City Council voted 12 – 5 today to approve Inclusionary Housing in Philadelphia.
Councilman Darrell Clarke has been championing the idea that developers need to give back to the city’s working people—-who have been struggling to match their wages with the rapidly rising cost of homes and increased rents on apartments. This is a really important notion and one that Philadelphia’s economic development planning, such as it is, has shied away from in favor of tax cuts and tax incentives.
Legislating the idea of shared prosperity is something new and wonderful for Philadelphia city government. And treating developers and business like partners in building a sustainable city--who must be held accountable as well as feted--is also an important change.
Problem is, that when Clarke first wrote legislation to deal with this issue, he targeted a group of wage-earners who most would argue don’t need help as badly as others.
In a city where there is a need for 60,000 new units of affordable housing, any money or physical units set aside by developers need to be handed out to the people with the most need.
To his credit, bowing to pressure from the Philadelphia Housing Justice coalition, the bill that was voted on today focuses more exclusively on the lower end of Philadelphia’s wage earners (you may remember that Clarke’s original bill would have allowed developers to set aside units to people who earned as much as 150% of area median income which I think is like $100 k for a family of four).
The amended bill requires half of the units to serve families, on average, at 40% of area median income (which is more like $30 k for a family of four), although the upper income level is set at 80% of area median income (as Jennifer already suggested, read WCRP ED Nora Lictash’s op-ed in yesterday’s Inky if you want more details here).
Here’s the catch.
Today’s legislation won’t take effect until “developer incentives”, or cost offsets, are decided. So that requires another bill in the new Council next Spring.
What are "developer incentives?"
Well, for instance, when the bill is passed, a developer could build 12 stories worth of condos, and be required to set aside a certain number of units. Council could decide that the developer has to put the set-aside units on the market at a price that a family of four who earns $32,000 k can afford and just take that loss in return for the privilege of being allowed to build here.
To offset this “loss,” Council could offer developers a variety of things.
Like density bonuses, where the developer is permitted to build more units than the zoning code would normally allow. Or, maybe allow developed to build higher in an apartment building than normal, or allow smaller lot sizes or smaller set-backs.
In short, developer incentives are things that directly increase profit for developers to offset any "loss" they see from contributing to our affordable housing crisis, but doesn’t directly cost the city anything.
From a coalition press release:
“We’ve worked with some of the top experts from the field and talked with key market-rate developers in Philadelphia to understand appropriate developer incentives,” said Nora Lichtash, Executive Director of the Women’s Community Revitalization Project. “We stand ready to work with City Council next year to develop fair and reasonable incentives that will make Philadelphia’s Inclusionary Housing program a model for future policies.”
However, some developers will be lobbying in the spring to have the city subsidize some of their loss on per-unit sales to low income families--with cash money.
There is a rumor that some developers have already asked for 100% subsidization--this of course would defeat the whole purpose of the bill—shared prosperity—and it’s something to keep an eye on. Between city contracts, possible BPT cuts, and a whole new set of priorities from a new Mayor and Council, I doubt we afford to subsidize developer contributions to affordable housing. Especially when the whole point of a bill was to find creative ways to fund an urgent problem.
There is a also a big picture to keep in mind here: the Affordable Housing Trust fund is already up and running, and developers are submitting RFPs to it to get money to build new units of affordable housing, for both sale or rent. Coalition folks tell me that the new stream of money from the Inclusionary Housing bill will double the reach and impact of the trust fund.
What does that mean in real numbers? In total, we're talking about construction of about 14,000 new units of affordable housing and/or repair to existing stock over 10 years.
And the need is at least 60,000 units.
So, I am glad this bill passed, and I hope the discussion of developer incentives is smooth, easy, and fast, as Council and the Mayor have a lot more work cut out for them to create more affordable housing than just this one bill.
In the meantime, let’s savor the victory today not just for affordable housing advocates, but for everyone who believes that our city government can and should so what it can to bring shared prosperity to all Philadelphians.
For the record: Supporting the bill were Clarke, DiCicco, Blackwell, Campbell, Savage, Miller, Tasco, Goode, Reynolds Brown, Kenney, Greenlee and Ramos. Call to thank them!
No votes were Verna, Krajewski, O’Neill, Rizzo and Kelly. Call to express your disappointment with them. Contact info is here.
Too bad some of the "No" votes aren't the people leaving Council next month. And in the meantime, I wonder where those folks are gonna be, and the new Mayor, on passing a reasonable package of incentives for developers.
I am so used to expecting the worst
I am so surprised and happy about this.
Today's Inquirer article.
Has Nutter voiced any opinions
on the bill or on the incentives?
I understand he's in general support of the bill
I don't know specifics. I wondered, since he seems pretty close with the BIA (spoke at the fall meeting, etc). But I think this is incredibly promising. Although there could be some concerted derailment effort by the developers since we do need the second bill for this one to go into effect, to have the primary bill itself approved by such a large proportion of council members suggests to me that we will get basically what we were aiming for.
I think that incentives are likely to be of the permit streamlining type, and nothing too crazy. Since I believe that there were incentives in the Coalition-drafted bill, and none in Clarke's original one, those will probably be the starting point for discussions.
What I don't understand about the incentives
is how they would deal with local residents' concerns about the kinds of zoning variances Ray describes.
I am speaking off the cuff and for myself here
it doesn't, directly, I don't think. I think that the idea is that neighbors will be able to participate in a variance process as they normally would. The list of possible incentives Ray references are ones that I mentioned as falling generally into the category of incentives--they are not necessarily on the table here, other than some form of streamlined and expedited permitting. They're examples.
Definitely there is a balancing of interests that has to be done. The other side of neighborhood concerns about density, etc., are that those type of concerns not infrequently keep lower-income housing out of wealthier areas. But residents should still be able to weigh in. One big unknown is how the zoning code revision will mesh with this bill.
Yes, and
One big unknown is how the zoning code revision will mesh with this bill.
How IH projects (and any possible variances) would mesh with some sort of comprehensive master planning vision for the city as a whole. (heh)
Incentives proposed by PCHJ
Include
-A Density bonus—developers may build 20% more units than they would otherwise be allowed to
-Parking reduction—developers may receive a reduction of 25% in the number of parking spaces they must provide with the project
-Expedited permitting process—developers may use special permitting and approval rules for the inclusionary housing project.
The second incentive is very attractive to developers and in places like Center City, where Philly Car Share is available, makes a lot of sense. Given how many people are giving up their cars when Philly Car Share is nearby, their should be little opposition.
Expedited permitting is not meant to limit the role of community groups to weigh in on zoning decisions. It is just meant to move the permitting / zoning process along faster...which is what we should want in all cases.
Some neighborhoods might object to the density bonuses. They, of course, will be subject to the usual debates we have in Philadelphia since you pretty much can't build anything without a variance. Mt. Airy is probably more concerned about density issues than other communities yet, in my experience, it rarely is a deal breaker. Most of the times in urban communities density, within some reason, is (or should be) welcomed as it leads to a more active, and thus safer, street life.
Jennifer is absolutely right that the zoning code revision will have some impact on the incentives. Expedited permitting and a reduction in parking spaces (especially when spaces are provided for Philly Car Share vehicles) may become standard.
Of course, everyone should remember that all development gets a ten year tax abatements. That tax abatement is up for renewal and among the other modifications that have been proposed, is one that gives a larger tax break to developments that follow IH guidelines.
Yes
Thanks Marc for the summary: I couldn't remember all the details.
Though the tax abatement renewal is treated like a political given, it is absolutely an opportunity to shape the abatement so that it encourages the best sort of development, and to continue the conversation that the IH bill has brought to the foreground about the need for inclusive development.
Expiring abatements
I am curious about this Marc and Jennifer:
A renewal of the tax abatement means that the law that allows new homeowners/developers to be exempt from paying property taxes for 10 years would be extended for current recipients of the abatement OR that new homeowners/developers would get it and those who already get it will stop when their time limit is up?
That new developers will
That new developers will still get it.
a new issue for the PCHJ--the housing folks--and maybe all of us
This from the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations:
And remember the affordable housing study that found a need for about 60,000 new units of affordable housing. Sounds like a good next step after the Inclusionary Housing bill victory.
I know there is a number out there somewhere which projects this further out--like how much money we're talking over 10 years--but it'd we interesting to see how that source of revenue could impact the affordable housing crisis and also address other real estate market issues.
Again, as we discussed before, it seems like one of the biggest problems for very low-income folks is the lack of good rental units and that has been caused by an improved real estate market and crappy President.
unfortunately...
The expiring tax abatements are not additive to what the City has already projected in its 5-year plans.
This "new" revenue stream is already accounted for and is being used to pay for the City's currently projected expenses. It is not going to result in a new pot of money that can be used to pay for new programs in addition to what is already existing. In other words, these funds are already spoken for. Any new programs, including those that may pay for affordable housing, would have to be paid for from a reallocation of funds from existing programs.
For the budget wonks out there, here's the link to the 254 page FY05-11 5-year plan. It should have a bit more info on the effect of expiring abatements. I tried searching it but it crashed my computer.
http://www.phila.gov/pdfs/FY07-11%20Plan.pdf
sort of
So there's a couple of things going on here. (And I did look through that budget doc pretty carefully, but could not find a reference to tax abatements as a part of the revenue projections, but I believe you):
1- If five years worth of expired abatements are accounted for, that would cover 1998-2003 transactions. That means that 2003 on, is still up for grabs, and that is probably where the most activity occurred.
2- The fact that 5-year projections had to include the expired abatements means that our revenue stream is pretty weak (we all know this). This means we really have to figure out how to boost it, and not surprisingly, I continue to suggest an intensive focus on creating high-wage jobs. And I continue to question (another surprise) cutting business taxes.
This bill is so troubling
I am so troubled by this bill. It seems per se unconstitutional to me. Where does City Council get the authority to tell a developer how to price his units? Or worse, to take money from a developer to support a public policy initiative? How does this not run afoul of our State and Federal Constitutions? Is there a constitutional right to home ownership? I understand the policy, which is a good one, but you cannot make it mandatory or you run contrary to our constitutional law.
People you have to ask these questions before you pass legislation like this. If this is indeed a pressing need, it seems like the government should fund it, which I am perfectly ok with, not private developers.
And have the community groups been apprised of this? I can see them going positively ballistic (rightly or wrongly) when they find out that a certain percentage of the new residential development in the next block will be affordable housing. This looks like a fiasco to me.
It is in place all over the
It is in place all over the country, so, I think the constitutionality will be a-ok.
Not necessarily...
There are hundreds of zoning laws that are unconstitutional and just haven't been challenged and remain on the books, since it takes time and money to mount a challenge.
I'll go one step further-there are Philadelphia Zoning Code sections that have been struck down as unconstitutional by the Courts and remain in the Code and continue to be enforced by L&I.
I'll tell you that this bill will have a hard time surviving a constutional challenge, if anyone mounts it. It seems like a legislative taking to me in violation of the 5th Amendment, not to mention property rights issues and the Commerce Clause.
Then goodbye 10 year tax abatement
First of all, I think you are wrong. I think if this reached up to the Sup Court, it would be turned back, given their general holdings on governmental power lately.
Second, regardless, will a developer challenge it if the City threatens to get rid of the tax abatement?
The basic
The basic zoning/constitutionality issue is whether the ordinance prevents the owner from making reasonable use of the property. There is not a Takings-Clause-protected right to the most profitable use.
That's not true-It's an unconstitutional taking because...
...the bill basically takes money out of the developers pocket for the use of his land. The bill mandates that the property owner must suffer a substantial loss in the value of his property. An appraiser would calculate the value of the land, by predicting what the owner could achieve with a sale. If the property owner builds 20 homes and 3 of them he must sell for $200,000 instead of $400,000 which he would receive on the market, that's $600,000 in losses which go to the government to support a government policy.
He has suffered a taking in the amount of $600,000 for the lowered value of his land due to government action.
The argument that a developer is not permitted to have the most profitable use of his propetry is incorrect in this context. Such an argument can only be used to defeat a request for a zoning variance where a developer uses economic hardship to justify the granting of variances.
How does your argument account for the Penn Central holding
that New York City's historic preservation law can restrict the type (and profitability) of development on the Penn Central train station site?
No actionable taking there.
I'm not putting anything past a Republican controlled Supreme
Court but it would take a radical challenge to court precedent far beyond that which would occur if Roe v Wade to be overturned for our inclusionary housing law (let alone our zoning laws) to be declared unconstitutional.
And have the community
Actually my feeling is that neighborhood groups like plans where there is a spoon full of sugar with the medicine, whether those groups are in poorer, historically African American areas where sometimes the "medicine" is the upscale market rate housing and fears are sometimes racial (not so fair) or economic (fair and more valid)- as well in already more middle class and well to do areas where the "medicine" is the affordable housing. Community support is actually one of the strongest benefits of this kind approach to the problem.
I certainly know that in my neighborhood community association, there is broad support for this general kind of approach and we are sort of a little bit of both.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Try Fishtown, South Philly, or the Northeast
This is a very nice sentiment but it does not reflect the reality.
I have been in front of these community groups and I would hazard a guess that they will react profanely to this bill when they find out about it. For an example, look at the recent congressional campaigns waged in the Northeast where Section 8 is vilified as a neighborhood buster. Mind you, that doesn't mean I agree with such reasons for such opposition.
My concern is based purely on a legal perspective, and an overall and legitimate concern with knee-jerk legislation which our beloved City Council seems very fond of. This legislation attempts to advance a public policy by mandating it-which is VERY BAD POLICY and legally dubious.
What is the right being deprived?
The question is, what right is being deprived--not if homeownership is a constitutional right.
At most, the right you speak of is an economic right, which requires a very low standard of review (Dan, that is rational basis, correct?). That is why things like reasonable zoning and permitting laws, building codes, etc., are constitutional--because they serve an overall community purpose of orderly and desirable development.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Yeah, it's rational basis
I wish to god that economic rights weren't, a lot of the time, but...
They have a place . . .
And a low standard of review.
As a new homeowner, you should welcome that protection (even if it isn't so great). I know I do.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
It is a deprivation of property rights...
Yes, zoning laws are a permissable intrusion of those rights, but you cannot cause a taking and you may not unreasonably infringe upon those rights. This state has very strong case law when it comes to property rights.
This bill causes a taking which basically operates to take money from a property owner to support a public policy. It violates the 5th amendment of the United States constitution, since that property owner must basically sacrifice the money, or purposely accept less for his property then he might otherwise get on the market.
Unanswered question: how do you think the citizens of the city would vote if confronted with this proposal in a ballot initiative?
Again, I don't think this legislation was properly thought out at all.
Hey Bulworth
First, as Jennifer said, you simply do not have the right to the most profitable use of your property. You sound like a lawyer who does this stuff, so, I am sure you know that.
Second, I assume you would agree that if the City gave developers a choice: you only have to do the req's of the bill if you accept the ten-year tax abatement, everything would be peachy keen, because developers are getting govt. aid? If given that choice, is there a single developer who wouldn't take the abatement?
See my response to Jennifer above Dan
The idea that a property owner does not have the right to the most profitable use is not applicable in this context. That argument is used, correctly, to defeat a zoning variance request where a developer argues that he is entitled to a variance based on his economic hardship.
The 5th Amendment of the US Consitution says that the government must pay just compensation for the taking of private property, and that includes a de facto taking, when a government, through its action, devalues someone's property.
This bill will not survive a constitutional challenge. Or, the law survives but the government must reimburse the property owner for their lost profits.
My understanding
is that exaction-type conditions on approval are permissible and do not require compensation if they are closely related to a legitimate government purpose.
Here, one would have to argue both the nexus or relatedness between the ordinance and the goals, and that compensating for the demonstrable affordable housing shortage is a legitimate purpose. And that the means are proportionate to the ends. I think those tests can be met.
That's if those tests are even applied, though
the city could just get basic rational basis deference, because it is very possible that that heightened scrutiny described above shouldn't apply to generally applicable statutory schemes like what council just passed.
Incorrect
Just so non lawyers, law students, etc are clear about the rough framework:
http://www.cacities.org/resource_files/24920.Takings%20Primer%20-%202006...
You said:
This is simply not true. I mean, can you cite an actual case that says this? Landowners do not have the right to the most profitable use of their property. Period. It is not only an argument to defeat a request for a variance. In fact, in the standard case we all read- Euclid v Ohio- a property owner argued that zoning laws diminished the value of his property by 75 percent, and it was a-OK. Then, in the case Jennifer cited, Penn Central, the govt. prevented a massive skyscraper from being built, in order to save Penn Station.
As for inclusionary zoning, and exactions, my land use text book counted 100 plus California cities that had inclusionary zoning laws, all of which are still on the book. Its not like this has not been challenged.
Jennifer and Gaetano are a little off in that it is not just your standard rational basis review. In Dolan v. City of Tigard, the Court laid out the basic test for when an exaction was acceptable, and the standard of review. They said that the State needed to show a 'rough proportionality' between the exaction and a state interest:
How would a court look at the relationship between Municipal Developers' needs and affordable housing?
Well:
Commercial Builders of Northern California v. City of Sacramento, 941 F.2d 872, cert denied by the Supreme Court.
The only hope of overturning this would be in Pennsylvania Courts. But again, this whole thing seems moot, because if the City threatens to take away the tax abatement, developers won't challenge the law.
Right
but to add to that, it's technically an open question about the level of review. Dolan and Nolan dealt with more ad hoc regulations/exactions, right, and created a new, somewhat heightened standard (which we still very arguably could meet here).
However, it is unclear whether that standard would apply to generally-applicable statutes like Inclusionary Zoning/Housing ordinances and there is reason to think that it might not. The Supreme Court dealt with the Sacremento case on different grounds (state/federal preclusion I think), so it still hasn't spoken on this. But recent rulings through the states and Circuits definitely lean towards finding these ordinances okay and not takings.
Sure, but, at worst, it is
Sure, but, at worst, it is the Dolan standard.
The options for challenging, if you can get in the door, from Justice O'Connor, in Lingle v. Chevron, 2005:
There is no physical taking, and there it certainly no total regulatory taking, so, a successful challenge would have to win under Penn Central (no way in hell), or under Dolan (very unlikely.)
Well-you are certainly
Well-you are certainly pointing to arguments that the City will use to defend the ordinance. But you are taking the holding of the cases you cite too far.
It is not "incorrect" to say that a government action which devalues a property effects a de facto taking for which the property owner should be compensated. This is absolutely a correct eminent domain argument which has been successful in the past. Only a government regulation which is a proper exercise of the police power (like zoning regulations, floodplain regs, historic regulations etc) which adversely impact property rights should be upheld. I would like to see cases which hold that the provision of affordable housing is included in the state's police power.
Impact fees I think are what we are talking about here, and are more akin to what was involved in the California case you cite. Impact fees and such type of regulations are different from zoning regulations and can be upheld only where there a causal relationship to the impact of the development itself, and not in the general sense. Note that the fees charged in the California case were related to effects of the development itself. This ordinance is different in that it is attempting to enforce a public policy which has nothing to do with the impact of the residential development itself, or is too far removed in causation.
You are basically arguing that all for profit residential development is the problem and that ALL residential for profit development can be interfered with and impacted in order to benefit lower income residents. None of us know how a court would react to such an argument, and I admit that there are compelling arguments that the problem exists. But I like my chances in arguing that this ordinance is unconstitutional in that it places a de facto "impact fee" upon a development which is not a proper exercise of the police power.
It is not "incorrect" to say
Yes, but, given the City's tax abatement for developers, and given the general Court holdings in the past, how would a small set aside reach a level large enough to be a taking? Could you honestly find a case?
And, aside from all of this, if the City threatens to get rid of the tax abatement if this is challenged, don't you think this is moot anyway?
The Tax Abatement is not a taking...
...because it is the government which is foregoing the money, and the government is not taking the money out of a property owner's pockets.
Dan here's a quote from a Pennsylvania case, Lawton v. Steel, 152 U.S. 133, 137, which kind of sums up my argument on why this legislation is unconstitutional:
"To justify the State in...interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference, and second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interest, arbitrarily interfere with private business or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions on lawful occupations."
This ordinance is not intended to benefit the general public as a whole-but a specific class. That will be a problem for the Court in finding that this is a valid exercise of the police power.
This ordinance also seems duplicative of the PHA. Why doesn't the government expand PHA if there is a problem in this city? Why are they taxing private developers to help address this problem? It seems like a backdoor tax to me. If it is a tax, there are more stringent requirements for City Council to pass it under the charter.
I understand it is not a
I understand it is not a taking.
I also understand that in a takings analysis, the governemnt's whole role is looked at. So, for example, in Penn Central, the majority noted that the skyscraper rights to Penn Central could be sold elsewhere. Just like a court would note that although the City is imposing a cost to developers, it is doing so while at the same time explicitly giving them money. In other words, this doesn't seem particularly oppressive or arbitrary.
You are acting like the Court will view inclusionary zoning in a vacuum. But, as the case law from Penn Central on through today indicates, the Court never, ever does that.
And, like I said, exactions for affordable housing has been litigated before- say in the 9th circuit case I gave you- and cities have won.
Anyway, how come you keep avoiding this question: Why does this matter? If the City threatens to dump the abatement if a developer sues, isn't this whole thing moot?
What do you mean the
What do you mean the developer is getting money back?
And I do not think the City will dump the tax abatement if a developer challenges this law, even if they say so, especially in today's fragile real estate market.
Just so you know, I do have a solution to this issue: Instead of forcing a developer to include affordable housing, you could include incentives in the zoning code for affordable housing by giving denisty bonuses so that a developer can offset his costs in some way. This is a much better approach than basically taking money out of a property owners' pocket to support a government policy, a policy for which the government has the responsibility to provide for, and not private individuals.
By the way
The case you cited is 1)from 1894, 2)about due process seizing of fishing nets, not takings in any sense of what we are are talking about here and 3) in any case sets a fairly low standard -"reasonably necessary" for government action.
If you actually got to a takings analysis, as Justice O'Conner laid out in Lingle, you have a pretty set framework to attack the law:
This:
"Unanswered question: how do you think the citizens of the city would vote if confronted with this proposal in a ballot initiative?"
Is not the test for constitutionality. And, you never asked me that question. Also, there is a difference between an ill-advised law and one that is unconstitutional.
Like I said, I think it will likely pass constitutional muster. I provided the reason why I think that and an analogy to zoning. You disagree.
But, when it is signed, perhaps you may find yourself with standing to challenge the law. If so, go ahead and do so.
You say:
"It violates the 5th amendment of the United States constitution, since that property owner must basically sacrifice the money, or purposely accept less for his property then he might otherwise get on the market."
I think you are incorrect on the law in believing that mere diminishment of return is a taking. It isn't.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
A united front!
This is a momentous day. Things Dan and Gaetano and I can agree on: one, how to read the Takings Clause. Two?
Zoning is constitutional
And zoning limits what you can build on your property.
See Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co..
I agree that there are interests to be balanced, but there are a lot of people demonstrably not being served by the status quo, and those are the people this legislation aims to help. Their interests need to be balanced too, for once.
The things you bring up--government not funding enough affordable housing, people not wanting affordable housing next door--are exactly the reasons why solutions like this are necessary. We as a country have shifted, as a matter of policy, to relying on the private market to largely provide the affordable housing we need. It is not doing enough on it's own. Would that it were.
double word
Jennifer. It's true that people in Rittenhouse and Chestnut Hill and wherever else are gonna freak. I think in reality those are the places where developers will just hand cash (hopefully) over to the Fund, but if not, who cares? Housing and class and race segregation is the cause of the problem and this bill fixes that.
That's why I said in my original post that it is really excited that Council is actually legislating shared prosperity. That is truly progressive and the 12 members who voted for it should be recognized for that.
Yup
This is an example of stuff that is clearly possible, if you ask for it. Normally we just think, oh, we can dare ask for that. But we can. I am going to keep copy-pasting this over and over:
On-site mixed income development is happening elsewhere as a result of inclusionary housing or negotiated agreements with cities (in Brooklyn with the stadium development). It can happen here. The world won't end, and Westrum will still make money.
OK now I'll say
OK now I'll say Word.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
glad we agreed
so can we hand over expired tax abatements to the trust fund too and give anything left over to other real estate market equity items on the agenda?
If support for smart
If support for smart comprehensive community planing for bringing back our neighborhood commericial corridors are part of the mix - not exclusively affordable housing is part of this mix. We need services and jobs too, not just housing. I'm down Ray.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
That is key
If support for smart comprehensive community planing for bringing back our neighborhood commericial corridors are part of the mix
Totally key. Whole swathes of the city were cut off from capital, and they need to be knit back in. Mixed income development to bring poorer people into the center, richer people out into the formerly declining neighborhoods while mitigating displacement, and economic development where it has been lacking. In order to benefit from the affordable housing that we do have, once the rehabilitation grant money has flowed in, you need jobs and increased safety to make those neighborhoods viable and really liveable.
if only it was this easy
do you really think it's gonna happen? I think the money from expiring tax abatements is just as likely to end funding core services or reducing other taxes.
I am never that practical, Ray
I wasn't talking about sources. Just what I think has to happen. And I think for crime to be permanently reduced and for the housing rehabilitation grants to help, there needs to be an aggressive jobs program. I have no idea how and who would fund it.
right...
but you were replying to my question about tax abatements. After five years, expired tax abatements could be a source for what you say. I am just wondering if there is political will for it.
Speaking of taxation...I am about to really enter the fray...but I agree jobs are key to reducing crime. I'd throw in education/after school too.
If Council continue to prove that is for real about shared prosperity--and would actually use our tax dollars for concrete things like creating jobs, or funding afterschool--I bet there'd be less hysteria about cutting tax rates, like the wage tax.
If Council and the Mayor delivered (and the state house and the feds too) better services (at the small and big level), people'd be more willing to pay taxes
Talk about not being practical...
I didn't mean to reply to it!
But I am with you on everything above. I just wish I knew more about finance.
when will you learn Jennifer?
You don't have to know anything to blog! You just have to pretend and have a sense of self-importance.
I leave that to the boys.
I leave that to the boys.
We do a great job too!
Blogging is not about knowledge.
It's 100% attitude. Dan and Ray are like the Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious of blogging, respectively. Minus being English, drug addition, musically inclined, etc.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
I'm Sid
Who would Gaetano's alter-ego be? Here's my guess:
Men and Blogging
There's a nugget of sociological wisdom in there somewhere. More men than women blog -- at least in certain areas -- because men are more inclined than women to scream at the top of their lungs and shamelessly advertise their self-importance about subjects they know little to nothing about.
We're cool with IH in the northwest
I just noticed this post. I wouldn't be so sure that folks in Chestnut Hill are going to be upset with IH. WMAN and EMAN have asked me to speak about IH at our annual joint meeting. I doubt that Chestnut Hill will freak out either. Chestnut Hill is more economically diverse than you might imagine--although the range is certainly not as great as Mt. Airy--and I doubt that a few units of affordable housing would upset some folks.
There is section 8 housing in Mt. Airy and some concern about it, mostly because the buildings are not well cared for by teh landlords, not because of who lives in the units. We had to lean on a landlord a bit to clean up his property when I was president of WMAN. Part of the problem is that the feds pay late.
Section 8 housing vs. IH
"Section 8" or Housing Choice as its called these days does have some issues that contribute to legitimate concerns about it. Mainly two things.
1. that PHA is not always the best in enforcing its rules on either its tenants or landlords and for every 10 participants in the program noone notices the ones folks remember are the ones who become less than ideal neighbors
2. The pricing structure sometimes leads to an over-concentration in neigborhoods where the Feds predominant average rent calculations are out of whack with the actual market.
One of the big advantages of IH as a general approach is that it provides an incentive for developers to really police themselves in terms of how their affordable units management would effect their bottom line on their market rate units -meaning IH affordable units have built-in reasons to end up more appealing to neighborhood groups as well. Beyond that it provides an incentive for every neighborhood from Society Hill to Strwberry Mansion to share the burden of supporting affodable housing more equally.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
This is very noble of you...
..but I can tell you from experience, having been in front of some of these local community groups, that there will be a virilent reaction to this bill in neighborhoods throughout this city when they realize its effects.
Again, not saying I agree with such a reaction, in fact I don't like it at all, but I just know from experience how they will react. Unfortunately, the general Philadelphia citizen is a NIMBY, insular, and against change in their neighborhoods, especially one which involves the type of change mandated by this bill!
Wondering why so often "inclusionary" or "affordable" means bad
Wondering why so often "inclusionary" or "affordable" means bad, when I consider that my two middle class kids need "affordable housing" today, too. Nearly everyone observes this now - we're all finding ourselves in the same circumstantial boat.
Inclusionary housing is them and us, her and me, all of us. Struggling to emerge against today's corporation-controlled federal government & global economy, supported by "consumerism" are movements forcing changes like the ones mentioned above. (Europe, Chicago, too.)
The rich neighborhoods like mine (Rit-Fit) might fight "affordable" in their midst, but a lot of us professional class could no longer afford to live where we do now in today's inflated prices. I think the collapse of conventional economics shows up ever more often, in many ways, many layers. This housing credit convulsion is just one of these. Peak oil and warming will drive more change in the same direction - toward more populism, I think.
Of course the rich and the reactionaries will want to squeeze the rest of us dry, and as things worsen will retreat into their walled compounds of the mind or their sleek skyscrapers, there to watch as the world shifts under their feet.
I was just reading Danmark's "Co-existence of Civilizations" movement, which I see in the context of Paul Hawken's "Blessed Unrest", the contnuing findings of the speed of evolution, and so on... just seeing it all fitting together, gradually, into a new form of human existence. Ah, but of course even if "it" were here, now, there will still be travail - such is life, eh?
Thanks for letting me rant, gently. BTW who is interested in making dramatic edits to my zoning manifesto toward sustainable urban life? I've been talking about its themes, and delivered rough outline drafts to DVRPC, PCPC / ZCC head Janice Woodcock, a few others.
Bill 215-557-9445