‘Idiotic’ policy stymies affordable housing plan

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by C.

Did you read the article? The theme is more about how zoning can directly or indirectly reduce a city's affordable housing supply rather than the circumstances surrounding this individual property owner. The easy solution for the property owner would be to not to renew the lease for two of the three tenants. A larger duplex could be rented at a higher rate rather than than three individual units. But is that the right thing to do when there is a need for affordable housing? Especially when the neighborhood supported the three-flat and the residents that lived there.

Yes, I read the article.

I am thinking about the fact that there are three tenants crowded into what may be a suitable house for two sets of renters. Maybe, maybe not. The details aren't there for me to judge. But from my perspective, if a landlord to be buys a rental property, he or she cannot claim ignorance of certain rules in occupation policy. The problem is that the market dictates outrageous prices for rentals from small to large owners and that people are getting less than they ever did. City policy makers are just as guilty for not stepping in where the market players have full reign. Of course the 41,000$ tag is nuts, but this is in keeping with the mentality that exists to perpetuate gouging all around. Good luck with that!

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Question:

Where does the 41,000 dollars go to? Seriously...

Somebody's pocket.

[mhays]

I'd imagine they're trying to pay for the staffing for the various departments that get involved. But they're basing it on the typical case, not this example.

Of course there are contributing factors. I'll guess:
--A lengthy and complicated process that could be simplified.
--A philosophy of making new units pay for the "problems" they cause rather than thanking them for helping solve the problem.
--Possibly underfunding of the departments, making it look elsewhere to pay for added work.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd imagine they're trying to pay for the staffing for the various departments that get involved.

So, somebody's pocket.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Higher end bathroom renovations in urban markets can easily cost six figures (US). Kitchens can cost twice that. I think the developer can probably handle permits.

Definitely have to shop around for a good contractor. The small mom and pop types contractors are the best. The ones that don't believe in E-Verify and/or compromise of 1st generation legal immigrants.

Many contractors overcharge for services. Some are flat out rip offs.

This is all referring to home ownership btw. Obviously a large developer is not going to do what I mentioned for legality reasons.

But if your in the suburbs of NJ with a home, Newark NJ is the hot spot for good carpenters/plumbers. And they will come from there if the price is right.

I often see clueless folks get assistance from Home Depot, which is a rip off. If you want to pay 6-7x more, go with Home Depot or one of these large chain like contractor networks.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd imagine they're trying to pay for the staffing for the various departments that get involved. But they're basing it on the typical case, not this example.

Of course there are contributing factors. I'll guess:
--A lengthy and complicated process that could be simplified.
--A philosophy of making new units pay for the "problems" they cause rather than thanking them for helping solve the problem.
--Possibly underfunding of the departments, making it look elsewhere to pay for added work.

I get this, but who is doing the math determining the "problems" having a new unit in a neighborhood will add to the city? Also, if this cost 41,000 for a three-unit apartment building, what would a Wal-Mart pay? 400 million? I mean its all dumb and when you start trying to do some mystical math things get....unfair. Just charge what it costs to do the work, pay the people, and a little extra as a tax and be done with it. The government is the ultimate monopoly and as so, it should be caustious in abusing its one-way power.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

So, somebody's pocket.

Every dollar that you or I spend ends up in somebody's pocket. So what's your point?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Yes, I read the article.

I am thinking about the fact that there are three tenants crowded into what may be a suitable house for two sets of renters. Maybe, maybe not. The details aren't there for me to judge.

They are there, though. The article plainly states that the dwelling was inspected by city inspectors and fire officials and was fully compliant with all life safety and building codes. (Which, honestly, is surprising for an illegal multi-family conversion).

The issue is only with the zoning, which is a purely political concept and has nothing to do with health or safety. But politics are on the side of the landlord, too, in theory - he's gotten support from a majority of his neighbors (which is also surprising) and elected officials would also be likely to support him. The issue here is purely with the cost of applying for a zoning change, and the inflexibility of the bureaucrats who could grant a variance.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Real estate costs matter. The premise is that the city shouldn't be assessing such fees for such a privilege, yet the privilege potentially results in a huge windfall for the owner. No one is forcing the owner to add yet another unit.

We deserve better from our Government. The cost of the owner's "windfall" should have no bearing on the cost of a simple zoning permit. You are effectively advocating for "shaking people down" as a legitimate way to run Government, and I find that to be a dangerous and lousy precedent.

In the given context (multi-million dollar real estate), the fees, while high, are hardly ruinous

Whether or not a fee is "not quite enough to be ruinous" should not have any bearing on how to set the fee. Fee schedules should not be based on "how high of a fee can I charge without killing this project?" This is not free market Capitalism here, this is Government. Government owes a service to the community, and everybody deserves that service at a reasonable price, considering that almost everyone already pays taxes.

The same guy spending 250k on a high end kitchen is gonna be ruined paying 30k for a potential windfall?

Again, completely missing the point. The cost of construction should not have bearing on this. Construction costs are not voluntary for the most part. Materials and labor are only going to fluctuate in price so much in a given market. But charging $41k for a permit is OBVIOUSLY a choice by Government to fleece property owners for the "right" for a certain number of units, when the cost to Government to make that decision is a mere fraction of that.

Just to illustrate, in early 2017 I bought a property in Chicago and there was a lot of "murkiness" about how many legal units were allowed. At some point it had up to 8 units in 2 buildings. I wanted 5. I had to hire an attorney. My legal costs were $2500 and ultimately I paid a bit under $2000 in permit fees for the "right" to have a 5 unit building (which after hundreds of thousands of dollar rehabbing it, ended up being a "windfall" for me, by your definition). Now you can see how insane $41k sounds in that context.

[C.]

An observation - all these zoning costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer. For cities with an affordable housing crisis, planning officials are not making it any easier for anything other than luxury units or subsidized units to be built. I live in an area zoning for two-families, but there are tons of "illegally" converted basements and attics. These units provide an affordable option, especially for many immigrant families. It what makes the community great as it provides a mixture of incomes and backgrounds.

There was a proposal few years back to restrict title transfer until a zoning inspection and updated CO was provided by the city. The idea is that it would root out all these illegal units. I've never seen a bigger coalition of realtors, property owners, affordable housing advocated, undocumented citizen advocacy groups, NIMBYs, YIMBYs, and gadflys all come out to speak against the proposal. The planning board was openly chastising the planning officials for coming up with such a plan. Why? It would fundamentally change the character of the community and remove thousands of occupied dwellings that were affordable options for many families.

https://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/...versial_m.html

There has instead been a push to allow for 1 to 3 or 1 to 5 units in single family zoning in parts of the city, a smaller scale change compared to what's happening in the Twin Cities. That would legalize many of the units from a zoning perspective, but the NIMBYs have been fighting that one too because of parking. Not sure on the status.