Until now, Montclair 1st ward councilor Rich Murnick has stood pretty much alone in opposing the use of town-owned property on Wildwood Ave. for new affordable housing. Today, he was joined by 2nd ward councilor Cary Africk in his opposition to the plan.
Africk made his position change public by releasing a letter he wrote to community activist Pat Kenschaft. (See letter after the jump).
“It doesn’t make sense to do it there,” he told us by telephone today. “Why not buy an existing house? It doesn’t make economic sense.” The text of Africk’s letter follows.
Pat,
Forgive me for taking so long to respond.
While I do not think that the contemplated actions of selling the building lots on Wildwood constitute a “vendetta” against the First Ward, there is undoubtedly an emphasis on building affordable housing in the First Ward following the recent events surrounding the Mental Health Association’s lawsuit to put two six-unit mental health housing structures on property in the Fourth Ward.
Residents in the Fourth Ward sought to stop that construction. They were angry at the continued use of the Fourth Ward for “special projects” like Mental Health’s plan, and the disproportionate amount of Affordable Housing in their ward. They asked why such facilities weren’t distributed more widely throughout town. I think they are right.
But Wildwood is not the only place to do it.
Initially, I supported a plan that would have four building lots carved out of the town owned Wildwood property. My plan required the remaining property to be kept as open space. Ideally the non building lot property would be sold to the County using Green Acre Funding, and become part of Brookdale Park. I went so far as to meet with representatives of the Brookdale Conservancy. None of the other Council members, or the township administration, offered to help me in pursuing this.
As to possible revenue generation via the sale of the building lots, that was nor my primary motivation. More importantly, I thought four modest new homes would complement those already there. I saw no reason to not build affordable housing there.
Since this past Summer, my thinking has evolved. During this time I have met with the residents of Wildwood and learned about the street. I looked at the homes already there and left convinced of resident’s statement “we’re already doing our part to solve the Affordable Housing crisis.”
Wildwood is a street where people with differing needs can buy or rent a variety of properties. Half the properties are not owner occupied. There are multi family homes. There is a home with disabled people. There are rental houses. There are houses at low and moderate price points.
I also looked at the “numbers.” I met with members of HomeCorp, Montclair’s own developer of Affordable Housing, and with other local developers of affordable housing, as well as with builders, attorneys, and realtors.
Affordable housing on Wildwood would require that the lots, appraised at $350K each, would have to be sold for a fraction of this. Perhaps $80,000. Perhaps given away free. While a case could be made that the property’s “real value” is less than $350K, that real value is certainly not $80K,
But here’s the thing:
At a sale price of $80,000, and construction costs of $125 per square foot, and a modest home of 1,800 square feet, a Wildwood home would cost the affordable housing developer over $300K.
At this cost, as you point out Pat, there are already many attractive alternatives in the First Ward. Homes that are already on the market. Lovely homes whose sellers would be delighted to make the sale!
And if Montclair wants to show its commitment to affordable housing by taking a less than market “loss” on properties, Montclair could sell OTHER land it owns for less than market and give those proceeds to HomeCorp.
And let’s not forget that in this real estate economy it might not even make sense for a developer of market rate housing to build on Wildwood!
Again, let’s look at the numbers:
Building costs for market rate, as I obtained from a local builder, are at least $200/square foot. A market rate home might have 2,000 square feet. That’s building costs of $400K. If they paid Montclair $250K for the lot, that would give them a COST of $650K for a Wildwood property.
I assume the builder doesn’t build homes for fun, but for profit. Could a builder sell a house under these conditions?
While its “easy” to make a decision to move forward on Wildwood, it’s not the right thing to do. While it IS time to pursue affordable housing in Montclair, in the First Ward, it’s probably time to put the Wildwood project “on hold.”
just to make clear: I enthusiastically support Affordable Housing throughout ALL of Montclair. The Wildwood plan however, is not the right plan. There are several other attractive alternatives in the First Ward.
Cary.. I’m glad you came around. But I’m curious, why does there need to be affordable housing all over town? What about the estate section? How about Upper Mountain Ave? How about in your Erwin Park neighborhood? I think not. This whole debate is totally ridiculous. The market should decide when and where affordable housing is built – not bureaucrats.
We can understandably debate whether or not this piece of prime undeveloped land should be sold or kept as green space, but if it is sold, it should be sold at market price, period. Can we please stop with the social engineering.
We should all be more concerned about keeping Montclair affordable for CURRENT citizens.. not possible new ones.
I agree, Peter. If we are going to sell land because we’re strapped for cash, let’s get top dollar. From both the sale and the tax revenues from those properties once they are developed.
Moments ago I read a post that the average assessed value of properties in Montclair has decreased 17%, and people are concerned that this will mean lower sale prices for their homes.
Guess what this means? Housing in Montclair IS becoming more affordable.
And yet, certain parties on the town council behave as if they have not done an adequate job of destroying value. The arrogance of these bureaucrats to try to set prices instead of allowing a functioning free market is one reason taxes here go up and property values here go down.
May can’t come fast enough. Vote these clowns out.
Cary, Your above statement that you enthusiastically support affordable housing in all areas of Montclair bears some clarification. If you want to be credible you can’t feel strongly both ways. I’ve been deeply involved with subsidized housing for several decades, and seen the successes and the failures. What is being proposed here has no rational basis.
As an example, the beginning of the slide in the Detroit suburbs is directly attributable to offering housing incentives( 3%, virtually no down payment FHA loans in a double digit mortgage rate environment), to targeted groups to enable them to move into solid working class suburbs. The fact that the beneficiaries hadn’t worked and saved to gain entree into these neighborhoods, had minimal financial stake, and no observable pride of ownership, led to the disintegration of these areas and is a case study in the abject failure of this type of social engineering.
dead, et. al.
Affordable housing has to make economic sense. I think it can work throughout Montclair, but that is up to the Affordable Housing Developers to figure out.
Montclair can’t MAKE a developer build in the First Ward, or in any Ward.
And I don’t think that at a local level proper use of taxpayer funds includes subsidies for Affordable Housing.
It is my understanding, however, that there are Federal and other programs that will subsidize affordable housing.
“It is my understanding, however, that there are Federal and other programs that will subsidize affordable housing.”
The Cary Africks of the world always think other people’s money comes in limitless supply.
The township has state-obligations to produce affordable housing and they must do so while cash-strapped in a down market. Their choice is to do nothing or to try to be creative. I don’t place blame locally.
That many homes near this tract along Wildwood are modest, and thus effectively “affordable” is irrelevant. These units don’t count. The definition of “affordable” is only applicable to housing units that are removed from the market and are permanently and legally affordable. In other words only government intervention creates an “affordable” unit. If you disagree with the premise, blame Trenton, or Washington or the subsidized housing industry, as NJ’s approach to affordable housing mirrors most other states.
Montclair is not Detroit and a few units of any housing mixed into our neighborhoods will not affect overall pride of ownership or lead to disinvestment. To me, there are two separate questions: (1) develop, to enjoy a one-time windfall or leave as open space and (2) if the decision is to develop, pursue some affordable units. We should not mix the two, leading to an affordable housing vs open space tradeoff.
Good work, townie!
But actually, the State’s Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) has been dissolved and there is no state obligation.
However, Montclair has its OWN regulations, calling for 1 in 5 properties in a development being made affordable.
In the case of Wildwood, some members of the Council decided to go beyond that and require 2 of the FOUR houses to be made affordable!
Interestingly enough, a developer just got approved to build SIX units in the Fourth Ward and the Council decided to abandon its OWN regulations and let this developer have NO obligation for affordable housing.
I guess rules are rules unless those rules are inconvenient in which case you can make up whatever you want. If you are the “Council Majority.”
“some members of the Council decided to go beyond that and require 2 of the FOUR houses to be made affordable!”
And here in lies the problem with the progressive berg of Montclair.
This is a horrible decision that will hurt all low income residents of Montclair. Yet these pig-headed council members think they are helping them. All the meanwhile, the diversity is disappearing and the rate is accelerating.
Not to mention that the developer of the 6 units in the 4th ward had to get some variances approved. Ideally, that property should have had 4 or 5 units. Interesting info about the state vs. local requirements. So there is NO reason for the town to create affordable housing other than the town wants to create affordable housing? We have so many other pressing problems right now, why on earth would the council want to sell land at a discount and permanently discount the tax revenue that land would generate? Is there any reasoning here other than some kind of personal vision on the part of a handful of council members who want the 1st ward to be sure to get it’s share of development it doesn’t like or want?
It’s the Bluewave agenda jerseygurl.
The Cary Africks of the world always think other people’s money comes in limitless supply.
It does. The amount a President Romney will save from his own tax-cut plan could probably pay for affordable housing on the entire East Coast.
Let’s get real people.
1) forcing mass affordable housing into a neighborhood or into a building or development does not work. It ends up lowering the property values around the area, or if in a building or development, causes havoc based on the two tier investment. I’ve seen a mass exodus out of a “luxury” development when not enough high end units sold and the builders unloaded the rest them to an anti-poverty program in NYC. Real estate social engineering does not work.
2) Conversely, a couple of well placed affordable housing units or homes in wards is not going to do squat to property values and cause a sell-off or disinvestment. It’s a matter of degree. Given the limited monies we have to work with – a couple of affordable efforts is really all that’s on the table.
3) Let’s admit that Montclair’s builder regs for affordable housing do not work. It either makes smaller, new build projects unworkable, becomes a 30k builder tax for the unit that is paid off, or the builder just takes the project elsewhere because the economics don’t work.
If we would just deal with these realities openly and stop allowing those pushing the mantra of diversity to delude themselves that real estate social engineering works — everything would be much clearer and on the table. We would actually be able to roll out a few well-placed units or homes.
The fact is Cary Africk is correct. It makes no economic sense to sell these open space lots for affordable housing because the purchase and build numbers don’t work now. It’s better to take the same monies and buy an existing home(s) somewhere around the township and turn that property into affordable housing – in fulfillment of the Township’s policies.
Bottom line – we should use the Wildwood land for open space related efforts TBD given that scarcity, or sell a portion of it for market rate housing, or some combination thereof. Take the affordable housing monies and use them more wisely and at the same time recognize that it the market that ultimately drives the decision-making here.
Perhaps it’s time to take a detailed look at the philosophy driving the Affordable Housing Initiatives here and who is pushing them — because they are clearly not working here in town. You can slice and dice it, little or no efforts have been achieved beyond talk – which ever way you look at it.
Townie, Detroit didn’t used to be Detroit either… Also, to sell land below market value and effectively insure that the future tax revenue stream received from the improvements on that property are below market (as mentioned above) is not an effective way to take advantage of a “windfall,” unless one has a certain non-economic agenda. This is simply more misguided social tinkering. Incongruent housing values within a neighborhood do not benefit housing values within that neighborhood. Period, end of story. If you want to make the town more affordable, fix the infrastructure and lower the taxes. To qualify for housing subsidy I believe that a family has to make less than 50% of the local median income. Now, if I were making less than 50% of the local median income, why would I want to pay the taxes that would be assessed upon even a discounted home when I could easily move to any of the surrounding communities and be net better off?
Martin is correct. The best solution to providing better affordable housing is to undertake a re-hab initiative for properties that have fallen into disrepair. That pays dividends and truly benefits the community as a whole.
I did not realize COAH was gone, thus removing the state mandate.
Montclair’s IZO is “of a time” and that time has passed. It had nearly passed when the Council approved it. Inclusionary zoning only works in an up market. Lacking the associated economics, the most sensible approach is systemic, not programmatic, but one must accept the possibility of systemic change. I don’t see any leadership on systemic change, only excuses that things are largely written in stone.
This has been political from the get-go, and is tied to the Mental Health Housing controversy. I’d back away, and for now, leave the Wildwood property as is.
Thank you, again, to both Cary Africk and Martin Schwartz!
I’ve seen the Mental Health Housing controversy close up in the form of ambitious operators buying single family houses in VA suburban neighborhoods such as McLean, and converting them into group homes under an obviously perverse interpretation of the statute. Now imagine your neighbor’s house on Gates, Lorraine, S. Mountain, Highland, or whatever, being converted into a group home. Several types of people favor this sort of thing, those that can personally profit and those who hold a, lets call it more progressive view, of neighborhood formation and home ownership. Either way the immediate result is flight and a predictable impact on values. If it can happen there, it can happen here.
Thank you Deadeye. I had forgotten to clarify a “rehab” piece. Funny because it’s my business. If you want to preserve lower and working class families around the township and maintain property values at the same time — we could provide some tax deduction incentives for say seniors if they need to make “major” repairs.
An example – low income families or seniors who own homes – if you remove your funky vinyl siding (vinyl is surefire way push property values lower) and instead repaint a more than 75 year old home – you get x deduction spread out over say 5 years to ensure home retention. Same demographic – need a new roof – again – x deduction. Both of those repairs retail alone could be 8-15k depending on the size of the home. So using affordable housing monies to actually help those here already stay – is another way to actually accomplish something.
Maybe not these examples exactly, but this is the kind of creative thinking that we need to engage in rather than just talk of maintaining diversity.
Not only can’t many lower income SES populations afford the taxes here today if they own homes, but they main can’t afford to maintain their properties. That’s why there has been such an exodus of working class and minority residents over the past 10 years.
There are already some federal and I think county “loan” home repair programs for lower income home owners. We could supplement. So rather than just rhetoric about affordable housing – Montclair should find tools to help keep lower SES families in their homes.
I did not realize COAH was gone, thus removing the state mandate.
Townie,
It’s a bit more complicated than that. COAH is gone, but not the “Mount Laurel Doctrine”.
Like many of Governor Christie’s “solutions”, eliminating COAH without tackling Mt Laurel merely “kicked the can” down the road a bit, and did nothing to solve the underlying problem.
POSTED BY Right of Center | JANUARY 06, 2012 @ 8:22 PM
“It is my understanding, however, that there are Federal and other programs that will subsidize affordable housing.”
…….which reminds me, ROC, of the branch of the Quayle family that grew up in public housing in the Bronx in the 1950′s and 1960′s and that now live very comfortably in Georgia in their big house, driving their big pick up truck, watching Fox News, and rooting for Anybody But Obama.
They hate ! hate ! hate ! that evil big government intervention now, all the while, deliberately forgetting their humble, heavily subsidized roots, made possible by, as you put it, other people’s money (taxes ).
Carl wrote, regarding affordable housing: “eliminating COAH without tackling Mt Laurel merely “kicked the can” down the road a bit, and did nothing to solve the underlying problem”
Kicking the can down the road … moves it down the road. It is not always a bad thing, as a society we need to tackle all sorts of issues and simply cannot deal with everything at once. We are stretched. Cans must be kicked.
We can be innovative and not totally walk away from the issue but this requires focus, beyond Mt Laurel’s narrow focus on zoning or the narrow idea that affordability must be permanently married to specific units. Affordability has only to do with a household’s present finances, not with the underlying value of its housing or any future costs to subsequent occupiers. If we focus on lower income residents who now own their homes and who are in danger of losing them, we might look at those with costly mortgages and come up with a program that might qualify them for more competitive rates. Or some way to address extraordinary one-time costs, like roof work or a new heating system that, if left, would likely lead to a home’s quick deterioration or even safety issues. Beyond these two things, I think affordability boils down to real estate taxes (a subject that fits perfectly into cans).
To round back to Wildwood, does the township value the open space or do we want to financially gain from selling it? Unlink affordability and answer this question first.
The idea of severing the financial gain from affordable housing issues sounds reasonable, but it is not.
This strange little parcel has remained undeveloped for a century because it is linked to a series of competing local interest groups over the many decades. Affordable housing is the banner chosen to develop this land. It is the only interest that has enough support, barely, to sell this property. As it goes, I suspect this will be a 4-3 vote to proceed.
By a lame duck council.
Townie,
I will agree that kicking the can in this case was not as bad as some of his other “kicks”, but that’s only because the economy is so bad. COAH was established for a reason – without it, the munis are completely at the mercy of the deep-pocketed developers and their manipulation of NJ’s capricious and arbitrary courts.
While I would agree that, in general, there is some merit to your argument that “we need to tackle all sorts of issues and simply cannot deal with everything at once. We are stretched. Cans must be kicked.“. It would be a more legitimate point if that wasn’t the Christie Administration’s approach to pretty much every serious issue. Unfortunately, the same could be said for everty NJ Governor in recent history – that’s how we got where we are today…
Just to remind everyone in case you may have forgotten or missed it:
Mayor Fried Slept Here. BY Liz George | TUESDAY, JUL 26, 2011 1:55PM |
This Mayor’s commitment to “affordable housing” is not so impressive when it’s his money at stake.
He is much more willing to commit our money to the idea. And when you spend other people’s money, I don’t call that noble or generous.
Look at this link for a progressive idea that makes 1000 times more sense. http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/01/rescuing_nj_foreclosures_nj_la.html
The again, nothing Fried does makes any sense. I wonder which non-member of the Fried three will cast the supporting vote. I’m going with Rene. She’ll support affordable housing anywhere, regardless of the financial impact, as long as it is not in her ward.