Annise Parker Houston Mayor

[WAZ]

Today, Mayor Annise Parker announced her new choices for City Attorney and director of the City’s Department of Housing and Community Development (David Feldman and James Noteware respectively). The choices weren’t as interesting as what the Mayor said: “We can put more housing out for more people if we upgrade the multi-family housing we have and we do whatever we need to do to remove the really terrible multi-family apartment complexes in our city that drag down the neighborhoods around them.” I’ve been advocating for this all along; most recently in this thread.

There are three caveats on it. First, apartments need periodic reinvestment or they deteriorate. It’s not enough to just upgrade apartments and then walk away. Sooner or later, they’ll be back where they started. Second, like Christof Spieler said about transit – we need to carefully study which apartments are demolished and which are upgraded. Neighborhood Protection has data on the worst apartments; the Department of Housing and Community Development should use that data. Third, they need to do these things in ways that are welcomed by neighbors; not in ways that piss people off. This last piece sounds like simple logic; hardly worth mentioning. But when you're talking about low-cost housing, it might be the hardest part of all.

I am very happy that we finally have a mayor who 'gets it' on the subject of low-cost housing.

[TheNiche]

The choices weren’t as interesting as what the Mayor said: “We can put more housing out for more people if we upgrade the multi-family housing we have and we do whatever we need to do to remove the really terrible multi-family apartment complexes in our city that drag down the neighborhoods around them.”

That's arithmetically false. A renovated apartment unit does not become multiple units. A removed apartment unit is subtracted from the total number of units. Renovating and demolishing housing in lieu of new construction results in a diminished supply of housing.

[dbigtex56]

That's arithmetically false. A renovated apartment unit does not become multiple units. A removed apartment unit is subtracted from the total number of units. Renovating and demolishing housing in lieu of new construction results in a diminished supply of housing.

So, what you're advocating is building cheap new housing specifically for the poor?

We've tried that. The post-war mass warehousing of the poor experiments haven't worked. They were expensive and ineffectual. Let's fix up what we already have, rather than bulldozing and hoping for a 'higher and better' replacement, someday.

Existing buildings have the advantage of ties to the neighborhood (e.g., grocery stores, bus routes.) The mayor's proposal seems pragmatic; house the poor, maintain civic integrity, at a reasonable cost to taxpayers.

[TheNiche]

Am I the only person left on Earth who knows how to add and subtract? Or how to use 'greater than' and 'less than' logical comparisons?

Mayor Parker suggested that we can increase the quantity of housing by renovating and demolishing. Renovation doesn't add to the housing stock (although it does make housing more expensive, even when it is government-funded or government-run) and demolition subtracts from the housing stock (causing market rents to adjust upward in the competitive market area). The implications are that there are fewer total housing units and higher housing prices. It doesn't help the poor; it helps the working class. The desperately poor at the bottom either take the hit or get displaced to some other location, like Pasadena.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining; it would benefit me. It just sounds like the politically correct tripe that a stereotypical Republican would use to justify sticking it to the poor so as to benefit white people and real estate cronies...except that they probably thought it through, whereas I think Mayor Parker just made a flub.

[RedScare]

Am I the only person left on Earth who knows how to add and subtract? Or how to use 'greater than' and 'less than' logical comparisons?

No. I had to correct some hideous tax math on another thread. And, your math is dead on in this one. WAZ' excitement that someone may have finally agreed with him overwhelmed his mathematical skills.

[AtticaFlinch]

The desperately poor at the bottom either take the hit or get displaced to some other location, like Pasadena.

Or Katy!

[LTAWACS]

Or Katy!

How about Woodlands?

[Fringe]

Or Katy!

Obviously Mayor Parker must be a racist for wanting to get rid of these!

[AtticaFlinch]

Obviously Mayor Parker must be a racist for wanting to get rid of these!

Yes, totally, because she punctuated her reason for not wanting the apartments as being that they may house immigrants, those filthy, unwashed non-American immigrants.

In a press release, Ms Parker expressed her disdain for the smells that emanate from immigrant kitchens and complained of all the spices they use in their foods which "really, really upset [her] bowels and make [her] a real stinkeroo for several hours." Then she went on to call them sundry racial epithets which would make an Aryan sailor blush.

[west20th]

Obviously Mayor Parker must be a racist for wanting to get rid of these!

She should advocate for some public housing for poor yet stylish gay folk. Automatically increase the surrounding property values and tax base!

[rsb320]

A 4-plex should handle the housing problem for "poor gay folks", stylish or otherwise.

[totheskies]

Am I the only person left on Earth who knows how to add and subtract? Or how to use 'greater than' and 'less than' logical comparisons?

Mayor Parker suggested that we can increase the quantity of housing by renovating and demolishing. Renovation doesn't add to the housing stock (although it does make housing more expensive, even when it is government-funded or government-run) and demolition subtracts from the housing stock (causing market rents to adjust upward in the competitive market area). The implications are that there are fewer total housing units and higher housing prices. It doesn't help the poor; it helps the working class. The desperately poor at the bottom either take the hit or get displaced to some other location, like Pasadena.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining; it would benefit me. It just sounds like the politically correct tripe that a stereotypical Republican would use to justify sticking it to the poor so as to benefit white people and real estate cronies...except that they probably thought it through, whereas I think Mayor Parker just made a flub.

Depends on what's being renovated. Many apt complexes around the city are sitting vacant and unused b/c the buildings are in bad condition. So if you renovate units that aren't currently being used, you create (re-create) more housing stock in the area. This city has thousands of apt buildings that are in this situation... currently unlivalbe, but should either be renovated so they can be made livable, or demolished so something else can take its place.

Though I do agree with you on the demolition argument.

[TheNiche]

Depends on what's being renovated. Many apt complexes around the city are sitting vacant and unused b/c the buildings are in bad condition. So if you renovate units that aren't currently being used, you create (re-create) more housing stock in the area. This city has thousands of apt buildings that are in this situation... currently unlivalbe, but should either be renovated so they can be made livable, or demolished so something else can take its place.

Though I do agree with you on the demolition argument.

I can think of a handful of such complexes, but most of them were operating until Hurricane Ike and the financial crisis conspired in the very same moment to damage numerous complexes while simultaneously restricting access to capital to make the necessary repairs. But Mayor Parker's comments did not seem to be addressing these instances but rather cases where presently-occupied multifamily housing is blamed for dragging down a neighborhood...and actually, looking at them again, I don't think it was a flub on her part. It does kind of seem like the issue she's covertly addressing is that the desperately poor people in low-rent complexes are getting all up in the man's business....so to speak. Maybe she is just a Republican in lesbian's clothing, after all.

[WAZ]

I can think of a handful of such complexes, but most of them were operating until Hurricane Ike and the financial crisis conspired in the very same moment to damage numerous complexes while simultaneously restricting access to capital to make the necessary repairs.

Thanks for the very astute assessment of what happened to these complexes.

I would only add that, a lot of these complexes were built in the 1970s, and had a useful life span of 30 years. They were already pretty far gone by the time Hurricane Ike and the financial crisis hit.

But Mayor Parker's comments did not seem to be addressing these instances but rather cases where presently-occupied multifamily housing is blamed for dragging down a neighborhood...and actually, looking at them again, I don't think it was a flub on her part. It does kind of seem like the issue she's covertly addressing is that the desperately poor people in low-rent complexes are getting all up in the man's business....so to speak.

From my reading, Mayor Parker was talking about the vacant, dangerous buildings - AND buildings that are occupied, but shouldn't be, due to numerous building code violations. The latter is actually a much worse thing, but harder to deal with for the City.

I agree with our Mayor on most of these things - but as I said before, there are certain caveats in it.

[AtticaFlinch]

From my reading, Mayor Parker was talking about the vacant, dangerous buildings - AND buildings that are occupied, but shouldn't be, due to numerous building code violations.

If these buildings shouldn't be occupied because of the danger, then certainly we must relocate the poor to new, low-income housing that's been recently built and is up to code so we can destroy the health hazards.

Now if only we could find a place to build safe and new low-income housing...

[TheNiche]

Now if only we could find a place to build safe and new low-income housing...

I know of a site on Bissonnet. All the sewer infrastructure you'd ever need is in place and it's close to parks and healthcare.

[totheskies]

I can think of a handful of such complexes, but most of them were operating until Hurricane Ike and the financial crisis conspired in the very same moment to damage numerous complexes while simultaneously restricting access to capital to make the necessary repairs. But Mayor Parker's comments did not seem to be addressing these instances but rather cases where presently-occupied multifamily housing is blamed for dragging down a neighborhood...and actually, looking at them again, I don't think it was a flub on her part. It does kind of seem like the issue she's covertly addressing is that the desperately poor people in low-rent complexes are getting all up in the man's business....so to speak. Maybe she is just a Republican in lesbian's clothing, after all.

There are plenty in the East End for sure. The complex that surrounds Fiesta on S. Wayside has several vacant buildings. And I strongly suspect that the ones that are occupied are no where near up to code. Broadmoor, Woodleigh and Eastwood all have a substantial share of these eyesores... and in many cases, these are homes or apt units that have suffered from decades of neglect. It would benefit the city to step in and renovate these properties if possible... they will get a better return in the long run if they are being lived in and taken care of. So from my estimation, "reactivating" these homes would add to the existing usable housing stock.

[TheNiche]

There are plenty in the East End for sure. The complex that surrounds Fiesta on S. Wayside has several vacant buildings. And I strongly suspect that the ones that are occupied are no where near up to code. Broadmoor, Woodleigh and Eastwood all have a substantial share of these eyesores... and in many cases, these are homes or apt units that have suffered from decades of neglect. It would benefit the city to step in and renovate these properties if possible... they will get a better return in the long run if they are being lived in and taken care of. So from my estimation, "reactivating" these homes would add to the existing usable housing stock.

Yeah, I know about those near Fiesta. That's an exceptional case, involving former State Representative Hubert Vo. There was a lot of press over that a while back. Other buildings in that area are, as I described, Ike casualties needing fresh capital; hopefully they've found some since when I last toured them. The units that are operational, however, are in decent shape.

As for duplexes and four-plexes, etc., that's a whole other bag of worms. Small scale and absentee landlords are a delicate flower. It's hard to comment on the appropriate course of action because the circumstances of these properties vary so completely.

[WAZ]

Now if only we could find a place to build safe and new low-income housing...

Easy: We can build safe and new low-income housing on the site of the dangerous buildings we've demolished. The Houston Housing Authority already has some practice with this - they're tearing down the Kennedy Place Apartments and rebuilding from the ground up.

I must reiterate the first and third caveat here. Once they've rebuilt, they can't walk away. Apartments need periodic reinvestment or they deteriorate. And they need to redevelop the housing in ways that are welcomed by neighbors (Hint: it can't JUST be low-income housing; they need parks, bus stations, schools, and that sort of thing, too).

[TheNiche]

And they need to redevelop the housing in ways that are welcomed by neighbors (Hint: it can't JUST be low-income housing; they need parks, bus stations, schools, and that sort of thing, too).

Are you sure that that's what the neighbors would want? My research has always tended to indicate that neighborhoods DO NOT want transit perceived to serve poor people located anywhere near their homes (and that includes working class families that themselves are at or near the poverty line), and also that homes immediately adjacent to parks in neighborhoods with questionable demographics tend to sell at a discount. And schools...whew...the neighborhood is NOT going to like the idea of Tax Credit or Section 8 housing zoned to their schools. That's the last thing they want. And for good reason; it does have a disproportionate effect on the composition of the student body when the spirit of affordable housing laws are abided by pursuant to the choice of location of the affordable housing in question.

This is, unfortunately, one of those contentious issues where compromises must be had on both sides. The outcome is largely distributive.

[WAZ]

Are you sure that that's what the neighbors would want? My research has always tended to indicate that neighborhoods DO NOT want transit perceived to serve poor people located anywhere near their homes (and that includes working class families that themselves are at or near the poverty line), and also that homes immediately adjacent to parks in neighborhoods with questionable demographics tend to sell at a discount. And schools...whew...the neighborhood is NOT going to like the idea of Tax Credit or Section 8 housing zoned to their schools. That's the last thing they want. And for good reason; it does have a disproportionate effect on the composition of the student body when the spirit of affordable housing laws are abided by pursuant to the choice of location of the affordable housing in question.

This is, unfortunately, one of those contentious issues where compromises must be had on both sides. The outcome is largely distributive.

Your observations are dead-on for the construction of new low-cost housing on open land. Nobody wants it near them, period. It doesn't matter where, who, or how.

But what if they replace a big block of deteriorated, run down low-cost housing - known to have crime problems - with a park, a police storefront, AND some new low-cost housing? From a neighborhood standpoint, that's a totally different thing. That's really what I'm talking about - and it's what I'm hoping Annise Parker is going to do.

[dbigtex56]

Yes, totally, because she punctuated her reason for not wanting the apartments as being that they may house immigrants, those filthy, unwashed non-American immigrants.

In a press release, Ms Parker expressed her disdain for the smells that emanate from immigrant kitchens and complained of all the spices they use in their foods which "really, really upset [her] bowels and make [her] a real stinkeroo for several hours." Then she went on to call them sundry racial epithets which would make an Aryan sailor blush.

Just in case there's a question in anyone's mind, Mr. Finch is being sarcastic or ironic. (If not, please quote a source.)

Ms Parker puts her money (and family) where her mouth is. Her elegant Westmoreland house is only three blocks away from a subsidized apartment complex devoted to HIV+ people in recovery, and even closer to the hobo jungle next to Spur 529. She is a realist, and her ideas seem both sensible and compassionate to me.

Mr. Finch's remarks make me smile, because they reminds me of actual comments made by an acquaintance in Toronto, thirty years ago. He lived in a semi-upscale high rise apartment, and had (Pakistani) neighbors whose rent was subsidized. "What are they doing in there, cooking goats?" was among his milder complaints. He was an ass, in retrospect.

It makes more sense for the government to buy existing buildings, bring them up to code and house those who would otherwise be homeless than to build new ones. Further, the practice of developers tearing down functional buildings and hoping that others' investments will allow them to sell at a profit is wasteful, counterproductive and repugnant. A well-regulated low income housing complex is an asset, not a blot on a neighborhood. Sure beats a dog-in-the-manger vacant lot.

[TheNiche]

Your observations are dead-on for the construction of new low-cost housing on open land. Nobody wants it near them, period. It doesn't matter where, who, or how.

But what if they replace a big block of deteriorated, run down low-cost housing - known to have crime problems - with a park, a police storefront, AND some new low-cost housing? That's a totally different thing. That's what I read into what Annise Parker said. And it's really what I'm talking about

The problem is, in between being dilapidated housing and becoming new affordable housing...the site becomes open land. Neighborhoods seem to latch onto that. I seem to recall that a site on Broadway ran into this conundrum, and the Glenbrook Valley crowd threw a fit and derailed the project.

Ironically, one of the few places in town where affordable housing would be the most politically feasible is also the sort place where it is the least financially feasible; an expensive area such as Greater Montrose, Midtown, or Uptown that is populated by people who are affluent, young, without children, and that have little intention of living in that neighborhood after they do start a family. The City of Austin even got into the business of purchasing fractional shares of new apartment complexes in trendy neighborhoods so that some percentage of the units could be dedicated as Section 8 housing...and doing so actually fostered neighborhood support from people concerned that the neighborhoods were gentrifying into some kind of an abomination of their former selves. The problem with that was that the City committed to purchase prices that were unreasonably high (in hindsight), leaving them stuck with unrealized losses and footnotes on their financials. ...well, that, and the political processes utilized to get the city council on board were--ahem--questionable. But nobody's supposed to know that.

[dbigtex56]

name='TheNiche' date='Tuesday, April 13, 2010 at 11:11 PM' timestamp='1271221903' post='36165

Ironically, one of the few places in town where affordable housing would be the most politically feasible is also the sort place where it is the least financially feasible; an expensive area such as Greater Montrose, Midtown, or Uptown that is populated by people who are affluent, young, without children, and that have little intention of living in that neighborhood after they do start a family.

Oddly enough, these neighborhoods have a history of promoting affordable housing, yet have experienced higher property values and a stable population.

Kind of shoots down your argument, doesn't it.

[TheNiche]

Oddly enough, these neighborhoods have a history of promoting affordable housing, yet have experienced higher property values and a stable population.

Kind of shoots down your argument, doesn't it.

Nope, it's entirely consistent with what I've said.

But...whatever the point was that you thought you were making against whatever point you thought that I'd made...I would point out that NIMBYs are far more politically influential than YIMBYs, and that the criteria for Tax Credit housing (which comprises the vast majority of affordable housing) as set at the state level by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) essentially violates the spirit of affordable housing laws (but not the letter of the law) such that most Tax Credit complexes end up in neighborhoods already populated by working class families. It's very difficult for a developer to score the points to be competitive for the Tax Credit in an affluent neighborhood like Montrose. Consequently, it doesn't matter that Montrose is supportive of affordable housing; they still usually get passed over for it because their demographics too closely resemble that of the influential NIMBYs that wrote the rules.

[AtticaFlinch]

Just in case there's a question in anyone's mind, Mr. Finch is being sarcastic or ironic. (If not, please quote a source.)

Like a fat kid with sweat in a Houston summer, my comment was dripping... no, pouring with sarcasm.

[dbigtex56]

the criteria for Tax Credit housing (which comprises the vast majority of affordable housing) as set at the state level by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) essentially violates the spirit of affordable housing laws (but not the letter of the law) such that most Tax Credit complexes end up in neighborhoods already populated by working class families.

(sigh - I already know I'm going to regret this)

May we have a source, please? Such an interesting law.

[TheNiche]

You will notice on close inspection of the list of each of nearly 1,800 Tax Credit complexes in the whole state in the link I provided, that the 77019 zip code (incl. 4th Ward, Allen Parkway, and River Oaks) has two complexes (one of which serves elderly only), the 77007 zip (incl. Washington Ave., Cottage Grove, and the southern periphery of the Heights) has three (also, one elderly), but that there are NONE in Downtown (proper), Midtown (proper), 77005, 77006, 77008, 77024, 77025, 77027, 77030, 77054, 77056, or 77401.

The other inner loop zip codes are 77009 (two General-Population complexes), 77026 (1 GP), 77020 (2 GP, 1 Elderly), 77029 (1 EL), 77011 (2 GP), 77023 (2 GP), 77087 (1 GP), 77004 (2 EL), 77021 (3 GP, 2 EL). There's also 1 GP in a little bit of 77002 that sticks into the East End.

Let's compare: the svelte western side of the inner loop plus its western periphery has a total of 3 GP & 2 EL. The eastern side of the inner loop, in spite of having lower population density, has 13 GP & 6 EL.

Then check out the Houston Housing Authority's gen-pop assets (mostly Section 8). The western half of the inner loop has 650 units crowded into 4th Ward and another 40 units in the Museum District; then there are the 1,619 units in the eastern half of the inner loop, with another 108 under construction. Not surprisingly, only one of the ten suburban complexes owned by HHA is in an even remotely well-off neighborhood...and that one has a Fondren address.

[WAZ]

The problem is, in between being dilapidated housing and becoming new affordable housing...the site becomes open land. Neighborhoods seem to latch onto that. I seem to recall that a site on Broadway ran into this conundrum, and the Glenbrook Valley crowd threw a fit and derailed the project.

Is that actually what happened to the Woodlen Glen and other apartments on Broadway? This article suggests otherwise. It seems former mayor Bill White promised a makeover of Broadway - but it was basically just to rebuild the apartments. There were no parks, schools, new bus lines, or any of the things I proposed. Ultimately I suspect the lack of these things, coupled with the gentrification of the nearby neighborhood, doomed the proposal to failure. It wasn't so much a delay between the demolition and reconstruction.

That said, I could see the scenario happening - if neighbor groups fought long and hard to get a bad apartment complex demolished, - with dreams of a park or detention pond on the site - only to have a developer come in later with a proposal for a new apartment complex.

Ironically, one of the few places in town where affordable housing would be the most politically feasible is also the sort place where it is the least financially feasible; an expensive area such as Greater Montrose, Midtown, or Uptown that is populated by people who are affluent, young, without children, and that have little intention of living in that neighborhood after they do start a family.

It seems to be feasible in other areas, too - if it's done right. I've yet to see anyone protest the reconstruction of the Kennedy Place Apartments in the Fifth Ward. In this case they're going from public housing (the worst kind of housing in most neighborhood opinions) to subsidized mixed income housing. Neighbors seem to be welcoming the improvement.

In Brays Oaks (formerly known as Fondren Southwest), the Fondren Court Apartments were gutted and renovated to become the Reserve at Bankside. Nobody complained. And if anyone can complain, it's the people in that neighborhood. You should have seen the TDHCA hearing on the Costa Del Rey Apartments in 2008.

[TheNiche]

Is that actually what happened to the Woodlen Glen and other apartments on Broadway? This article suggests otherwise. It seems former mayor Bill White promised a makeover of Broadway - but it was basically just to rebuild the apartments. There were no parks, schools, new bus lines, or any of the things I proposed. Ultimately I suspect the lack of these things, coupled with the gentrification of the nearby neighborhood, doomed the proposal to failure. It wasn't so much a delay between the demolition and reconstruction.

That said, I could see the scenario happening - if neighbor groups fought long and hard to get a bad apartment complex demolished, - with dreams of a park or detention pond on the site - only to have a developer come in later with a proposal for a new apartment complex.

Bill White was never in a position to promise schools or new bus lines. What would that mean to the Glenbrook Valley Civic Club, anyway? Those folks don't especially care about buses, and exchanging an old schoolhouse for a new one won't change who is enrolled there. And as for parks and flood control, I gather that you're not familiar with the awesomeness that has transpired along Sims Bayou that Bill White also had no say over.

Ultimately, the Glenbrook folks overestimated the regentrification trend. They were so concerned about having a marginally-acceptable twenty-year placeholder in their backyard that they failed to realize that no developer in their right mind would dare to even propose to construct anything on that site even remotely desirable to Glenbrook for at least as long. They'd be a laughing stock. It's hard enough to make it four blocks east of downtown as a market-rate multifamily developer, much less seven miles.