New Brewster Wheeler plan would bring 200-plus apartments to site

[Hypestyles]

I hope this can actually get built-- and give some jobs to city residents while its being built-- and then it can serve the purposes that it has been alleged to do. I really hope this can work.

[mwilbert]

[QUOTE=masterblaster;635062
Why is there no push to build affordable housing in Birmingham, and why are there none of these set-aside units in the mixed-use projects in downtown Royal Oak and Ferndale? The same arguments dtowncitylover made can be applied to wealthy suburbs - working class and poor work in these suburbs as well.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about Birmingham or Royal Oak, but I'm reasonably sure Ferndale does have a set-aside policy of 25% of units in developments of more than 25 units.I'm not sure if any buildings have been built under this--there was supposed to be a building with set asides at 503 E 9 Mile, but it looks like it ended up all affordable.

[Richard]

I don't know about Birmingham or Royal Oak, but I'm reasonably sure Ferndale does have a set-aside policy of 25% of units in developments of more than 25 units.I'm not sure if any buildings have been built under this--there was supposed to be a building with set asides at 503 E 9 Mile, but it looks like it ended up all affordable.

In 2009 the government told the suburban cities they had to start building below market multi family units and have equally diverse neighborhoods,one way or another,or lose millions in federal funding.

The objective was to take people from high concentration eras of poverty from cities like Detroit and disperse them to the suburbs.

If you spread them out over a larger area,you do not notice them that much.

The problem that happened as a result of that is the bad element followed into the burbs and sparked crime waves there also,so instead of the majority of crime being in one spot it got spread out and the crime free peace and tranquility of the burbs was forever gone.

So in 2016 it was immediately suspended.

In 2020 - 2021 it was snuck back into play hidden into the rona virus package,which is why you see a majority of the housing projects in Detroit as being below market rate,because the city gets millions from HUD to do it.

To me it’s a bit redundant because the objective should be to lift people out of poverty verses giving them nicer digs as a form of pacification,but one does need to maintain priorities.

HUD no longer builds,funds,runs or encourages large scale projects or large scale low income residential. So there will never be a Brewster style development again.Or below income units that reach the 200 mark.

What it does is cut one big check to the cities and let’s them handle it all because they really are more tuned in as to where the need is.

Detroit has had some new developments that are required to maintain the affordable or below market rates permanently but as a rule the requirement is you have to retain those units for 5 years then you can convert over to full market rate.

They get the 5 year number because HUD puts up enough funds or most of the funds required to build the housing,so as a developer it is actually little money out of pocket and HUD figures it takes 5 years to get that payback through the reduced rents and the builder gets a free building in exchange that they can either drop the reduced rents after the 5 years and sell it at full market value at a nice profit.

So instead of HUD building and renting ,it moved it to the private sector with the city as the broker who gets their cut.

This was so people understand that even though they are building below market rate units now,5 years from now when they convert over to full market rate,as a rule,it creates a dramatic change within the area they are built.

Or at the very least an immediate income increase for that area of 25%,and you can say - Look we are doing great we decreased the poverty level over there 25% which is a catch 22 because as you lower the poverty rate numbers in a given area you lose federal funds,the more poverty you can claim as a city,the bigger the check from the feds you get

So it becomes a creative math game of keeping enough people at the poverty level because it does prop up the cities bottom line,verses actually decreasing the level of poverty.

In theory you are leveraging poverty as a tool,to fund gentrification.

So in the case of Detroit,you are leveraging the high poverty rate to rebuild,as harsh as it may sound,at this point in time,having a high poverty rate is an advantage more then a disadvantage.

Because it opens you up to extra federal funds that you would not have received otherwise.

[royce]

Drove by the site and they are putting a new roof on the recreation center.