The cover story this issue is an important one because it highlights one of the ongoing struggles between the private and public sectors with regard to property ownership.
John Lewis Community Services is developing 10 single-family units of affordable housing within a single neighborhood in Davenport, at the corner of 12th and Myrtle streets, known as Taylor Heights. The development, called Cobblestone Terrace, is a publicly subsidized program designed to help low-income residents achieve home ownership. Fifty dollars of each participant's monthly rent, to be established in the range of $450 to $600, will be set aside for the future down payment of a home of their choosing.
The Taylor Heights neighbors have organized in protest of this project because they fear it will degrade their property values due to the high density of rentals this development creates. Taylor Heights already consists of approximately one-third rentals, and this addition will further exacerbate the problem.
The rub is in the lack of process available to residents to participate in deciding whether such projects are constructive or destructive to their neighborhoods and individual properties. If Cobblestone as it was originally planned had not required a zoning change to proceed, it is highly probable that the neighbors would not have known about the development until it was too late to object. As it is, there is not much they can do.
It is not incumbent legally, although most would agree it is ethically, upon John Lewis to notify neighboring property owners of their intentions to develop property they own. Considering John Lewis owns well over 20 lots of varying sizes throughout the community, this is a disturbing lack of process. Any one of us could be facing a similar development initiative without knowing. The question becomes: Should neighboring private-property owners have a right to be notified when the public sector, or not-for-profits that operate with public funds, purchase property in largely residential areas? At a minimum, residents should be notified should such property be put to a public use. It seems that property owners should have a voice and/or some control over the impact of such public use as it relates to their own uses and values.
John Lewis is once again embroiled in a dispute with a neighborhood over one of its housing projects (remember the Ecumenical Housing project and the Gold Coast?) and little if any resolution appears to be forthcoming. John Lewis has proceeded with its own agenda without consensus of any kind with Taylor Heights residents, claiming a defeatist position of not being able to please residents with any compromise.
In fairness to Taylor Heights in this particular case, to claim the Cobblestone project is a home-ownership program is thoroughly disingenuous on John Lewis' part. The fact is that these are rentals with a set-aside for a down payment to accrue for at least five to 10 years to be meaningful in the market, and that set-aside can be used to buy property anywhere in the community, not just Taylor Heights. In all probability, the Cobblestone units will function as low-income rentals, and as history has shown us time and again, high-density, low-income rentals usually fail as a model for positive housing environments. Enough of this departure from what should be scattered-site-housing policy for low-income projects, and both the community and the state should re-evaluate John Lewis' programming and housing developments with far more scrutiny and continuity.
Perhaps we could establish an organized community forum composed of private-sector property owners to evaluate such projects using criteria that meet the goals of both the private and public sectors. We need affordable housing, but not at the expense of our established neighborhoods' property values. There is already enough burden on those neighborhoods to sustain value and retain residents who own and contribute to the tax base of our cities.
Finally, John Lewis is essentially in the property-development business. Of the $2.6-million Cobblestone development, John Lewis will receive a $200,000 developers fee. As taxpayers, we should also be evaluating the merits of this project based on all those benefiting, including John Lewis. Is the developer's fee the only source of revenue for this project? Is the $50 set-aside a reasonable one? Is the life of the set-aside viable? Does John Lewis hold title to these properties and pay taxes on them while they are rented, or is this project exempt? How much will be earned from the tax credits for this project, and will John Lewis bank it and earn interest, or will it actually be spent on decent construction and subsidies to consistently get low-income participants into home ownership? Let's find out.
The Taylor Heights neighbors have organized in protest of this project because they fear it will degrade their property values due to the high density of rentals this development creates. Taylor Heights already consists of approximately one-third rentals, and this addition will further exacerbate the problem.
The rub is in the lack of process available to residents to participate in deciding whether such projects are constructive or destructive to their neighborhoods and individual properties. If Cobblestone as it was originally planned had not required a zoning change to proceed, it is highly probable that the neighbors would not have known about the development until it was too late to object. As it is, there is not much they can do.
It is not incumbent legally, although most would agree it is ethically, upon John Lewis to notify neighboring property owners of their intentions to develop property they own. Considering John Lewis owns well over 20 lots of varying sizes throughout the community, this is a disturbing lack of process. Any one of us could be facing a similar development initiative without knowing. The question becomes: Should neighboring private-property owners have a right to be notified when the public sector, or not-for-profits that operate with public funds, purchase property in largely residential areas? At a minimum, residents should be notified should such property be put to a public use. It seems that property owners should have a voice and/or some control over the impact of such public use as it relates to their own uses and values.
John Lewis is once again embroiled in a dispute with a neighborhood over one of its housing projects (remember the Ecumenical Housing project and the Gold Coast?) and little if any resolution appears to be forthcoming. John Lewis has proceeded with its own agenda without consensus of any kind with Taylor Heights residents, claiming a defeatist position of not being able to please residents with any compromise.
In fairness to Taylor Heights in this particular case, to claim the Cobblestone project is a home-ownership program is thoroughly disingenuous on John Lewis' part. The fact is that these are rentals with a set-aside for a down payment to accrue for at least five to 10 years to be meaningful in the market, and that set-aside can be used to buy property anywhere in the community, not just Taylor Heights. In all probability, the Cobblestone units will function as low-income rentals, and as history has shown us time and again, high-density, low-income rentals usually fail as a model for positive housing environments. Enough of this departure from what should be scattered-site-housing policy for low-income projects, and both the community and the state should re-evaluate John Lewis' programming and housing developments with far more scrutiny and continuity.
Perhaps we could establish an organized community forum composed of private-sector property owners to evaluate such projects using criteria that meet the goals of both the private and public sectors. We need affordable housing, but not at the expense of our established neighborhoods' property values. There is already enough burden on those neighborhoods to sustain value and retain residents who own and contribute to the tax base of our cities.
Finally, John Lewis is essentially in the property-development business. Of the $2.6-million Cobblestone development, John Lewis will receive a $200,000 developers fee. As taxpayers, we should also be evaluating the merits of this project based on all those benefiting, including John Lewis. Is the developer's fee the only source of revenue for this project? Is the $50 set-aside a reasonable one? Is the life of the set-aside viable? Does John Lewis hold title to these properties and pay taxes on them while they are rented, or is this project exempt? How much will be earned from the tax credits for this project, and will John Lewis bank it and earn interest, or will it actually be spent on decent construction and subsidies to consistently get low-income participants into home ownership? Let's find out.
