Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Come here for discussion about the new downtown entertainment district.
missingkc
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1049
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by missingkc »

I don't see any mention of income requirements on these. What guarantee is there that these will go to the folks that the affordable housing uproar represents? Why would they not be snatched up by businesses that routinely house employees or by folks that want a second home in town? (Though, maybe in KC that's not a thing.) Are there restrictions against them being used as Airbnb?

User avatar
normalthings
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by normalthings »

missingkc wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 7:56 pm
I don't see any mention of income requirements on these. What guarantee is there that these will go to the folks that the affordable housing uproar represents? Why would they not be snatched up by businesses that routinely house employees or by folks that want a second home in town? (Though, maybe in KC that's not a thing.) Are there restrictions against them being used as Airbnb?
Cordish doesn’t allow Airbnb (I tried when One Light was new)

grecobs
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:53 am

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by grecobs »

Now if they can just rent out the ground floor to some useful retail tenants...

User avatar
rxlexi
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 10:30 pm
Location: City Market

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by rxlexi »

I don't see any mention of income requirements on these. What guarantee is there that these will go to the folks that the affordable housing uproar represents?
Per article in KCBJ, 1/3 of units will require income at or below 80% AMI.

missingkc
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1049
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by missingkc »

Missed that. Thanks.

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by DaveKCMO »

normalthings wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 3:47 pm
Should this thread be moved to Power and Light as it’s considered part of that project.
Done. Also updated the title to the official project name.

missingkc
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1049
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by missingkc »

Rxlexi:
Per article in KCBJ, 1/3 of units will require income at or below 80% AMI.
Help me out, here. Which article in KCBJ, please? Not seeing it in "Cordish plans $25M affordable housing project at Midland", posted 5/14.

User avatar
rxlexi
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 10:30 pm
Location: City Market

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by rxlexi »

Missingkc - that info can be found in the article below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... ments.html

User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1279
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by TheLastGentleman »

Not sure if this is an accident or related to the apartment project, but the midland's bird netting is coming off

Image

langosta
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 4:02 am

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by langosta »

Any movement on this project or is it on hold until Strata is cleared up?

herrfrank
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by herrfrank »

missingkc wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 7:56 pm
I don't see any mention of income requirements on these. What guarantee is there that these will go to the folks that the affordable housing uproar represents? Why would they not be snatched up by businesses that routinely house employees or by folks that want a second home in town? (Though, maybe in KC that's not a thing.) Are there restrictions against them being used as Airbnb?
An anecdote...

A friend in Boston who was "legally poor" (all her income, and it was significant, came in gift form or side gig cash), somehow rose to the top of the affordable housing list in the fashionable "leather district" and was able to buy an apartment at a city-defined price well below market and with a city-subsidized mortgage rate. Long story short, she stayed for about a year and now AirBnB's the place at a huge profit. The city apparently doesn't care after a certain time has passed, and the otherwise private building cannot force affordable housing units to comply with their no-sublet rules.

Another Bostonian, with somewhat more above-the-board income, got a similar deal in the South End, and he now rents the place to a relative, again at a tidy profit. This guy actually owns more than one affordable unit -- one in Roxbury, one in the Fens, and the one in the South End. He lives in a fancy market-rate apartment in Back Bay and now has housing wealth well over one million dollars, all of it starting as some kind of city subsidized housing.

I know that anecdotes do not automatically constitute data, but these are some of the moral hazards around "affordable housing."

missingkc
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1049
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by missingkc »

Hm.

DColeKC
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by DColeKC »

herrfrank wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:33 pm
missingkc wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 7:56 pm
I don't see any mention of income requirements on these. What guarantee is there that these will go to the folks that the affordable housing uproar represents? Why would they not be snatched up by businesses that routinely house employees or by folks that want a second home in town? (Though, maybe in KC that's not a thing.) Are there restrictions against them being used as Airbnb?
An anecdote...

A friend in Boston who was "legally poor" (all her income, and it was significant, came in gift form or side gig cash), somehow rose to the top of the affordable housing list in the fashionable "leather district" and was able to buy an apartment at a city-defined price well below market and with a city-subsidized mortgage rate. Long story short, she stayed for about a year and now AirBnB's the place at a huge profit. The city apparently doesn't care after a certain time has passed, and the otherwise private building cannot force affordable housing units to comply with their no-sublet rules.

Another Bostonian, with somewhat more above-the-board income, got a similar deal in the South End, and he now rents the place to a relative, again at a tidy profit. This guy actually owns more than one affordable unit -- one in Roxbury, one in the Fens, and the one in the South End. He lives in a fancy market-rate apartment in Back Bay and now has housing wealth well over one million dollars, all of it starting as some kind of city subsidized housing.

I know that anecdotes do not automatically constitute data, but these are some of the moral hazards around "affordable housing."
I know of several people who moved into affordable housing while bartending and reported the minimum to qualify. They now do very well but don't want to give up that cheap rent! Ten years ago or so, it was very common for people I know to flat out lie about the income and the people renting the apartments didn't fact check, because they didn't care. Old Town Lofts finally got caught doing this at some point.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14416
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by FangKC »

People doing this can be reported to HUD, or the local housing authority, for investigation. Even if their stated income can't be proven to be fraud, the fact they aren't living in the rental unit, and are renting it out to someone else, or as AirBnB, is fraud that can be proven. They should be reported because they are denying affordable housing to people that truly are in need of it.

The person who bought their apartment with a city-subsidized mortgage is probably committing fraud as well. Most subsidized homeowner programs for low income people require the resident live in the unit for a term of years (for example, 10 years). If they aren't living in it, and renting it out, or using it as an AirBNB unit, and they haven't met their minimum contractual term to receive the mortgage, they should be reported because they are also committing fraud.

Many municipalities offer these programs through their local housing authorities. There is usually a yearly affidavit that the resident most sign and mail back to the municipality that states they are living in the mortgaged property. Some cities provide cash grants for down payments, and there is a set year minimum term of years that they must live in the unit, or they have to pay back the money. There is only so much budgeted funding for these programs, so people who are committing this fraud are denying truly needy residents the opportunity. They should be reported for their fraud, and prosecuted. At the very least, they will be removed from the program and made to pay back the money.

Landlords that knowingly ignore income-reporting requirements, and allow ineligible people to occupy the low-income units, need to be reported as well, so penalties can be applied.

Even if it's a friend, they need to be reported. They are depriving needy people of affordable housing. People who are languishing on waiting lists for months and years, and living in precarious situations.

These programs can only work if all citizens obey the rules, and also when people observing fraudulent behavior report it to authorities.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by mean »

Or, you know, we could not artificially deflate rents with complex regulations that ultimately just make a few people rich and screw poor people while simultaneously ensuring that no landlord ever invests in renovations because why bother. That was the takeaway I had from the NPR piece on rent control the other day.

KCLover
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 871
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:19 am
Location: NKC

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by KCLover »

Looks like the renovations to the Midland are coming along quite well.

Image

shinatoo
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6402
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by shinatoo »

Hah!
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1279
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by TheLastGentleman »

Zero signs of life here. Any updates?

Image

User avatar
normalthings
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by normalthings »

TheLastGentleman wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:07 am
Zero signs of life here. Any updates?
June 2019 - Change of Occupancy Filed:
The project is the renovation of an existing 12 story building. The existing building is non-occupied office. The proposed renovation will convert the building to +/- 117 residential units. All new MEPFP systems will be installed.
https://compasskc.kcmo.org/EnerGov_Prod ... ttachments

herrfrank
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: Saxon at the Midland (formerly Midland Office Building)

Post by herrfrank »

FangKC wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:22 pm
People doing this can be reported to HUD, or the local housing authority, for investigation. Even if their stated income can't be proven to be fraud, the fact they aren't living in the rental unit, and are renting it out to someone else, or as AirBnB, is fraud that can be proven. They should be reported because they are denying affordable housing to people that truly are in need of it.
...
Many municipalities offer these programs through their local housing authorities. There is usually a yearly affidavit that the resident most sign and mail back to the municipality that states they are living in the mortgaged property. Some cities provide cash grants for down payments, and there is a set year minimum term of years that they must live in the unit, or they have to pay back the money. There is only so much budgeted funding for these programs, so people who are committing this fraud are denying truly needy residents the opportunity. They should be reported for their fraud, and prosecuted. At the very least, they will be removed from the program and made to pay back the money.
More anecdotes from my personal experience: three Kansas natives whom I knew from high school years back in the 1980s all bought into a city-subsidized building conversion in Harlem (NYC) in the early 1990s. For the record, I applied, as did a fifth person (a Wichita friend), but the latter guy and I were declined because we had W-2 jobs and our documented income was too high (the upper limit was below 50k annual income -- in NYC!).

The three successful buyers all had a little W-2 income, but they survived mostly on side-gig-type money (hairdressing, freelance writing). These were spacious 1-BR units (I recall you had to have dependent kids for the 2BRs) in the most accessible part of Harlem (125/ Fifth Avenue). The subsidized cost was 40,000 cash. Pay in full, and the buyer got the title. There was also a small HOA for the building, payable monthly. Minimal property tax, as is common in NYC buildings.

NYC had stricter rules than the Boston examples I gave upthread, but after 10 years most restrictions expired. The building had a flip tax, but that was also time-limited. One of the guys sold circa 2005 for 200k, the second still has his unit as a pied-a-terre, and the third is selling his unit now for a huge multiple of what he paid, probably yielding half a million dollars in capital gain. (None of them live in Harlem full time -- probably a violation but not really enforceable).

These market distortions in the guise of affordable housing will always generate these stories. I wish everyone would behave 100% honorably, but when money is at stake, well....

Post Reply