on other properties. Perhaps a little conflict of interest there?
ReplyDeleteDRK
well-maintained "vintage" houses always lend something to cultural tourism. And cultural tourism is always interesting, particularly when industry is struggling.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember that house. Of course, it's hard to remember every inch of a town one hasn't seen in 16 years, :-( And I wasn't particularly interested in architecture back then, anyway.
Fight sprawl.
When I was looking at houses in South Dakota and Wyoming back in 2003-2004, I hardly ever went to see anything but historic houses -- or at least ones that were several decades old.
ReplyDeleteThey are better built than most new ones today, they have more character, and they are usually cheaper. If they have an Achilles heel, it is poor energy efficiency.
I ended up buying a house built right around the time Hitler invaded Russia. It's not really old-looking like some of the other houses around Deadwood and Lead, but I don't regret my decision. As for energy efficiency: My "90-plus-percenter" furnace has more than paid for itself in the two years since I installed it.
If you do the math, the only way Grant Circle can be feasible, considering the cost of infrastructure and buildings costs of $125 a square foot (not fancy) and each lot priced at $20,000 or so, is if they are all Governor's Houses. That would fill a need, but to say $120,000 per house doesn't work as affordable housing when you end up with a 960 square foot home. If the City of Madison does like it did in its industrial parks, purchase several bare acres of land, get grants for infrastructure (streets, water, sewer, sidewalks) then market those inexpensive non-profit lots to contractors for those who need affordable housing, you'll actually have homes that are affordable and well-planned. Nobody needs to make big profits on the backs of taxpayers. That's all this particular TIF District is doing, and everyone at the City including the Mayor, is buying into it. DUH
ReplyDeleteI don't remember this house either, but I don't remember going to that part of town much. We used to live on 5th street, and never crossed the highway one (two?) block south.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I find the price point for low-moderate income homes rather high. That's 2-3x their income if we imagine it being 30k-50k, and I'd put that at moderate not low income. That's the high part of where you should buy a home, not the low end! (But then, I live in a $100,000 house and love my $400/mo payments.)
BTW, hi Cory! Remember me?
AnnMarie -- xradiographer's sister? Sure!
ReplyDeleteYou're not the only one who thinks $120K might be a bit high for real working-class affordability, especially on Madison's collusively depressed wages.