Editorials by Allan Katz
Ordinance is one step toward affordable housing
Tallahassee Democrat, March 2, 2005
Re: “Exclusionary housing” (editorial, Feb. 13) and “This inclusionary housing ordinance isn’t the answer” (column, Feb. 27).
In attacking the City Commission’s proposed inclusionary housing ordinance, both the Tallahassee Democrat’s editorial opinion and publisher Mike Pate suggest that much of the information being disseminated about the ordinance is causing confusion.
Because our community suffers from a lack of affordable housing, I think it is essential that there be a clear explanation of what is involved and what we are hoping to accomplish through this approach.
The term “affordable” is used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to describe housing that sells for approximately $160,000 and is designed for people who earn between $38,000 and $70,000 per year. These are our teachers, police officers, firefighters, government employees and small business owners. This paucity of affordable housing is a general community problem, but homes in this price range are particularly scarce in locations where the newest schools, roads and other public facilities are! being built with public tax dollars.
Affordable housing units are not subsidized, except to the extent that this ordinance will give developers incentives to accomplish our goal of more affordable housing. While an opt-out provision would allow developers to pay a sum of money to not comply, I believe that such a provision is a mistake. The purpose of the statute is to increase the number of affordable units, which allowing an opt-out provision would circumvent.
The ordinance requires that for each development of 50 houses or more in certain geographic areas of our community, 10 percent of these homes must fall within the definition of being affordable.
A variety of incentives such as increased density (more units per acre), concurrency credits (less cost for new roads), and fast-track permitting have been discussed and are still under review.
Those of us sitting on the City Commission have directly asked members of the development community to tell! us which incentives are necessary to achieve our goal. We are trying to harness their creative energy and are eagerly awaiting innovative ideas to allow them to build affordable housing under this ordinance without giving up their chance to make a profit.
The high cost of housing in Tallahassee exists for many reasons. A major factor is the cost of land as well as the restrictions that have been in place for many years on how that land can be used.
This commission has taken a hard look at what we need to do to encourage growth and reduce cumbersome regulations that reflect a philosophy of no-growth. At the same time we are trying to preserve those constraints that keep our city from becoming a place where none of us wants to live.
We have taken steps that can cut the time period on permitting and we are seriously reviewing green space requirements in the urban core. Adjustments to these ordinances will help us as we recognize that our city today is not the same as it was 15 years ago.
While expanding the Urban Services! Area, as the publisher proposed, sounds like a good idea, it fails to deal with the more extensive and complicated issues of getting urban services to our residents. For example, we must decide what the trade-offs are for how we will develop this community.
Regardless of our efforts in these important areas, we need to increase the affordable housing stock in Tallahassee, and the proposed ordinance is only one more step that we are taking.
I don’t believe this ordinance will solve our affordable housing problem. What it will do is help ameliorate the problem in certain areas and help lead the way as we continue to explore innovative ways of creating better housing opportunities for citizens throughout our community.
Many years ago Tallahassee was a community that was racially segregated. Today, we want to begin to reverse the trend of being economically segregated. If we continue to fail to help ensure adequate and affordable housing for the people who do! the vital jobs that make Tallahassee so enjoyable and secure, we will have failed in our job to sustain this vibrant and diverse community. And that is what this issue is really all about.
Originally published in The Tallahassee Democrat , March 2, 2005
City helps developers with costs of building inclusionary housing
Tallahassee Democrat, April 9, 2006
Re: “Inclusionary zoning raises the cost of housing,” (My View, March 26).
Last year I wrote a “My View” about the city’s proposed inclusionary housing ordinance (“Ordinance is one step toward affordable housing,” March 2, 2005). I pointed out that a lack of information apparently had led opponents to conclude that providing affordable housing for teachers, firefighters and police officers through this type of ordinance was unacceptable.
This misunderstanding caused some to view this program as a subsidy, which would make it impossible to to develop in our community. Now, as then, nothing could be further from the truth.
While some developers have voiced complaints about having to comply with the new requirements, others have seen that the city’s ordinance is not only important to our community, but also provides incentives that make some development possible that would otherwise never occur.
Some of the very opportunities proponents of responsible growth have asked for are contained in our ordinance. It does, however, require doing things differently, and evidently that has caused concern among those who only want to replicate the past except at a higher price.
In Tallahassee, inclusionary or work-force housing - which the Florida Legislature is also now attempting to fortify through the proposed Community Workforce Housing Innovation Program - requires developers of 50 or more units to produce a percentage of “affordable” housing units.
Ten percent of the houses must be work-force housing with a maximum price of $159,378, which may escalate based on annual market rates. The housing would be available for purchase by individuals or families with an annual household income of up to $75,200, reflecting a percentage of this region’s average median income.
The city has worked with local developers to help ensure that they can receive significant incentives to help make this idea work. As part of the inclusionary housing ordinance, developers can increase density by 25 percent or more in certain instances - meaning they can build and sell more homes than what would normally be allowed.
Thus, the canard often repeated by opponents that somehow we are requiring an affordable house on a $100,000 lot is exposed. Rather, we may allow four homes on this hypothetical acre, thus cutting the cost to $25,000 per lot.
In addition, inclusionary homes can be exempted from the rules regarding the traffic improvements developers are required to make, saving significant dollars from the cost of these homes. The new ordinance isn’t designed to cost developers more, but it does often require new, innovative thinking. Currently the developers of two new projects - Piney Z and a proposed development near Mahan and Capital Circle Northeast called Evening Rose - understand this opportunity. Both have shown initiative in identifying ways to use the ordinance to meet housing needs while also enhancing their developments.
This is not a new concept in the United States. According to a recent article by urban policy consultant David Rusk, more than 13 million people live in the 135 cities, towns and counties that have enacted inclusionary zoning ordinances. According to Jaimie Ross, affordable housing director of 1000 Friends of Florida, many of these have been controversial because they are too heavy-handed and have failed to “sweeten the pot,” as Tallahassee’s ordinance does through incentives that keep developers whole financially.
Experience has shown that inclusionary work-force housing ordinances are effective and there is a need for more such housing in Tallahassee and throughout the state. Inclusionary housing creates new housing in desirable neighborhoods, generally in school districts that contain the most successful schools and newest urban services.
And while our inclusionary housing ordinance is not the only answer to address work-force housing in Tallahassee, it is part of a strategy to keep a community where people of all income levels can afford to live.
The most persuasive issue, however, is one of fairness. Rusk tells the story of how in 1973, when Montgomery County, Md., passed the country’s first inclusionary zoning ordinance, the final speaker came to the podium.
She said, “I teach third grade at Potomac Elementary School. What I would like the council to know is that those previous speakers (who opposed the proposed inclusionary zoning ordinance) entrust me with the education of their children, but they don’t want me living in the neighborhood.”
Rusk asks, “Isn’t anyone who is good enough to work in a community good enough to live in that community?”
In Tallahassee, the City Commission’s answer is a resounding yes.
Originally published in The Tallahassee Democrat , April 9, 2006
Turbocor deal moves Tallahassee forward
Tallahassee Democrat, December 16, 2005
Wednesday the Tallahassee City Commission helped our community take a strong step forward in its important mission to create a healthier economy in the future. We voted to invest in bringing the manufacturer Danfoss Turbocor to Tallahassee. We did so even after the Leon County Commission voted against the project and our own city staff recommended against it.
As the lone commissioner who had opposed an earlier version of this project, I found myself in the unusual position of helping to craft the proposal that won a majority vote of the commission. Now it is important for the community to understand the rationale behind this decision.
We know that in Tallahassee, there has been significant economic dislocation over the past six years. The role of government has been fundamentally altered and many of the best and brightest graduates of our colleges and universities no longer look to Tallahassee as a place to put down roots.
Our sense of community is best served by boldly confronting realities of the new world economy - and finding the best and most significant ways to ensure our role in it. Therefore, we have decided to begin a serious effort to attract new opportunities in the form of businesses that bring with them good jobs, expanded payrolls, and a smart plan for growth and employment for our graduates. This requires an economic investment and a willingness to take risks that are measurable but surely worthwhile.
The Turbocor deal was finally constructed to make sense after we could recognize a way to limit the public’s exposure and create a business model that had a good likelihood of success. That is well-defined by 150 new jobs and a $10 million payroll added to our community’s strengthening economy. The company fits with the “green” community we want to enhance and the money at risk is really the cost of the building.
Should the company default on its lease, we will be left with a building without a tenant in Innovation Park but a possible home for another entity. Perhaps more importantly, what we have been trying to “sell” - namely our university presence and our quality of life - were exactly the attributes that ultimately caused Turbocor to want to relocate here.
There were equal economic incentives elsewhere, as there always will be, but we won this company for what we are and not because we paid the most.
No one believes this business will fail. Otherwise, its own shareholders would not be risking close to $10 million in the enterprise. I believe we can put in place proper safeguards to mitigate the risk to taxpayers, but we should be quite candid: There is risk involved. In all of these important efforts, we seek to balance the risk and the reward. In doing this we need to remember that the future does not belong to the timid. We must take some chances in order to build a stronger economy for our community in the future.
The problems that gave many of us pause initially were a product of our community not being very effective in earlier economic development efforts. Communication with the staff of the city, the county and the Economic Development Council was spotty at best. Ultimately, I felt that this was not a reason for this deal to fail, as it almost did.
Instead, I wanted to send the message that as a community we are ready to succeed in making deals that make good financial sense for our community. At the same time, those involved in this effort must learn that we should never again pursue a company without direct contact and designated responsibility involving all the aforementioned staff as well as an elected commissioner from both the city and county.
I would urge my fellow commissioners to use the example of commissioners Mark Mustian and Tony Grippa on the Community Redevelopment Agency and Debbie Lightsey and Ed DePuy on joint emergency dispatch as examples of the kind of time and close monitoring that enables the respective commissions to make informed and sound decisions. When a fellow commissioner has spent the time and effort to learn all of the relevant facts, it has great credibility with me.
In the end, we need to move forward and rethink how Tallahassee can best assert a leadership role for our community’s benefit in a new century that already is five years old. Change is always challenging, but we must not be ruled by fear of it. Rather we need to be bold and take chances to enhance the opportunities for all of our citizens so that we can maintain our wonderful quality of life.
Originally published in The Tallahassee Democrat , December 16, 2005