“Midtown Corner's upper five stories were planned affordable housing. The building would have had 190 units, with rent keyed to households making between 60 and 80 percent of the area's median income.
The apartments were the final piece in Wellington's development of the former Rainbow Foods space on East Lake Street. It had already finished adding an Aldi and a charter school called Universal Academy. Both of those buildings were also damaged in the protests.”
I just read yet another article in Columbus Business First “Stop being scared of people who need affordable housing” on the need for low income housing in Columbus—this time to satisfy the need for workers by Columbus businesses and those businesses which might relocate here if there was a solid pool of workers. AFFORDABLE in government housing speak means money has been transferred from tax-payer abc to entitlement receiver xyz, but many in that chain are not poor--they are staffers in government backed programs and agencies (like HUD, USDA, HDAP, OHFA COHHIO) earning good salaries, with excellent benefits and job security, which is why the programs must be continuously expanded. I looked through the list of agencies, non-profits and city employees who attended the meeting. Then I looked back through my blog to 2008, when I’d written on this topic. Ten years ago the plea was that good housing transforms lives. And I said:
“Housing doesn’t change lives. Marriage does. Parenthood does. Faith in God does. Employment does. Education can. Art and music can. Pets might. Leisure activities don't. Substance abuse will definitely change your life downward. But not housing. Ask any landlord who turned the keys over to a careless, slovenly tenant. Housing doesn’t create safe neighborhoods; it doesn’t get transportation issues funded; it doesn’t improve health; it doesn’t pass bond issues. In partnership with the private sector, this kind of housing for low income people creates jobs and profits for the construction companies.”
Our first home was a duplex, purchased for $14,000 in 1962. Our renters paid the mortgage, we borrowed from my father the down payment. Then in 1964 we bought a second house in a better neighborhood and rented both units. That paid for both houses and a car payment. If we hadn’t bought that first run-down, sweat equity duplex in a neighborhood on the way down, we wouldn’t be where we are today. But being a landlord was the pits. I wouldn’t wish it on any couple in their early 20s.
My parents’ first home was a small, two bedroom with a down payment from my father’s grandmother. My parents and the babies slept in one bedroom and 2 men rented the other bedroom, and also boarded there. I think one of my aunts slept on the living room couch. But with 4 children, they sold it and bought a larger 2 bedroom one street over (3 girls in one bedroom and my baby brother in my parents’ room) and didn’t need boarders to pay the mortgage. No grants, subsidies, tax credits, just a loan from a family member and a mortgage based only the husband’s income (even in the early 60s, a wife’s income wasn’t taken into consideration on what a mortgage applicant could afford).
According to my 2008 blog entry, The Columbus Housing Partnership (dba Homeport) was 20 years old then and had developed over 4,000 affordable homes which had served over 23,000 people. So CHP is now 30 years old—should there be any lack of affordable housing in Columbus? When the original owners 30 years ago, moved out and up, shouldn’t new home owners have taken their place? The original owners would now be grandparents able to help out family members, right? Other agencies mentioned in the Business First article were Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio (which was founded in 1974), Affordable Housing Alliance of Central Ohio, Affordable Housing Trust for Columbus and Franklin County, and Columbus Department of Development.
I’ve seen real estate ads for Columbus that are definitely affordable, and closer to public transportation than planting a development in the suburbs, but they are all in neighborhoods that need good city support—police, fire, schools, small shopping areas, decent utilities, etc. and none will qualify for various fancy loan vehicles. I think they are looking in all the wrong places for affordable housing.
“Of these 25,226 families [in public housing], 17,761 had earned more than the qualifying amount for more than 1 year. HUD regulations require families to meet eligibility income limits only when they are admitted to the public housing program."Well, gosh, in 1990, we earned more than we did in 1960, too. In fact, we’d paid off the mortgage on two homes. I wonder why this was never taken into consideration?
"Case 1 – New York City Housing Authority, New York, NY – The Authority admitted the family to the program in November 1988, and it had been overincome since at least 2009. As of November 2013, the four-person household’s annual income was $497,911, while the low-income threshold was $67,100. Three members of the household earned income. The member with the highest income earned $275,757.In addition, the head of the household owned real estate that produced $790,534 in rental income between 2009 and 2013. As of July 2014, the family paid an income-based ceiling rent of $1,574 monthly for its public housing unit. According to the Authority, it did not evict this family from its 3-bedroom unit because its policy does not require it to terminate the tenancy or evict families solely because they are overincome. The Authority believes that allowing overincome families to reside in public housing is beneficial because it shows that participation in the public housing program can help families achieve a more stable life and the average rent paid by overincome families is greater than that paid by other low income families."
Posts
All Comments
