Mixed Income Developments

[bachanon]

could a "mixed-income" development requirement for all larger residential projects in or near downtown satisfy investors and the low to moderate income populace who need to live closer to amenities and public transportation?

it may not be possible to create really affordable housing (that's people making under the median income - is it 36k-38k now?) with a high rise/mid rise scenario in our downtown/midtown areas. small families that need 2 or 3 bedrooms in this median income range require a monthly rent/note payment under $1200 a month. many families need much smaller payments. why not require or offer incentives to developers/investors who create 10-20% of available units as affordable in larger projects (say a project with over 100 units). these scaled down versions of similar floor plans in the same project might be on the lower floors and/or be units with a less than amazing view. formica and linoleum would be standard; however, the affordability, proximity to transportation and amenities (shopping, entertainment) would fill a market niche and help prevent the creation of low income slums.

the idea that mixed income environments would lower high end properties is true if the low/moderate properties are not maintained and are without strict controls on usage. a mixed income development makes it easier to require and keep high standards.

one other positive impact of a mixed-income environment is the intangible benefit of a greater sense of community. well meaning people of all income levels benefit from being surrounded by people of differing views, lifestyles and cultures. we, as a city, should nurture this type of development and planning.

george mitchell, the founder of the woodlands and mitchell energy, grew up in "the projects" in galveston with immigrant families from all over the world. every race, religion or creed lived within the same confines. the mixed income villages of the woodlands are testament to the influence this confluence of humanity had on one young man. (i do not mean to infer that all income levels were represented in the above mentioned "projects", only that mr. mitchell saw the need for all people to live in pleasant surroundings and have access to the same amenities regardless of income). with strict covenants in place and your neighbors enforcing the usage of said covenants, it's possible to have million dollar homes within 100 feet of one hundred thousand dollar homes.

that being said, could a single building establish a successful mixed income environment AND make money? i think it can be done, especially in houston.

[UrbaNerd]

Yes, I liked mixed income stuff, with units that are NOT housing projects. Maybe something that young, fresh out of college and just into a new decent paying career type of person can afford.

[MidtownCoog]

Considering our lack of zoning, the entire city is a "mixed income development" IMHO.

But I don't think such a development would work in Houston, mainly becuae we don't like to be told what to do.

It's just not the Texan way. Too much Yankee planning.

[kjb434]

I aggree that houston itself is a great example of mixed income development. Living in the montrose area you have millionaires that right by people who make 30k a year. The lack of zoning has allowed developers to create areas where higher income people will move near lower income.

Look at the large low income housing developments buit on the east and west side of downtown.

[bachanon]

this is a good point (houston itself being a mixed income development). perhaps the light rail north and southeast will create more opportunities for low/moderate income families to participate (with more job opportunities, entertainment, etc.) in the resurgence of our central city.

families, students, the "creative class" are all important to a vibrant city center. recent discussions on our forum mention gentrification, higher property values, lack of desirable, affordable housing downtown/midtown for families, etc. makes me concerned about overlooking these groups of people.

[kzseattle]

I aggree that houston itself is a great example of mixed income development.  Living in the montrose area you have millionaires that right by people who make 30k a year.  The lack of zoning has allowed developers to create areas where higher income people will move near lower income.

Look at the large low income housing developments buit on the east and west side of downtown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Often we hear how inner loop, and particularly Montrose area, has become more expensive for a new homebuyer and it is getting more difficult to find a bargain deal. If that is the case, how is that those who make 30K can afford to live there? Why haven

[bachanon]

zoning would not be the answer for mixed income properties, nor would price controls (VERY anti-capitalism) work. a building code for certain districts or tirz' specifications that required "income specific" units for certain size developments would be more appropriate. it would be similar to home owner's associations or neighborhood regulations that require minimum or maximum square footage per lot.

or, tax incentives or waivers (city, county) of some sort could be established to entice developers to build with low/moderate incomes in mind.

[kzseattle]

zoning would not be the answer for mixed income properties, nor would price controls (VERY anti-capitalism) work.  a building code for certain districts or tirz' specifications that required "income specific" units for certain size developments would be more appropriate.  it would be similar to home owner's associations or neighborhood regulations that require minimum or maximum square footage per lot.

or, tax incentives or waivers (city, county) of some sort could be established to entice developers to build with low/moderate incomes in mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, that

[Houston19514]

In a non-capitalist world, economic segregation is not an issue . . . because EVERYONE is poor ;-)

[bachanon]

aren't mixed income groups represented in a development that includes both $165k units and $450k units? would it be a stretch to have a lower range of available units (say, $85k-$255k)? there is some middle ground here that does not require transient housing in the same building as more stable upper income earners (IMHO).

[Guest danax]

I think the whole "affordable housing" idea is a forced attempt to keep things "diverse" and it has more to do with race than economics. I don't want to just be a negative cynic but I have yet to hear a real good reason to want to keep lower-income people in inner-city areas where property is appreciating.

The one I've heard the most is that " we need to keep our work force close to jobs and amenities". We're going to spend tax money subsidizing builders to keep them from having to commute? And amenities? If there are artificially implanted low-income workers in the middle of the 21st century swank/hip downtown that means they will have to go a long way to get to the Dollar Store, KFC, etc.

It just seems that local officials sometimes try to make affordable housing an economic issue when they really feel it's a race/class issue. They feel like the white "yuppies" are taking over and the poorer people of color are getting the shaft, as usual. I think that the people of color that are doing well financially are more attracted to the suburbs but many could live in the new inner city areas etc. if they wanted to.

It also must be disturbing to see your constituents move away as prices go up.

[kzseattle]

aren't mixed income groups represented in a development that includes both $165k units and $450k units?  would it be a stretch to have a lower range of available units (say, $85k-$255k)?    there is some middle ground here that does not require transient housing in the same building as more stable upper income earners (IMHO).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Every neighborhood is a mixed-income in the sense that no two families in that neighborhood or community earn the exact same income. However, the key is that difference in incomes between such two families is not too large. It is possible for somone earning, say, 40K to live in the same community with someone earning 60K because, despite the difference in income, their education levels, lifestyles, professions etc may be similar. Moreover, somone living in 165K unit maybe making similar income as someone living in 450K unit but may have other reasons or financial obligations. Perhaps, such person doesnt care for the view or granite countertops in the higher-end unit.

However, mixing someone making less than 30K with someone making millions is indeed a stretch.

[MidtownCoog]

If that is the case, how is that those who make 30K can afford to live there? Why haven

[kjb434]

I agree with midtowncoog,

many nieghborhoods where gentrification is occuring still has low income residents due to renting. The landlords don't always typically sell off their property especially if they can attain a long term profit instead of a quick gain with the sale of the property.

[qol2005]

People need to get honest about what makes neighborhoods affordable.

Its taxes plain and simple.

When I see these people on TV exclaiming that some mean old builder is forcing them out of their neighborhood by building a new home next door it makes me want to vomit.

Folks, am I the only one who can see through this pathetic logic?

You buy a house and have insurance and taxes escrowed into the monthly payments. 2005 rolls around and your monthly payment jumps, and you don't know why. Hmm well let

[bachanon]

what you haven't mentioned is SCHOOL TAXES. these are taxes that we vote to increase on a regular basis. i have a rental unit with school taxes jumping from $800/yr to $1300/yr in one fell swoop. the home's value has not increased in 2 years. schools are wasting huge sums of money on unnecessary facilities. (it amazes me how a private school can teach the basics better in crappy buildings and the public school system needs brand spanking new facilities with expensive architects and do not manage to teach as well. but that's another thread. sorry to digress.) blame for increased mortgage payments must include the local school systems.

[kjb434]

I agree. After thirteen years of Catholic schooling, the first two years of college seemed like a breeze. I asked others from my high school and they said the same thing. Some of these people where C and B students. On the other hand, several people from public schools in many areas seem to have a more difficult time. In my schooling, I didn't really have much special. The building was built back in 1967, much of the lab equipment was that old. They school runs on the little tuition they charge and donations.

I freak out when I see how much school taxes are. With the money they are spending these kids should be all MIT and Harvard quality. I guess we are spending to ensure diversity and sensitive kids versus smart well educated kids.

[qol2005]

The dirty little secret of school districts inside the city limit is the amount of "left over" money they spend on supplies at the end of the year. A friend who works at a major paper, office, and "supply catalog" type of business has his phone ring off the wall in December of every year. These individuals must spend it all to justify the same or more next year.

pathetic

[Trophy Property]

Higher taxes will push people further out and as a result increase pollution and other nasty things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Taxes are even higher in the non-incorporated burbs. The tax rate Sienna Plantation is nearly 4%. MUD's are neccesary, but crap the rates are high as hell.

[midtownguy]

Danax, I'm not sure exactly where you were going with your argument, but, for the record, let me clarify a few things:

1) I'm african american.

2) I live in Midtown.

3) I like living in Midtown, like the city feel and can afford it.

So not all sucessfull black folks want to be in the 'burbs.

[Guest danax]

Danax, I'm not sure exactly where you were going with your argument, but, for the record, let me clarify a few things:

  1) I'm african american.

  2) I live in Midtown.

  3) I like living in Midtown, like the city feel and can afford it.

  So not all sucessfull black folks want to be in the 'burbs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point I was trying to make was that when "community leaders'" attempt to create "affordable housing solutions" , their motivation appears to me to stem more from resentment at seeing mostly upper-middle-class white people moving in and "taking advantage" of the poorer people and that to them it's the same old story of the minorities getting the shaft again, than to the reasons that they typically give. Not to mention that for a minority leader to see that type of transition usually means his/her "people" get replaced, which must be disturbing to them even if the neighborhood gets improved and beautified in the process.

The reasons these leaders give for needing affordable housing are usually along the lines of 1) how unfair it is that poor people have to sell their houses because they can no longer afford the taxes and 2) we need the low-income workers to be close to their jobs. I have some sympathy for the first reason as it's understandable for a group not to want having their neighborhood raped and reinvented by outsiders but the second one is weak. So I just think that "community leaders" that use these reasons are being disingenuous and that I haven't heard anyone call them on it yet.

As for successful minorities moving to the suburbs, those are just my general observations working in the mortgage business. One of the owners on my company is black and most of the clients we have are black also. And, it seems they like Katy, Sugarland and Pearland. We have a lot of hispanic clients too and the ones that can afford to seem to move to the same areas, although the ones who were born south of the border will move into any neighborhood that they can afford.

I don't know why that is exactly. I have some theories but it's interesting anyway to be in a position to see first hand these sociolgical tendencies. Maybe it's the same reasons everyone else is liking those areas, I just see the tendency to live in "urban" environments and older neighborhoods to be more of a white, upper-middle class thing, at this point anyway. Maybe this will change with time as minority types become more familiar with the "urban lifestyle options".