Inclusionary Zoning

KC topics that don't fit anywhere else.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9065
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by flyingember »

chaglang wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:53 am
Hostels are legal but temporary housing. Social housing is a long-term/permanent housing situation.

smh wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:34 am
flyingember wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:26 am

require voucher acceptance

Should never require anything
I'll bite. Why should we allow source of income discrimination? Aren't dollars dollars?
It's because the city can't require a developer to qualify for the program

units with shared bathrooms and kitchens, which seems smart for low end affordability, don't qualify for Section 8 vouchers.

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_11742.PDF

The unit inspection checklist looks for a kitchen and bathroom inside the leased unit.

User avatar
smh
Supporter
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
Location: Central Loop

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by smh »

flyingember wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 10:32 am
chaglang wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:53 am
Hostels are legal but temporary housing. Social housing is a long-term/permanent housing situation.

smh wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:34 am
flyingember wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:26 am

require voucher acceptance

Should never require anything
I'll bite. Why should we allow source of income discrimination? Aren't dollars dollars?
It's because the city can't require a developer to qualify for the program

units with shared bathrooms and kitchens, which seems smart for low end affordability, don't qualify for Section 8 vouchers.

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_11742.PDF

The unit inspection checklist looks for a kitchen and bathroom inside the leased unit.
So there is no reason in a standard apartment situation to allow source of income discrimination.

alejandro46
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 501
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by alejandro46 »

Agree with points above. There is not widespread "gentrification" beyond normal price increases because our downtown area has been completely hollowed out over the past 50 years due to sprawl. We need to get rid of f'ing parking minimums along transit and maybe in the urban core overall. Get rid of sf housing. Make it easier to build more housing, not harder. This is basically an extra 10% tax on all incentivized developments which by their nature are already having trouble making ends meet.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9065
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by flyingember »

smh wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 10:58 am
flyingember wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 10:32 am
chaglang wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:53 am
Hostels are legal but temporary housing. Social housing is a long-term/permanent housing situation.

smh wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:34 am


I'll bite. Why should we allow source of income discrimination? Aren't dollars dollars?
It's because the city can't require a developer to qualify for the program

units with shared bathrooms and kitchens, which seems smart for low end affordability, don't qualify for Section 8 vouchers.

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_11742.PDF

The unit inspection checklist looks for a kitchen and bathroom inside the leased unit.
So there is no reason in a standard apartment situation to allow source of income discrimination.
Sure there is. You really need to read the rules for Section 8
In some situations, Section 8 inspections result in an inspector mandating that a owner reduce their rent, as they do not believe the current rental price is fair.
https://www.multifamily.loans/apartment ... ed-to-know

The city can NEVER mandate a property owner enter into a situation where they may be forced to reduce their rent. Notice how all affordable housing rules are tied to incentives. So if you don't want to rent at a mandated rate you just build without incentives.

So requiring everyone take vouchers is like requiring a developer take incentives and the rules that come with them, which will never happen

User avatar
smh
Supporter
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
Location: Central Loop

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by smh »

But dozens of municipalities have eliminated source of income discrimination. So somebody is wrong. It could be the dozens of municipalities, or....

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9065
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by flyingember »

smh wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:36 pm
But dozens of municipalities have eliminated source of income discrimination. So somebody is wrong. It could be the dozens of municipalities, or....
Vague unnamed cities

and were they 3rd class, 4th class or charter cities?

User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3866
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by chaglang »

https://www.propublica.org/article/how- ... uchers-out

It's a very long list (which includes St. Louis). Ordinances vary by state and municipality, but this summary is helpful in tracking how voucher holders are protected and what the exemptions are:

https://www.prrac.org/pdf/AppendixB.pdf

CrossroadsUrbanApts
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:16 pm

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by CrossroadsUrbanApts »

As I understand it, Section 8 (and other voucher programs, like the VA) will pay a certain amount per month on behalf of tenants, according to a formula set by HUD. Let's say the number is $900 for a 1BR apartment for a particular area. You can't force landlords to accept only $900 for a 1BR if the market rate is higher than that number. So landlords of properties with asking rents above HUD levels don't participate in the program.

I think where banning 'source of income discrimination' comes into play is for those properties whose typical asking rent is below the HUD level. It would be illegal to not rent to someone who can pay $900 through a voucher in favor of another tenant who would pay $900 from personal funds. How this intersects with Section 8 being a voluntary program I'm not sure. I would think most landlords would rather take $900 that is government-guaranteed than one that doesn't have that guarantee.

That said, this is outside my area of expertise so take it with a grain of salt.

User avatar
normalthings
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4504
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by normalthings »

I would maybe be okay with this ordinance if they also legalized ADUs, SROs, the missing middle, and removed parking minimums, lot size requirements, single-family zoning. Many cities are taking a hard look at their future and are making those needed changes despite the political cost it takes today. I do not think our leaders are interested in doing anything like that.

Image
Last edited by normalthings on Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CrossroadsUrbanApts
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:16 pm

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by CrossroadsUrbanApts »

I'm generally not a fan of rent control or affordable set-asides/inclusionary zoning because, as discussed above, they act as a tax on productive and needed development and can be counterproductive. BUT I could see making a case for them as part of a larger legislative package that included the kinds of important changes that normalthings describes above. This is where the YIMBY movement in California is headed, trying to get broader support (including from the left and tenant activists).

User avatar
normalthings
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4504
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by normalthings »

Lucas, this ordinance, etc have already had a big negative impact on our development and job attraction prospects.

Saw a note this morning that a $150 million, 400 unit downtown apartment project that was in the works has been cancelled by the national developer.

Port KC's broker announced that a $30 million multifamily project was dropped this week because of the ordinance. CBC and Block will also be droping or long term suspend multiple projects. Block has publicly stated they have been holding off of the past year on KC projects.

I spoke with a well capitalized and long-time downtown supporter today who said they have held off on KCMO over the past 1.5 years specifically because of Lucas and his anti-development tendencies. I have talked with multiple brokers and developers over the past few months who have echoed those thoughts. *they specifically mention Lucas and conversations with him as the cause*

As said before, I know a large coastal firm was set on adding thousands of quality jobs on the Troost corridor. Land, developer, etc was all picked out for this hundreds of millions of $$ investment in the core and they dropped the plan after the CEO met with Lucas. They walked away from it entirely because of their interaction with him.

Riverite
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:49 pm

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by Riverite »

normalthings wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 7:55 pm
Lucas, this ordinance, etc have already had a big negative impact on our development and job attraction prospects.

Saw a note this morning that a $150 million, 400 unit downtown apartment project that was in the works has been cancelled by the national developer.

Port KC's broker announced that a $30 million multifamily project was dropped this week because of the ordinance. CBC and Block will also be droping or long term suspend multiple projects. Block has publicly stated they have been holding off of the past year on KC projects.

I spoke with a well capitalized and long-time downtown supporter today who said they have held off on KCMO over the past 1.5 years specifically because of Lucas and his anti-development tendencies. I have talked with multiple brokers and developers over the past few months who have echoed those thoughts. *they specifically mention Lucas and conversations with him as the cause*

As said before, I know a large coastal firm was set on adding thousands of quality jobs on the Troost corridor. Land, developer, etc was all picked out for this hundreds of millions of $$ investment in the core and they dropped the plan after the CEO met with Lucas. They walked away from it entirely because of their interaction with him.
Have people tried talking to them about it?

User avatar
normalthings
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4504
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by normalthings »

Riverite wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:07 pm
normalthings wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 7:55 pm
Lucas, this ordinance, etc have already had a big negative impact on our development and job attraction prospects.

Saw a note this morning that a $150 million, 400 unit downtown apartment project that was in the works has been cancelled by the national developer.

Port KC's broker announced that a $30 million multifamily project was dropped this week because of the ordinance. CBC and Block will also be droping or long term suspend multiple projects. Block has publicly stated they have been holding off of the past year on KC projects.

I spoke with a well capitalized and long-time downtown supporter today who said they have held off on KCMO over the past 1.5 years specifically because of Lucas and his anti-development tendencies. I have talked with multiple brokers and developers over the past few months who have echoed those thoughts. *they specifically mention Lucas and conversations with him as the cause*

As said before, I know a large coastal firm was set on adding thousands of quality jobs on the Troost corridor. Land, developer, etc was all picked out for this hundreds of millions of $$ investment in the core and they dropped the plan after the CEO met with Lucas. They walked away from it entirely because of their interaction with him.
Have people tried talking to them about it?
Has the city reached out much to developers before approving this? No.

alejandro46
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 501
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by alejandro46 »

The e-tax is going to get downvoted and the city is going to be f-ed. . Seriouslt, QL has been basically a placeholder mayor, not accomplishing jack except continuing a few Sly James' initiatives like Plaza Streetcar. Wish we had Justice!

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4189
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by grovester »

According to Collison's article there is a 60 day delay before it becomes law.

I hope someone is talking.

Sounds a bit of a political gambit, awaiting a response from developers before the final implementation.

User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3866
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by chaglang »

Conversations are happening. AFAIK part of the problem is that everyone knew this was in the works, but developers didn't show up to voice their opinion (or suggest alternatives) until the 11th hour. Yes, I imagine the city could have done better outreach, but the local development community sounds like it could be more proactive in these conversations. When the Missouri Legislature was gutting the historic tax credits, it was almost impossible to get developers who frequently used the project to engage in any advocacy.

User avatar
normalthings
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4504
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by normalthings »

CrossroadsUrbanApts wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:29 pm
As I understand it, Section 8 (and other voucher programs, like the VA) will pay a certain amount per month on behalf of tenants, according to a formula set by HUD. Let's say the number is $900 for a 1BR apartment for a particular area. You can't force landlords to accept only $900 for a 1BR if the market rate is higher than that number. So landlords of properties with asking rents above HUD levels don't participate in the program.

I think where banning 'source of income discrimination' comes into play is for those properties whose typical asking rent is below the HUD level. It would be illegal to not rent to someone who can pay $900 through a voucher in favor of another tenant who would pay $900 from personal funds. How this intersects with Section 8 being a voluntary program I'm not sure. I would think most landlords would rather take $900 that is government-guaranteed than one that doesn't have that guarantee.

That said, this is outside my area of expertise so take it with a grain of salt.
We have 60 days to convince the council to legalize building density. What is the plan?

CrossroadsUrbanApts
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:16 pm

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by CrossroadsUrbanApts »

I love the headline on this article about tax incentives in KC. /s

https://www.kcur.org/news/2021-02-01/ka ... -pull-back

When will the media be better about describing how tax abatements actually work? What a terrible, misleading framing.

To bring this back to affordable housing set-asides, is the theory that developers using incentives will be both (a) further limited in the amount and length of incentives available and (b) have to include 20% affordable housing?

I think (b) is enough to kill all use of incentives in KCMO, but adding in (a) just puts the final nail in the coffin. I have to imagine that is the real point of Melissa Robinson and Ryana Parks-Shaw in introducing this measure.

alejandro46
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 501
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by alejandro46 »

bUt tHiNk of the ChiLdRen!

These guys are thinking of the clicks on their article. Nobody will shed any tears for defending developer tax breaks, especially because KCMO does tend to do a somewhat crappy job with them. Development in Downtown KCMO just doesn't work without incentives, especially on the east side. Rents just aren't there. Its cheaper and easier to go to Kansas or the suburbs.

Don't get me wrong, the KCMO school district has so many systematic and structural issues we can't fit them all on this thread. Yes, it's bullshit that Parkhill or Shawnee Mission gets up in arms whenever there is an incentive request there and mostly gets their way. That's not fair but it's a completely different area and the development there is mostly cheap big box, sfh or TIF subsidized like Zona Rosa. I hope that big local developers take notice and can do something to get this one shot down asap for the good of the urban core.

User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3866
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Inclusionary Zoning

Post by chaglang »

Seems like it would be good for the developers to organize and present some kind of PR/lobbying campaign. Just hoping that people somehow start to understand the nuances of the local incentives world and stop believing that developers are just a bunch of rich white guys stealing money from schoolkids and/or taxpayers does not seem to be effective. If they can't do that, I have fairly limited sympathy for them.
Last edited by chaglang on Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply