All affordable or mixed income? Debate rages on Seward

[Mackinaw]

You have never lived in GPP. your address places you in what strata your income is. We did fine, two incomes.

Funny story: I did live there!

Grosse Pointe Park is not the "central city," in that it is does not have high density apartment-style housing. So logically it, like almost all suburbs, serves as a contrast to the picture I was painting about the "central city" being a place that should be ripe for greater integration.

[bailey]

Also completely correct, but isn't a central city environment the ideal place to start breaking that down? I'd say yes. And isn't it possible that the divides are much more subtle that people think, such that someone making 150k/year could share a wall with someone making 50k/year but neither would feel out of place? It's not like you go around surveying your neighbors about their income.

Social engineering is really great and all, but it tends to go off the rails when it's attempted in the real world. People don't outright ask who makes what, they make that survey when they select a neighborhood or building. If I were that 150k person I'd be feeling ripped off by the fact I'm paying two or three times the rental rate of the subsidized person would for the shared wall and the same apartment. If the building is going to be mostly or largely reserved for subsidized housing... it's going to end up being all subsidized housing.

I'm looking at this as Detroit desperately needs to attract that 150k earning demo, there is a lack of housing for that demo, and how it should deploy tax credits to attract that demo. I don't think senior or subsidized housing is in short supply in this town. What Detroit needs is a whole lot more gentrification and shoring up of the tax base before we get too wrapped around the axle over housing set asides.

[Mackinaw]

Absolutely, Bailey, and Detroit at large doesn't really need much public outlay for housing because the market permits people to own decent homes for cheaper than the price of a car, and rents are by and large the lowest of any northern city.

But I am still uncomfortable about our likely near future, where everything inside of Grand Blvd., Lodge, and Chrysler are pricey. I see Detroit developing in patches and quadrants, a lot like Washington DC's last two decades. Are we all okay with certain neighborhoods being off limits to those of limited means, especially when those neighborhoods like the Woodward corridor are going to be the ones with the best mass transit?

I'm not, so I support federal tax give-backs like LIHTC, but I also support curbs on their overall usage, so that we don't end up with rich buildings v. poor buildings.

I think my vision also puts a dent in the case of the anti-gentrification folks and prevents a lot of the awkwardness that arises when a bunch of new, moneyed residents appear on the scene and all live in clusters apart from the preexisting residents, something places like DC and Brooklyn can speak to extensively. Now Detroit's got a TON of empty land remaining in even its densest areas like midtown, so the question is how will our developers choose to utilize existing government programs like affordable housing credits? There's a ton of room available and frankly the most desirable sections of Detroit could and should end up a model for integration.

[Wesley Mouch]

What part of my post suggests telling people where to live? Your response is a non-sequitur detached from market reality. Of course people choose where they want to live. This is a discussion about the government's role in creating and fostering neighborhoods. Here, it's about Seward St. The government, representing the people, is playing a role through furnishing public funding to developers. Meanwhile the City government, by and for the people, might also have some say, under its basic land use powers. The discussion is whether tax credits should be furnished in an unlimited fashion, or perhaps limited [[if that is even possible under relevant regulations). If they are, then the developer is likely to build a building that does not permit socioeconomic and/or age diversity. If they are limited, i.e. a condition of their availability is that the developer is capped at, say, 60% subsidized unit, then the building does permit people who aren't poor or aren't old to live there. If you've read closely, you'll know that I am in favor of the later. So I am in favor of giving people more options as to where they may choose to live.

Thanks for mischaracterizing. Read closer.

You're welcome.

We need not get into parsing each other's writing. Perhaps I did read too much into your statement. I read that you feel we need to 'break down the barriers' that keep us living in silos rather than in an integrated community. I disagree that 'breaking down barriers' is necessary or desirable or achievable.

As to how to best deal with tax credits, I suggest they be discarded. The credits would be better just given to individuals to do with as they please. If you think socioeconomic integration is good, I believe tax credits for affordable housing are the wrong tool. They create the silos. Instead increase the EIC to put the power to buy any residence right into the hands of the elderly or poor. They can then choose to move into any building they can afford, and won't be held in these silos.

Although I argued against subsidized housing and think the 'right to housing' is absurd, I do believe we have a social responsibility to provide housing. After all, the government regulates up the cost of home construction by millions of rules. Thus, we need to help.

[Bham1982]

Crains Detroit is so cartoonishly boosterish, and I'm sure they don't even realize the contradictions in their article.

"However, the developers of 59 Seward argue that market-rate apartments aren't economically viable for this building and they would need to charge $2,000 per month for rent. Which itself lends the question that should gentrification be allowed to spread into Detroit's neighborhoods or should this area be relatively kept affordable?"

Gee, ya think they might be contradicting themselves? The developer says that there is no economic justification for market rate units [[translation- insufficient demand from non-poor), yet this apparently illustrates the "spread of gentrification". Who knew?

The answer, is, it doesn't matter. If the units are "market-rate", they will be subsidized by taxpayers, if they are "affordable" [[ridiculous euphemism for housing for poor) they will be subsidized by taxpayers. The question is really "who do you want to subsidize".

The question probably should be "what are we subsidizing and why", but that's way too complex and non-boosterish. That's a question for arrogant eggheads on the coasts, not real deal De-troit hockey fans!

[sumas]

Actually it was De-troit basketball. Fuck you Bham, have many degrees and a proud Detroiter, but you expect to throw dirt , so get some on you.

You are clueless as to poverty and and what it does to folk. Your lack of caring is astounding. Worry about your taxes, couldn't care.

I live in a real world, care, make a difference. My life is filled with real people, many who struggle. I can't cure all but try to assist.

[Hermod]

Real "gentrification" pushes poorer people out of an area as the area becomes more desirable and the sales prices/rents climb. In the case of Detroit, there are plenty of houses and plenty of land, so they may have to only move a few blocks over.

You will still have "silos" because there is a Gresham's Law to housing and people can vote with their feet [[or their cars)..

[emu steve]

I have a simple comment:

I've read about seniors being displaced downtown by redevelopment.

Wouldn't it be nice to have alternate housing for those same folks [[doesn't have to be Mrs. Smith who moves from downtown to Seward, but generally replenish the supply of lower cost housing which is being turned into pricey, renovated buildings).

[Mackinaw]

It would be nice, Emu_steve. If a senior wants to live on the Woodward bus/train corridor, and then suddenly all of the convenient apartment living for them is booked solid or being taken off the market to meet legitimate market demand, then there is clearly a place for adding more to the market, and it seems the right thing to do is to allow/promote it. A low-income senior would have a fundamentally different and potentially more difficult lifestyle if they move out to Detroit neighborhood with worse transit and more multi-level single family homes without elevators. Heck, they might just throw up their hands at that point and move to a suburb.

Here, there is a developer that wants to fill that need. Only question is whether to allow them to go with the silo model, or promote integrative housing as Mosey says.

Also want to call to mind again that we are talking about some dilapidated buildings here that it would be really nice to see restored, no matter the use. I am willing to settle, as long as the renovations are serious.

[Jason]

Yeah I think affordable housing is incredibly important in Detroit. Maybe, when it comes down to it, one of the most important things.

Poor people can rent a house for very cheap, but the house will be infested by cockroaches and the roof will be sagging inward and there'll be crack houses around and the schools will be terrible. You don't know how to make money but neither does anyone you know and no one has good skills or connections to pass along. Access to transportation is terrible so you can't get to most jobs and if the bus is late or if you're scheduled to work days the bus doesn't run then you get fired. How are parents supposed to dedicate the energy they need on raising their kids when they're so overwhelmed by making ends meet? How are kids supposed to have self confidence and feel good about themselves when their entire neighborhood is a bombed out hellhole? How are they supposed to do good at school when everything is so chaotic? People need stable, cohesive, quality environments with good access to transportation and integration with beneficial social groups.

I know this isn't going to happen but I'd love to see a more aggressive, empowered public housing program. The higher the rents are in the greater downtown area the more feasible mixed income developments could be, as the higher the top rents are, and the more they can subsidize low and mid income units. One of the reasons there aren't more developments at bigger scales is because of access to capital, which the government should be very good at. And doing aggressive large scale building would add a lot to the value of both public and private developments, because right now I think the value of what exists is more because of scarcity than overall desirability. But doing this would take a lot of political and institutional will that doesn't exist right now.

[Bham1982]

I know this isn't going to happen but I'd love to see a more aggressive, empowered public housing program. The higher the rents are in the greater downtown area the more feasible mixed income developments could be, as the higher the top rents are, and the more they can subsidize low and mid income units. One of the reasons there aren't more developments at bigger scales is because of access to capital, which the government should be very good at. And doing aggressive large scale building would add a lot to the value of both public and private developments, because right now I think the value of what exists is more because of scarcity than overall desirability. But doing this would take a lot of political and institutional will that doesn't exist right now.

What you're talking about is called inclusionary housing. It's essentially cross-subsidized housing. It doesn't really work outside of San Francisco and NYC, because you need 1. Shockingly high market rents and 2. Willingness to pay such rents adjacent to people paying almost nothing.