You will have to watch the meeting yourself, but I got a goodĂ‚Â chuckle out of how they are claiming that ‘workforce’ housing is similar to affordable or low income housing. It’s NOT. It pretty much means they don’t have to charge low rents like affordable housing. They use a tax credit that makes them eligible to charge rents comparable to 60% of the median income. Make no mistake, this apartment building is just that, an apartment building, nothing special about it, and certainly not deserving of a TIF.
I also take issue with developers that live out of state getting property tax rebates. At least when Dunham or Lloyd get a TIF, they put the money back into our community.
I hope the City Council grows a sack and denies this TIF, it’s not a blighted area and it’s not affordable housing.
Just to be clear, for those playing at home…
Various tax credits are pegged to different AMI (area median income) tiers. 30% AMI is considered very low income, 50% AMI is considered low income, 60% and 80% are considered moderate income. Workforce housing is primarily targeted at residents with moderate incomes, although there will sometimes be a combination of levels within one complex.
In the housing authority I work at, we have some buildings with units at 30%, 50%, and 60%. Identical units in many cases. Sometimes our 50% and 60% residents get a little torked off to find out that the people in our 30% units are paying half as much in rent but that’s how the system works. We keep waiting lists for all units and sometimes it works out that when there’s a vacancy in a 30% unit, someone from a 50% or 60% unit is able to have that lower rent reassigned to their existing unit.
For people who move into those units, the rent is set at 30% of those AMI benchmarks. So a person in a 60% AMI unit has their rent capped at 30% of that value.
Be mindful that 60% of AMI is hardly targeting the affluent, or those who can afford market rate units. For a family of three (the not uncommon combination of a single mom and two kids), 60% AMI in Sioux Falls is $39,000.
And again, part of what income requirements are about is ensuring that supply is available and that people making more money can’t move into these complexes because they want a great deal on rent.
While I appreciate where Scott is coming from, let me be clear. Whatever he’s envisioning in terms of affordable housing would require subsidy levels that just don’t exist right now. Workforce housing is not Section 8, where residents pay 30% of their adjusted income and the federal government covers the rest, all while the private landlord is collecting market rents on other units. It’s not public housing. Workforce housing is private development in which the developer agrees to restrict rent in return for some other compensation – usually a tax credit or abatement of some kind, or a deal on land acquisition or remediation.
I’d be curious what our host envisions when he thinks of affordable housing. Because with existing programs, a building where 100% of the units are at 30% AMI is totally and completely unsustainable. The rent stream is so restricted that the building will lose money year after year. Affordable housing isn’t designed to address homelessness. It’s designed to provide housing to those who have income, just not enough of it.
Thanks for reading, all.
Not sure what Scott thinks is affordable housing, but last year at a Lincoln County Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Jim Schmidt intimated that he considers $500k homes on 1 acre a golf course to be “affordable” housing.