Category: Affordable Housing

Posted on

My City is My Home Comments on Problems with Affordable Housing Funding

These remarks were presented before the Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing (RBAH) Committee meeting on June 21, 2019.

By Rich Acosta

As a non-profit trying to fill in a void, I was hopeful when the San Antonio Fee Wavier Program was passed, but only recently found out that it was used up almost immediately after it was released. So, we will not be able to get any support from the city. Later this year, we will be building single family homes for $100,000 or less for 60% AMI displaced homeowners (homeowners that can’t afford their homes because of property taxes and needed repairs). Without any support from the city, before we break ground, it will cost us roughly $11k – $21k in permits and fees.

~ $7k SAWS fees ~ $2.5 Zoning fees ~ $1k Permits fees ~ $10k if we need to replot 

According to SanAntonio.gov, CCHIP and Fee waivers that were paid out, created 6,819 units.

71% went to producing market rate units – $18.8M in fee waived and $4.2M in loans 

5% went to units at 80% AMI – $10M in fees waived and $1.5M in loans 

13% went to units at 60% AMI – $6M in fees waived and $726K in loans

2% went to units at 30% AMI – $2M in fees waived and no loans

7% went to units at student units – $1.6M in fees waived and $1.1M in loans

It is unfortunate that most of the fee waiver program, that was thought to be used to increase units produced for low income residents, instead went to market rate housing.

            What I am suggesting to this UDC committee is language that differs from non-profit development and for-profit development. When looking at covenants, adjustments, less restraints and more restraints, remember that not all development is for profit, but truly is for the benefit of the community. 

            As for covenants, consider homeownership vs rentals. When putting these covenants on development for homeownership, though the point may be to allow more low-income residents to become homeowners, know that it is through the sale of a home that can increase the wealth of a low-income person and bring them out of poverty. Restricting what someone can make in a sale of a home, could be making them a glorified renter and still not allow them to move up from the home that they needed the support to obtain to begin with. Perhaps ensuring the city funds that were used are paid back upon sale and have a regressive lien that is incrementally forgiven every few years until completely forgiven. If no other tool other than covenants can be used, know that the average time a homeowner lives in a home is 8-10 years.

My City Is My Home aims to educate and support homeowners and renters to increase their housing choices, please in your work, don’t increase their choices only to later restrict them from obtaining higher opportunities. 

Rich Acosta  is the President of My City is My Home

Posted on

UDC Committees – What you need to know

Updated as needed.

Unified Development Codes (UDC) Changes Happening Now 

The UDC changes are happening now and it is important for neighborhoods to be involved. There are neighborhood leaders sitting on those committees, but we all need to be attending and supporting those leaders with input and help.
Several committees and technical working groups (TWG) are meeting now:

The Removing Code Related Barriers for Affordable Housing Committee (RBAH)

What it is: This committee will look at the recommendations made by the Mayor’s Housing Task Force and will will focus on minimum lot size, building setbacks, street construction standards, utilities, storm water management, parks and open space requirements, and tree preservation among other recommendations and idea

Why it is important: The kind of “by right” incentives for mixed-unit projects may be controversial. There is an effort to focus on non-profit affordable housing producers instead of giving more incentives to pro-profit developers for market rate housing. Read Rich Acosta’s (My City is My Home) remarks at the first meeting about the problems non-profit developers of affordable housing face.

Meetings: Meetings will be the second Monday of the month until December at 11:30 p.m. at One Stop (1901 S. Alamo) Board Room. RBAH meetings will be suspended while the subcommittees meet (see below).

Next Meeting: The task force has been divided into subcommittees: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), Public Outreach, and Regulatory Cost Burdens. The regular task force will not meet for a while to give time for the committees to complete their work.

T1NC Contact: Cynthia Spielman

Other: Meeting minutes and information

CoSA Department: Neighborhood and Housing Services Department (NHSD) – Kristen Flores

Subcommittee Meetings held at NHSD at 1400 S. Flores

 Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Public Engagement & Outreach 
• Wednesday, October 30th from 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm  • Wednesday, November 20th from 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm  • Wednesday, December 11th from 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm 
Accessory Dwelling Units 
• Friday, November 1st from 10 am – 11:30 am  • Friday, November 22nd from 10 am – 11:30 am  • Friday, December 13th from 10 am – 11:30 am 
Regulatory Cost Burden 
• Wednesday, November 6th from 2 pm – 3 pm  • Tuesday, November 26th from 2 pm – 3 pm  • Wednesday, December 18th from 2 pm – 3 pm 

The UDC Task Force – Historic/OHP/HDRC

What it is: The Historic UDC Task Force is working on UDC for historic districts and the process for designation. Read update from Monica Savino.

Why is important: This task force is not only important for historic districts: Design codes could be the model for any form-based codes that they City may consider in the future for compatible infill. Meetings will take place every two weeks from 3 – 5 p.m. on Thursdays from July 11 to September 12, 2019 at One Stop (1901 S. Alamo).

Next Meeting: This committee has adjourned. Its recommendations will presented in other committees and boards. Schedule TBA

T1NC Contact:  Tony Garcia or Monica Savino

CoSA Department: Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)

MF-33/RM-4 Committee

What it is: MF/RM Committee is working through issues about those lots zoned MF-33/RM-4 in our neighborhoods.  This committee is a result of a CCR by D1 Councilman Trevino. Read MF/RM Task Force Issues and MF/RM Task Force Update

They are also working on, at his request, Denver’s ordinance restricting or banning “slot homes” condos or apartments crowded into a lot that face one another which have been the model for developers in the downtown neighborhoods. There has been an effort to include a representative from the Westside and Denver Heights because they will be directly affected but DSD has denied the requests for inclusion.

Why it is important: Cosima Colvin explains how important this issue is on Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Face Book page:   “Several of the T1NC Neighborhoods are on the Task Force and have worked with other T1NC members on an ad hoc committee to develop language that will address the concerns that many of our neighborhoods have regarding these two zoning categories and how to balance developers’ “by right” development choices with neighborhood preservation. We strongly urge neighborhoods to check DSD’s Zoning Map webpage to see where you may have RM4 and/or MF33 Zoning in your neighborhoods and understand what those zoning districts/categories will allow. More info is available here: https://www.sanantonio.gov/DSD/Resources/Codes#233873531-rm-4–mf-33-ccr

So far neighborhood representatives are facing stiff opposition from the development community on the committee and need support. See Mary Johnson’s (Committee member and President of Monte Vista Terrace) interview here .

Next Meeting: This committee has adjourned. Recommendations will be reviewed by PCTAC on Monday, October 21st at 9 a.m. at Board Room at Development Services, 1901 S Alamo St.

T1NC Contact: Mary Johnson

CoSA Department: Development Services Department (DSD) – Catherine Hernandez

Posted on

Demolitions Lead to Increased Property Taxes

On April 14, 2019, Bexar County Chief Appraiser, Michael Amezquita told the San Antonio Express News that the “biggest horror shows” when it comes to property tax increases are, “Anything within 3 miles of the Pearl.” Among many near-downtown neighborhoods, he specifically called out Tobin Hill North.

In 2016 a developer bought two older but structurally sound duplexes at 421 and 425 E. Mistletoe Ave. in Tobin Hill North. They obtained a demolition permit, cleared the land and built six two-story houses, facing a center drive. In some cities, they call these slot homes, and in 2018, Denver passed an ordinance which does not allow themto be built there any longer. The houses on Mistletoe were completed this spring and they sold for between $325,000 and $370,000 each. And they are driving our property taxes up.

Of course, most people will tell you is that these new, two-story houses will not be used as a comparable property with our older, single-story bungalows and cottages. They are right, the improvements portion of your tax valuation won’t use these new houses as comps. However, that only accounts for part of your tax valuation.

New house next to an existing one on E Mistletoe Ave.

Between 2015 and 2017, the Bexar Appraisal District increased only the improvements portion of the appraisal by about $2000 on my house, which is across the street from the new Mistletoe development. In that same time, the land value went from $25,000 to $61,000. This is about a 144% increase in just two years. The 2019 valuation has now increased our land value to $177,290. It has nearly doubled again, a 369% increase over four years. 

Sometime between 2015 and now, the Appraisal District realized that the original house on each lot could be torn down and three could be built in its place. Try going to Bexar Appraisal District and arguing that your landis not worth what they say it is.

Since January 2019, the Office of Historic Preservation has received seven demolition applications for Tobin Hill. Of those, three have been approved, two are on hold for evaluation by the Historic Design Review Commission, and two, 430 and 434 E. Magnolia, are still awaiting a decision by OHP. 

Like the properties on Mistletoe, 430 and 434 E. Magnolia are on a quaint and quiet street on the northern end of Tobin Hill.  While this part of Tobin Hill is not currently designated as Historic, it is surrounded on all four sides by Historic Districts: Monte Vista to the north and west, River Road to the east, and the Tobin Hill Historic District to the south. These two homes would be contributing to structures to a future Historic District in this area which has been identified in the past as being eligible for Historic Designation. 

400 block of E Magnolia and E Mistletoe

The applications for the demolition of these houses on E. Magnolia have generated a lot of neighborhood concern. OHP received 24 letters of opposition to the proposed demolition of these homes. This far exceeds what OHP’s Scout SA team typically receives for demolition applications. It was enough that Shanon Shea-Miller, Director of the City of San Antonio’s Office of Historic Preservation, requested a site meeting between Scout SA and the property owner. 

During the meeting with the property owner, we discovered that the owner believes he can get a better offer on the land if it is vacant. However, these houses are occupied and in good structural condition. Demolition should be a last resort, not a quick path to making a buck.  While the Appraisal District views the land as more valuable than the houses built on them, to the renters living there, this is home. 

When taxes go up, it makes it hard to stay in your home. This is how many homeowners go from living in housing that is affordable to becoming cost-burdened by their home. Landlords in my neighborhood, unable to get a homestead exemption on their rental properties, will need to raise rents to cover increased property taxes. Land values that have doubled, or in cases like mine, gone up 369% in just 4 years, mean that rents will rise to compensate for this increase. It is likely that many renters who could afford a place in Tobin Hill North in 2015 will soon be so cost-burdened they will have to find somewhere else to go.

430 and 434 E. Magnolia, photo from Google

430 and 434 E Magnolia are not stunning. They are not what some would consider worthy of a Landmark status. They are humble homes, and some of the last remaining affordable housing we have in Tobin Hill North. They are currently providing affordable housing in an area where finding an apartment or house to live in is becoming increasingly expensive.  The demolition of these homes, which are both currently occupied, and in sound structural condition, will cause the direct displacement of these residents. 

We need to focus on preserving the affordable housing that we already have. San Antonio’s Housing Policy Framework specifically calls for the preservation of naturally-occurring affordable housing, especially rental units, like the duplex at 430 E Magnolia and the home behind it at 434 E Magnolia.  The Policy calls for the prevention and mitigation of displacement, and the need to address the impact of rising property taxes on housing affordability. 

It is clear that in neighborhoods like Tobin Hill North, affordability is tied to the land valuation. Demolitions like the ones proposed on E. Magnolia should be vehemently opposed. Our city: Development Services, the Office of Historic Preservation, our City Council and our Mayor should be denying requests for demolitions on houses that are structurally sound, and especially those that are occupied. It is in the best interests of not only those currently in need of affordable housing, but also of those who live nearby, who don’t want to see exponential growth in their tax bill every year. 

430 and 434 E. Magnolia will go before the Historic Design Review Commission for consideration of Landmark Designation in order to prevent demolition on May 1 at 5:00pm. The Tobin Hill Community Association would appreciate letters in support of the Landmark Designation of 430 and 434 E. Magnolia. Statements can be emailed to jessica.anderson@sanantonio.gov

We are also asking for community support in attending the hearing and speaking in favor of the Landmark designation. If you intend to speak, please sign up in person at 1901 S. Alamo St. on the day of the hearing. You may sign up anytime between 2:30 and 5:00 PM before the cases are heard.  

Posted on

NIMBY: Not What You Think

By Cynthia Merla Spielman and Anisa Schell

This was published in the San Antonio Express News on March 6, 2018.

Recently a non-profit developer gave a presentation on similar developments in different parts of town. One presentation was given to a group of residents  in an economically depressed part of San Antonio, and another in a more upscale area. One neighborhood welcomed the 100% affordable housing development; the other neighborhood was staunchly against the development and the rhetoric became an ugly comment on the poor.

Often neighbors have valid reasons for opposing affordable housing developments that have nothing to do with the potential residents, even if they couch their concerns in discriminatory language.

Both neighborhoods wanted the same thing: economic diversity that nurtures resilient neighborhoods, neighborhoods that are able to care for its most vulnerable residents. The more affluent neighborhood embraced the change that would work for both established and new residents. The economically depressed neighborhood opposed the development because they felt overwhelmed by their own poverty. Instead of working with the second community to find solutions, politicians and developers were quick to label residents NIMBYs and silence their objections.

NIMBY, an acronym for “Not In My Back Yard,” is a pejorative term. It conveys disrespect and is dismissive of resident concerns. The term NIMBY has been used to label dissent to any project. It is meant to rob neighborhoods of their voice. Rather than listening to the concerns that residents bring forth, the label of NIMBY is applied by those wishing to push the project forward, stereotyping and ignoring the complexity of community.

Any large development impacts neighborhoods and before the City incents these developments or grants them zoning changes, the impact on community and neighborhoods should be assessed for such things as traffic, roads, the effects on local schools, environment (run off), housing values, health issues, and quality of life issues for both current and potential new residents.

Often, developers approach neighborhoods when they are nearing the end of their planning phases. Drawings have been submitted, city approval has been gained, funding is in place. From the developer’s perspective, everything is ready to go. They bring these near-complete plans to the nearby residents and tell them what they are going to build. Residents are taken by surprise and find that there is no room for input into this process. When residents raise objections, the developer becomes frustrated. Tempers flare and concerns are dismissed. Residents cry foul and developers confirm their suspicion that neighborhoods are just against development.

Large developments that offer just a few units of affordable housing benefit developers more than future residents or neighbors. The residents of the surrounding area are left alone to solve the issues that often come with increased traffic, run-off, crowded schools, and a perception of falling housing values to people who have barely hung on to middle class.

These projects are seldom located in wealthy neighborhoods and the wisdom of crowding the “poor” into large developments without support often make the problems of poverty worse. Developers are granted tax abatements that rob school districts, while at the same time burdening the neighborhood schools.

Rather than fighting the residents when the project is ready to break ground, why not garner resident support from the project’s inception? Before funding is applied for or submissions are made, developers should reach out to neighborhood associations and community leaders. To be successful, there has to be more meaningful input from residents and that input should have the ability to create change.

Developers and politicians should take a proactive approach with neighborhoods. No one knows the neighborhoods better than the residents who live in them. Developers and city leaders may be surprised to find that communities can readily identify places where more housing is possible in their neighborhood, and what challenges may be faced when inappropriate development occurs in the wrong place.

Changing the framework of the discussion from one of blame and name-calling (NIMBY) to a positive discussion of community and solutions will help make the building of affordable housing in our neighborhoods possible.

Posted on

The County Commissioners and Affordable Housing

The County Commissioners recently released its Tax Abatement Guidelines effective January 31, 2018 – December 31, 2020 which incentivizes market rate multi-family rental housing in the Center City. The Commission also released its Bexar County Skills Development Fund for Economic Development which incentivizes companies or businesses with twenty (20) or more employees to train new employees and pay the targeted Occupation Positions no less than $17.44 and no employee at project site less than $11.32 excluding benefits. Only 25% of the new employees are required to be Bexar County residents.

Precinct Four County Commissioner Tommy Calvert wrote an open letter, “Bexar County’s New Incentive Policy Benefits Top 10% Again” decrying the the fact that the proposal allows “only the top 10% of the larges businesses to train and hire 75% of people from out of town after you give them $250,000 for workforce training.” He states his objection to the abatement policy: “…When I asked the court to work with me to provide a market incentive to balance the decade long policy where Bexar County only gave tax abatements for multi-family developments that called for the highest rents and highest mortgages and put in place policies that benefit the vast majority of working people, the staff and court has provide (sic) inaction and excuses.”

On February 8, 2018, Commissioner Calvert held a Neighborhood Reinvestment Fund Committee Meeting at the DoSeum in which he discussed with community and business leaders the proposals and asked for solutions. Hans shot up across the large and crowded room. What happened next was a lively, diverse, and informative discussion of solutions.

In San Antonio, a city with high economic/geographic segregation, where zip code determines fate, affordable housing is tied to opportunity – jobs and education and health.   Our tax dollars should be used to encourage workforce and affordable housing and helping people stay in their homes, not to incentivize market rate housing that most of the hard working citizens of San Antonio can ill afford.

The kind of incentivizing of development and market-rate housing that the Commissioners propose has led to displacement in our downtown neighborhoods. As home prices shoot up, my neighbor Danny stands before me and says he is struggling to stay in the home he grew up in, a home he has cared for and a neighborhood that is the only one he has known. “People tell me that my house is an investment,” he says, “But it is not an investment: It is my home! Where would I go?” We need funds for owner-occupied home rehab and neighborhood reinvestment and tax relief.  Another neighbor, at my kitchen table, demands that we stop improving the neighborhood because she can’t afford it. We shouldn’t have to stop improving our neighborhoods in order to help people stay in their communities, but we should mitigate the unintended consequences of incentivized market rate development. If in n Beacon Hill and other downtown neighborhoods, the affordable housing is the still housing we live in now, it may not be for long.

Median-income households can afford less than half of the homes on the market, making the local housing market inherently unaffordable. The statistics on renters are worse yet: Renters compose 47% of the the housed population.  As of 2010, more than half of renter households in Bexar County would not have been able to afford the two-bedroom fair market rent that requires an income of at least $33,680 or $16.19 per hour over a 40-hour work week.  The average Bexar County worker earned $12.18. Since the Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Housing Plan of San Antonio (which produced these figures) was produced in 2013, the housing situation has only worsened. Rents have steadily risen.

Teachers, firefighters, City staff, architects, healthcare workers, those at the 80% of AMI, whether they be renters or homeowners, are finding themselves priced out of the San Antonio downtown area. If renters stay, they struggle to pay unaffordable rent which can prevent them from achieving the dream of home ownership. Homeowners may soon join their ranks.

What we need is training programs for Bexar County residents, higher wages, the development of skilled industries (not tourism), and a way for neighborhood  students to have access to to a decent education. What we need is housing that is affordable and  neighborhoods that are resilient.

The SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan requires that developments that receive public funding or use public financing tools, provide affordable housing units – an important objective that this Commissioners Court has failed to require.

According to NALCAB’s recent study, “An Analysis of Housing Vulnerability in San Antonio” produced in January of this year, public policy and incentives that are proposed here have helped to make rental housing unaffordable.  The highest multifamily effective rents were in areas with high concentrations of new production, often incentivized production.

In other words, the City incentivized an unaffordable rental housing market, using our tax dollars to worsen a housing crises. Now the County, learning nothing from the City’s errors, seems to be proposing to do the very same thing. It does not make any sense.

There is nothing wrong with market rate housing which will proliferate on its own as the market grows; but our tax dollars should be used to incentivize affordable and workforce housing and training that benefits the citizens of Bexar County, not just the market rate development community or corporations.

I understand the desire to raise the tax base by incentivizing market rate housing, but we can do that by raising the living standards of our citizens through education, opportunity, and housing.

On February 13th, after two hours of presentations (notably by Dr. Christine Drennon of Trinity University and SAISD Superintendent Pedro Martinez) and citizen input, Commissioner Calvert was able to successfully persuade the Commissioners Court to hire a housing consultant and create a citizen –staffed advisory committee. County Commissioner Tommy Calvert should be commended for working for affordable housing and seeking public engagement as the process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Mahncke Park NA’s Call to Action

Written by the Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association Board of Directors: Joanie Brooks, President; Stephen Amberg, Vice President; Homer “Butch” Hayes, Treasurer; Camis Milam, Secretary; Jennifer Norton, Estrada Polly, and Noel Matthew Shaddock

A Call for Action by the Housing Commission to Protect and Preserve Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods San Antonio’s debate about how to secure affordable housing close to the city core is urgent. As a fast growing city with an anticipated additional one million people expected in the next 25 years, we are a prime target for developers. New people who desire urban living need affordable housing close to downtown to live and work at the same time that existing affordable housing in those areas is being demolished in favor of upper middle-class housing, which is displacing current residents. Our city government must address this growing crisis with a broader set of goals and tools than currently in use. The City should develop policies to sustain current affordable workers’ housing and to prevent displacement as it encourages infill development in the Downtown and Midtown areas.

The City has stated that it is committed to increase affordable housing and preserve existing central city neighborhoods. At the first meeting of the Housing Commission to Protect and Preserve Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods, on September 24, 2015, John Dugan, director of the Department of Planning and Community Development stated, “The Housing Commission will have a key role in developing new policies and programs to increase the supply of affordable and workforce housing.” The Housing Commission plans to develop policies and programs to protect and preserve existing central city neighborhoods. It also shares our concerns about affordability and preservation of existing communities. “We are seeing significant reinvestment in many of the neighborhoods located inside Loop 410,” Dugan said. “As new residents move in, we want to ensure that existing residents are not pushed out and the qualities that make these neighborhoods dynamic and diverse are not lost.” The City should now undertake to specify parameters for increased density in and around established Midtown residential neighborhoods, which are already dynamic and diverse, but whose qualities are threatened by inappropriate new development.

Recent developments in Mahncke Park illustrate where stable working class neighborhoods are in direct conflict with developers’ plans for inner tier development and profit. Mahncke Park (MP) is a residential neighborhood in the Midtown Regional Center, which is currently in Year 1 of the SA2020 Comprehensive Plan process, which is projected to gain 1,000 new families by 2040 as well as new businesses and jobs. Because MP has diverse and affordable housing of good quality that is proximate to the Downtown – located south of Alamo Heights between Brackenridge Park and Fort Sam – it has become a magnet for investors who seek to capitalize on rising interest and values. MP is struggling to maintain its identity as a vibrant community of people, who are diverse by income, age, ethnicity, occupation and talents and who share a common interest in maintaining this vibrancy. However, the City’s current housing development policies do not allow MP to protect the values of stability with change, affordable housing stock, and the historic residential fabric of the built environment and community life.

Mahncke Park (MP) is undergoing rapid change as affordable housing is demolished and replaced by upper middle income and luxury homes. MP has roughly 5,000 thousand residents who now live mostly in modest single-family homes, duplexes and quadraplex apartment buildings, and some larger multiunit low-rise apartment buildings, which were built from the 1920’s to the 1950’s. In the new environment, businesses have been allowed to encroach on residential streets and, on the southern side of the neighborhood, homes and apartment buildings that have fallen into various levels of neglect are 2 being snapped up by developers. They are then demolished and replaced with blocks of cookie-cutter “town” homes and condos.

The Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) wants to protect affordable housing and MP’s historic fabric as it supports the SA Comprehensive Plan for greater density in Midtown where it is appropriate. Some developers have worked well with MPNA to make modifications to their plans to accommodate historic values, but others reject community input.

One egregious case where the historic fabric of the MP community is being lost is the Imagine Homes projects. This case also demonstrates the limits of the City’s current policies for appropriate and sustainable development. Imagine Homes (IH) has already demolished homes and apartment buildings and replaced them with upper middle class town homes; it has applied for approval to demolish six more buildings. Claremont Street is being systematically transformed from its heterogeneous residential character to a monoculture of gentrification. IH’s signature project is a single-family house on a 25-foot lot with a front-loaded garage, which is specifically not allowed by the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) guidelines. The City adopted the MP Neighborhood Plan in 2004 and the NCD was approved in 2008. The NCD design overlay states that lots greater than 45 feet wide will have garages behind the plane of the house façade. There were no extant lots less than 50 feet wide over the past 50 years. Imagine Homes has made the case to the Development Services Department that the original 1928 platting of the Natalen Terrace area with 25-foot lots should have prior legal authority over later zoning and design guidelines. Imagine Homes is purchasing extant lots with buildings that encompass two or more plats and dividing them up into 25-foot single-family home lots. DSD states that the NCD guidelines do not apply and that zoning regulations do not prohibit what IM is doing. (See the satellite photo of Claremont.)

The Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) has requested a Change Request (CCR) to revise its NCD with the hope of blocking this practice. City Council approved the CCR, but DSD has reiterated the stance that the new NCD will not supersede the 1928 platting. This may well be a correct reading of zoning rules, but the resultant situation is unworkable for the neighborhood and the City. This case calls out for a new policy to govern development to be swiftly considered and acted on.

Debate has gelled on the need for a broader appreciation of our residential fabric than only physical assets. The September 5, 2017 edition of the Rivard Report included an article from Next City reporter Johnny Magdaleño that suggests the proper perspective from which to consider change. It notes that “Part of the value of the UNESCO World Heritage designation includes the ‘intangible heritage’ of people. It’s not the restaurant, it’s the chef,” says William Dupont, director of the Center for Cultural Sustainability at University of Texas at San Antonio. “So, as the city is looking at that, they’re concurrently taking a look at all of their policies citywide, [recognizing] displacement of the people can now cause loss of economic potential.” We urge the Housing Commission to not only look, but to adapt the City’s “equity lens” budget analysis for a new policy to sustain residential equity by protecting the existing community diversity of people and housing stock.

The Mayor and Council must act in a timely way to broaden the policy discussion about affordable housing and city development in ways that address preservation of our neighborhoods’ diversity, culture and heritage. The housing we are living in now is affordable housing. However, it is being torn down and replaced by housing that is not affordable for current residents and/or replaced by affordable housing that is subsidized by the taxpayers.

We recommend the following action items to our City officials.

1. We need a moratorium on the demolition of existing affordable housing until a new housing policy is enacted.

2. The City needs to address historical platting that is antagonistic to the context of current usage and design guidelines in order to maintain the historic diversity of neighborhoods.

3. The Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force should develop strategies and policies to preserve and rehabilitate existing residential structures.

4. The Task Force should conduct a survey of rents in the sub-area neighborhoods of Midtown.

5. The new policies to preserve existing affordable housing should include support for individuals who own properties, but cannot afford to maintain them, in the form of grants and low cost loans.

6. The new policies should also support long-term residents with appropriate assistance to be able to age in place.

7. The Midtown Regional Planning Task Force should not abandon neighborhood plans, but use them as directives for new zoning maps.

8. There must be neighborhood membership in all decision-making bodies that formulate policies for residential neighborhoods that is at least equal to the representation of development interests.

9. Transportation Corridor planning boundaries for development must be re-scaled from a half-mile to the actual abutting properties while the traffic study boundaries remain in place.

 

Posted on

Affordable Housing is the Housing We Live in Now

Published in The Rivard Report, July 18, 2017 

https://therivardreport.com/affordable-housing-is-the-housing-we-live-in-now/

Photo by SCOTT BALL / RIVARD REPORT

At a recent Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association meeting, neighbors came together to talk about the proposed updates to our Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD5) design standards.  These design standards were originally developed by BH residents in 2005, in partnership with city staff, to address the demolition of Craftsman bungalow homes in favor of more subdivision style homes. This was a grassroots effort to preserve our neighborhood housing stock and to inform future development. The recent and overdue work to update the design standards was a result of changing development trends and the city’s focus on high density infill which allowed for multi storied single family condos to be built on a lot zoned for multi-family development. The updates also addressed issues that included porch requirements, fencing, height, and setback limitations. Many of the NCD standards were actually loosened.

There were many opportunities over the past year for residents and businesses to participate and provide input. Feedback ranged from “The city shouldn’t be able to dictate what I do with my property” to “How can we protect our neighborhood against indiscriminate flippers and developers?” But the most commonly heard and loudly voiced concern was over the ability for residents to be able to stay in their homes in the face of wildly increasing property taxes, partially caused by the new high density infill developments and flipped houses in their neighborhood. “I don’t know how much longer many of us can hang on,” one anguished neighbor said to a crowded room. His neighbors vigorously agreed. The frustration and fear were palpable.

At a recent breakfast organized by the Mayor’s Housing Summit, the Executive Vice President of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) stood before a packed room and denounced neighborhoods as the NIMBYs who would deny affordable housing development in our communities because our design standards make it more difficult for developers to build. Recently Beacon Hill has been criticized for this very thing. The fallacy in a working and middle class neighborhood like Beacon Hill (according to 2015 Census the family median income in BH is just under $37,000 in a predominately 77% Latino neighborhood) is that density and development creates affordable housing. The easy equations belie reality. Density does not equate to affordability. In fact, the quick turnover of flipped houses and the development of luxury condos which has become the model for downtown housing development (like the recent construction of six single family condos on one lot in the middle of a block of mostly single story early 20th century bungalows selling for $300,000+) has contributed to a steep rise in housing prices and property taxes, and many long term residents simply cannot keep up. Local landlords struggle to maintain affordable rental rates when their taxes are skyrocketing.

The “unprotected” neighborhoods of Monte Vista Terrace and Tobin Hill North (part of Tobin Hill) are facing condo developments that are anything but affordable and are incompatible with the character of their neighborhood. Who wins here?  Residents in Tobin Hill North who have been there for generations will face rising property values and taxes, a fear echoed at a recent Zoning Commission meeting where several elders and other neighbors voiced concern over incompatible and expensive developments. Tell the unfortunate residents of Mission Trails that were displaced by city- incentivized development how that tragedy promoted affordable housing. Their affordable housing will be replaced by luxury condos. In working class neighborhoods, affordable housing is the housing people live in now.

Design standards can help maintain stability in neighborhoods, and they help to prevent displacement. In fact, one of the Beacon Hill NCD5 standard updates requires that units built on multi-family lots be built within one structure to help ensure rental housing for the future. In the twelve years that our NCD standards have been in place, there is no instance of where they’ve discouraged the development of affordable housing. Design standards do not prohibit affordable housing: Expensive developments drive up land prices and prohibit affordable housing. Protecting working class neighborhoods could help protect affordability in a hot housing market.

At the same time we’ve updated our standards, Beacon Hill has encouraged thoughtful and neighborhood friendly developers working on affordable housing and density into our community. There are opportunities within the neighborhood for the development of “missing middle” housing and along the corridors for four-story structures creating density. As we work with the city in the future on the Near North Central Plan as part of the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan (which promotes “strengthening [NCDs] to address the appropriateness of new and infill construction through enforceable design standards that allow neighborhoods to define unique character and features and promote compatible infill development” HPCH P9), we look forward to working on issues of density and equity.  But we cannot solve San Antonio’s workforce housing shortage by destroying these early 20th century downtown neighborhoods that are an important part of our city’s history. Once gone, these unique neighborhoods cannot ever be brought back. Once gone, our neighbors cannot ever be replaced.

One of the greatest reasons we struggle with the issue of affordable housing is that San Antonio does not have a comprehensive housing policy. Working together to create one would be a first step to guiding our future. A developer-driven approach to affordable housing, one that primarily favors the builders, is not an answer. If we are serious about providing affordable housing, then we need the political will to do the hard work of building a plan that is equitable and that works. Any workable housing plan must include neighborhoods in the decision-making process instead of a top-down elitist approach that bypasses the democratic process of allowing neighbors to speak for themselves. We must avoid easy answers that promotes a blanket policy of control that may displace neighbors and leaves them vulnerable to predatory practices. Simplistic slogans like YIMBY and NIMBY are just diversions to the complex and difficult work that needs to be done.

In his much acclaimed new book, How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight for the Neighborhood journalist Peter Moskowitz examines the very process that is occurring in our downtown San Antonio neighborhoods in neighborhoods in cities across the U.S. He makes the case that that it is imperative that neighborhoods should decide their future: “So the problem of solving gentrification is not only about economics or urban planning, but about democracy. What would cities look like if the people who lived in them, who made them function, controlled their fate?”

We must not destroy our unique downtown neighborhoods to solve the problem of San Antonio’s affordable housing shortage: We must, instead, develop an equitable and effective housing policy whose process is fair, inclusive, and transparent. We must give the people who live in our neighborhoods a voice in their fate.