Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

[im2kull]

KCT will be honored for their 5 years as a special action during today's Council meeting, via Duncan.
Cosponsors: Bough, Robinson, Parks-Shaw, Bunch, Willett, Lucas, Patterson Hazley
https://clerk.kcmo.gov/LegislationDetai ... FullText=1

I thought this was parody.

[phuqueue]

phuqueue, you are right that this left-right NIMBY alliance issue exists in many cities - that's why there is a nationwide housing shortage!

I see you in other threads explaining to people that there are other more important reasons than KCT for the difficulty getting things built, but now you’re in here saying actually it’s the NIMBYs after all? NIMBYism has been a problem for decades, but this housing shortage only started ~15 years ago. Before that, we had a surplus nationally, the market crashed, and a bunch of homebuilders went out of business (you know, that process I described earlier that you strongly disagreed with). NIMBYism is a problem, but it’s not the problem.

What I'm saying is somewhat unique to Kansas City is that developers used a very effective incentive tool - tax abatements - to build a good amount of infill housing from 2010-2019. What changed then? KC Tenants came on the scene and used their influence to effectively kill those incentive tools. Now only the biggest developers get them through their political connections. Smaller developers are shut out. I'm just saying let's repeal those misguided incentive changes from 2019 and go back to what worked well in the past. It's a simple story I'm trying to tell.

It kind of seems like if what you had going pre-2019 was working so well, there wouldn’t have been space for a group like KCT to take root. Maybe what was working for developers wasn’t working for low-income tenants. Which has kind of been my whole point.

I'm fine with some kind of public housing strategy for very low-income families and individuals. But we shouldn't kneecap privately-financed, market-rate development efforts in the meanwhile while someone figures out how to build public housing in 2024. Tying low-income housing efforts to market-rate development was a mistake in 2019. Inclusionary zoning failed to accomplish any goal other than restrict new market-rate developments.

There’s no mystery about how to build public housing in 2024. You just have to make elected officials care about it. One way you could try to do that, if you are a low-income renter, is to use political activism to make your problem everybody’s problem until the people with real power become motivated to fix it. And for what it’s worth, I think we are still quite far from that happening, so you probably ought to get used to groups like KCT, because they will likely be with us for a long time.

[im2kull]

Does anyone else find it a bit hypocritical that KC Tenants has millions of dollars in it's PAC's coffers, yet they refuse to spend any money on actually building or otherwise funding housing for their membership and audience?

[CrossroadsUrbanApts]

This dialogue is helpful, I think, because I can clear up some misconceptions about development.

I see you in other threads explaining to people that there are other more important reasons than KCT for the difficulty getting things built, but now you’re in here saying actually it’s the NIMBYs after all? NIMBYism has been a problem for decades, but this housing shortage only started ~15 years ago. Before that, we had a surplus nationally, the market crashed, and a bunch of homebuilders went out of business (you know, that process I described earlier that you strongly disagreed with). NIMBYism is a problem, but it’s not the problem.

Yes, there are definitely other factors for the current difficulty in getting things built - even bigger factors that KCT. But at this moment I'm focused on what I, and theoretically others on this message board, can actually influence. Interest rates, construction costs, etc., are far beyond the reach of anyone on this board. But we can influence city development policy, and argue against KCT's pernicious influence on such. What lumber costs, what concrete costs, what utilities cost, what salary a property manager or maintenance tech makes - these I can't affect. But the city and its development policy can directly affect what property taxes I pay and what development, permit and impact fees I pay. Hence why I focus my concern on this specific area.

It kind of seems like if what you had going pre-2019 was working so well, there wouldn’t have been space for a group like KCT to take root. Maybe what was working for developers wasn’t working for low-income tenants. Which has kind of been my whole point.

This excellently demonstrates a pet peeve of mine - viewing the housing market as a zero sum endeavor. That's my whole complaint about KCT. I never claimed that what I'm doing (and did from 2013-2019) will solve all the woes of the housing market, especially for low-income renters. But my efforts certainly didn't hurt them either - it's not zero sum! I think Highlander's post above puts this point best - growing the tax base and encouraging more people to move to KC at all income levels helps provide the resources needed to address social problems. If KCT didn't protest against new development or development incentives, I wouldn't have an issue with them.

There’s no mystery about how to build public housing in 2024. You just have to make elected officials care about it.

I gotta disagree with you here. I think it is the opposite. I think that elected officials genuinely care a lot about solving affordability, including through robust public housing. What's most difficult is that there are few or no good models for building and operating public housing in America. If it was at all easy, there are many, many cities that would love to try such a strategy. Building and operating housing is a lot harder than it looks from the outside and public housing has a sorry track record. I'm not against public housing, but I think doing it well is very, very hard. I really wish it weren't that way.

One way you could try to do that, if you are a low-income renter, is to use political activism to make your problem everybody’s problem until the people with real power become motivated to fix it. And for what it’s worth, I think we are still quite far from that happening, so you probably ought to get used to groups like KCT, because they will likely be with us for a long time.

This is the part about heightening the contradictions that bothers me. The idea that KCT needs to help make the housing crisis worse (by protesting/blocking new housing construction) in order to make the situation so bad that somehow "the people with real power" will fix it. Meanwhile, alienating many potential allies along the way. I don't think it will work that way.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Land use regulations that protect existing property values didn't just arise by accident

Correct. They arose out of racism. All the more reason why an anti-racist organization should be working against them.

I agree with your points about code but doubt that these changes will make low-income housing sufficiently profitable. And from a practical standpoint, I feel like you might be overlooking how incredibly difficult it will be, politically, to enact genuine reforms here. Land use regulations that protect existing property values didn't just arise by accident, and their beneficiaries (homeowners who are whiter and wealthier than the nation as a whole) are a much more powerful constituency than the low income renters of color who create and comprise groups like KCT. Granted, other solutions, like constructing public housing, are also extremely difficult politically, so there are no easy answers here

Fixing regulations is probably the easiest solution that exists. It's basically free and only requires political will. Every other solution requires political will AND millions or billions in funding or subsidies. Plus, the political winds of zoning reform from California, Minneapolis, the national Democratic party, etc should be enough cover to at least get the process started.

but public housing would at least have the benefit of actually being affordable, where the market-driven free-for-all will produce only whatever kind and amount of housing can be expected to maximize profits.

How can we sit here and agree that the housing market is overregulated and still call it a "free-for-all"? Yes, capitalists want to maximize profits but regulation and subsidy can control and direct that. Plus, there are always going to be people that want to live in newer and nicer housing, if we actually let developers chase those profits for any housing other than single family, that frees up cheaper units for everyone else. If our goal is to control housing prices then our regulations and incentive policies are non-sensical. If we want more tax revenue or to keep wealth from leaving Kansas City, our regulations and incentive policies are non-sensical. You (and so many others) keep looking at the housing market that we have and not what we could have. You keep ignoring how 100+ years of racist and classist regulations, specifically designed to make housing more expensive and waste developable land, have completely shaped our built environment from the ground up and how different things would look today and could look in the future with regulations that were functional paired with incentive reform and state and local governments ending sprawl subsidies.

If a landlord finds it more profitable to renovate his 100 year old building and rent it to higher-income tenants, he's going to do that.

That assumes the neighborhood can justify much higher rents and assumes that every landlord is operating as efficiently as possible. In a market with thousands of small-time operators with an abundance of ungentrified neighborhoods, there's still going to be a plethora of unrenovated buildings. And, if that's a valid fear then subsidize renovation and lock in low-income rents or create new vouchers or fix the voucher system that exists.

Or property owners might decide to knock down and replace their building (or sell it to someone else who will do that), which won't necessarily yield more (and certainly not cheaper) units than were there before.

There have been some uninhabitable buildings knocked down. There's been unfortunate landbanking by KC Life and others (an example where we lack stricter regulations). But, this fear of direct displacement of tenants in habitable units getting replaced by luxury units just isn't happening in KC so why is it even a discussion point? I mean, with the city's strict zoning and political climate, how would this even happen? Sure, the city'll let a land owner tear down units for a parking lot or grass but for housing? Ha, you're out of your mind. Only time this is happening is on a small-scale where some rich clown buys a triplex and puts a house there. That happened recently in Union Hill, that's about the only example that comes to mind, which is pretty irrelevant, and is easily controlled with adequate demolition regulations.

Not to mention, this is what the zoning code is literally telling landowners to do. That particular triplex is actually zoned UR but let's say there's a different triplex that's in a neighborhood zoned R-2.5. The city's laws are saying that that triplex is too dense, if anything were to happen to it, the replacement building needs to be less dense and therefore more expensive. Your argument is built into the zoning code. That's not a problem with capitalism.

That will only happen if providing low-income housing is the most profitable use of a property. In most cases and assuming a healthy market, I am doubtful that it is.

Market rents have to jump considerably to justify a large renovation. It's not as simple as saying landlords will always chase the top of the market. The cost of renovation is weighed against the increase in value. When there's low interest rates and rents have skyrocketed, that calculus makes sense. Under normal conditions, it usually doesn't until the unit is in need of a renovation, regardless of what the market is doing.

I agree, but I also don't think it is ever going to work even if developers don't have to navigate a years-long political process.

Sensible regulations and adequate subsidies can make anything work.

Also, any solution that provides an adequate amount of housing that is affordable to low-income renters will necessarily relieve upward price pressure from the bottom up.

That's not the direction the pressure is coming from. If demand is higher than supply, the poorest are pushed out of housing. If housing is built with income-restrictions in place, then anyone above that income line isn't helped. If low-income housing is built without market rate supply being satiated then price pressure will continue to kill people that qualify for the income-restricted units but aren't lucky enough to get into one. There's no realistic scenario where we can build enough social housing that demand across the entire housing market is fulfilled.

If KCT actually cared about affordability, their goal wouldn't be to make subsidized housing one specific way (social housing), their goal would be to build as much subsidized housing as possible (social housing, public housing, deregulation, direct subsidies, expanded/fixed vouchers).

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Does anyone else find it a bit hypocritical that KC Tenants has millions of dollars in it's PAC's coffers, yet they refuse to spend any money on actually building or otherwise funding housing for their membership and audience?

No. Theoretically, a couple million in political activism could yield tens or hundreds of millions worth of housing, directly spending a couple of million on housing (if it's even legal) would yield a couple of million worth of housing.

[im2kull]

There's a discussion tomorrow morning at the Plaza Library at 10 AM hosted by the KC Regional Housing Alliance regarding the recently passed SOI restrictions and the effort at the state legislature to overturn it. I'm sure KCT policies as a whole will be heavily discussed. Lots of noteworthy speakers. I'm signing up and attending. Hope to see more of us pro-development minds there!

https://kcregionalhousingalliance.org/k ... march-9th/

[atticus23]

There's a discussion tomorrow morning at the Plaza Library at 10 AM hosted by the KC Regional Housing Alliance regarding the recently passed SOI restrictions and the effort at the state legislature to overturn it. I'm sure KCT policies as a whole will be heavily discussed. Lots of noteworthy speakers. I'm signing up and attending. Hope to see more of us pro-development minds there!

https://kcregionalhousingalliance.org/k ... march-9th/

What came out of this?

[phuqueue]

In an obviously unsuccessful effort to keep these posts from spiraling to greater and greater lengths, I mostly skipped the quote and response format and just tried to sum up each point a little bit more briefly (still quoted a couple pieces that invited more direct responses).

CrossroadsUrbanApts

If housing isn't zero sum, it's also not a rising tide that lifts all boats. I think low-income renters, particularly the ones who create or are attracted to organizations like KCT, would take a much broader view of what hurts them than you do. The harm that low-income tenants would see from your efforts would be that you are contributing to rising costs in their neighborhoods that will eventually push them out.

I don't believe that building and operating housing (public or otherwise) is easy, but the flaws in America's public housing programs are pretty well-known. It has a sorry track record because we have treated it as housing of last resort for people with low incomes and no better options, then we've underfunded it for decades (among myriad other issues, right down to the designs of the buildings themselves). It should come as no surprise that after we built these nodes of hyperconcentrated poverty and then didn't even pay to maintain the buildings, the projects struggled and in many cases failed. But there are successful models elsewhere that could be emulated if there were any desire to do so, I just don't see much of that desire, though you seem quite confident it exists. I'm thinking mostly about the federal government, which has historically been responsible for funding most of the public housing throughout the country but has since prohibited itself from building any more. I guess I'm not that interested in whether local politicians in cash-strapped city governments would love to build public housing in principle but in reality have no capital to do so, except to the extent that their interest could indicate that maybe at some point in the future the tide will turn on this.

Chuck

You bring up regulation and subsidies a few times throughout your post, but that's not "letting the market function," that is explicitly the government putting its finger on the scale to achieve outcomes that the market won't achieve on its own. Which has been my point all along. Yes, revising land use regulations is helpful, but it's not sufficient. That's the only point I was ever trying to make, and it seems like we agree? I've already said it before, but I am all for revising (including eliminating, where appropriate) those regulations, which I think is good and necessary for reasons wholly apart from any hopes about bringing down rent. I'm not going to argue to maintain the status quo, if that's what you're expecting or what you think I have been saying. I'm just skeptical that this will bring about widespread affordability. If, on the other hand, the government wants to turn on the money spigot, then sure, you can achieve any outcome you want as long as they crank it high enough. That has never been in question.

You also accuse me of "ignoring" the racist and classist history of land use regulations. I don't think that I'm ignoring this history, I just don't think it's especially germane to the point I'm trying to make, which is just about whether "letting the market function" by rolling back those regulations now will suddenly generate a bunch of affordable housing. That history is one of many reasons to rethink land use in this country, but it doesn't really speak to what our expectations should be about what effect that would have on rent.

On the point about landlords in gentrifying neighborhoods hiking rents, renovating, or rebuilding, you say that I'm assuming the neighborhood can support higher rents. Of course I am. If the neighborhood can't support much higher rents than what the existing low-income tenants are paying, developers aren't building there and we aren't talking about anything. You also doubt that "every landlord is operating as efficiently as possible," which is fair because nobody operates "as efficiently as possible," but that's not the point. Yes, at any given moment in time, you will find some landlords who are not necessarily extracting the maximum amount of rent, but over the longer term, rents will correct toward the market rate (obviously, assuming no rent control or similar law in effect). This is true whether or not the building gets renovated (a renovated building could command higher rents, but as you point out, those rents would need to be high enough to justify the cost of the renovation; I hadn't argued otherwise, even though you responded to me as if I had).

How can we sit here and agree that the housing market is overregulated and still call it a "free-for-all"?

I wasn't talking about the status quo, I was comparing two proposed solutions (public housing vs. YIMBY market magic).

That's not the direction the pressure is coming from. If demand is higher than supply, the poorest are pushed out of housing. If housing is built with income-restrictions in place, then anyone above that income line isn't helped. If low-income housing is built without market rate supply being satiated then price pressure will continue to kill people that qualify for the income-restricted units but aren't lucky enough to get into one. There's no realistic scenario where we can build enough social housing that demand across the entire housing market is fulfilled.

Of course demand-side price pressure comes from the bottom up. If you have an infinite supply of a good, everybody can have one cost-free. But if the good is scarce, the price is driven upward by the very people who are "pushed out" of acquiring it -- by pushing them out, you can allocate it to whoever is left willing (and able) to purchase it at whatever price it settles at. (I'm not sure the rest of your response is relevant. I specifically mentioned a "solution that provides an adequate amount of housing" and you're talking about an insufficient number of means tested units.)

[TheBigChuckbowski]

YIMBY market magic

I have not argued for, nor do I think YIMBYs in general argue for, a free market. There is a balance to be sought between a stifling non-sensical regulated market (status quo) and a free market (what no one is actually arguing for). We can achieve a functional well-regulated market. That is not a silver bullet that solves all problems within the year, though. Again, no one actually says this or believes it. It took us decades to get into this mess and it's going to take decades to get out. Fixing the zoning code is the necessary first step. That's the point. Again, it's just the first step. But, it has to be the first step. No other affordability solution anyone can come up with will work so long as we continue to ban the most efficient housing types, make the development process even more expensive, risky and time-consuming, waste every square inch of developable land on low density land use, and allow our most desirable residential neighborhoods to ice out any housing type that isn't more expensive than what's already there. Tell me how that's supposed to work. Sure, you say zoning should be fixed but you continue to argue like it isn't absolutely necessary.

Social and public housing's never going to be allowed to be built in the desirable residential neighborhoods so long as we give the power to block it to them. So, how do we not continue to concentrate poverty if those sorts of developments are relegated to poverty-stricken neighborhoods? Best case in this environment is we fill and gentrify the neighborhoods next to the desirable neighborhoods with mixed-income giant apartment complexes but, even then, if the incentive structure doesn't work and left-NIMBYs fight it (because it's gentrification proposed by a private developer and they'll probably call it displacement, even if it's built on an empty lot, while they're at it) then that's not even going to work (and it's not really that desirable of an outcome anyway). So, where's the workable affordability solution that doesn't concentrate poverty without zoning and incentive reform? It doesn't exist.

[phuqueue]

You literally used the words "let the housing market function." If that's not what you actually meant, then fine, but it is what you said.

Sure, you say zoning should be fixed but you continue to argue like it isn't absolutely necessary.

I've already said it before, but I am all for revising (including eliminating, where appropriate) those regulations, which I think is good and necessary for reasons wholly apart from any hopes about bringing down rent.

But just keep seeing what you need to see to keep the argument going, I guess.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

You literally used the words "let the housing market function." If that's not what you actually meant, then fine, but it is what you said.

Functional market =/= free market.

Sure, you say zoning should be fixed but you continue to argue like it isn't absolutely necessary.

I've already said it before, but I am all for revising (including eliminating, where appropriate) those regulations, which I think is good and necessary for reasons wholly apart from any hopes about bringing down rent.

But just keep seeing what you need to see to keep the argument going, I guess.

If you agree that zoning reform is absolutely necessary, why do you keep saying it won't produce affordability on its own? Like, yeah, I agree with that. I've made that point several times so why keep bringing this up if you do agree?

I agree with your points about code but doubt that these changes will make low-income housing sufficiently profitable. And from a practical standpoint, I feel like you might be overlooking how incredibly difficult it will be, politically, to enact genuine reforms here

I'm just skeptical that this will bring about widespread affordability.

the point I'm trying to make, which is just about whether "letting the market function" by rolling back those regulations now will suddenly generate a bunch of affordable housing.

I have not once in this thread argued for a free market. I have not once in this thread argued for one solution. In fact, I continually argue the opposite, that everything needs to be on the table. We need numerous solutions but we can't just skip over zoning reform and expect to accomplish anything. The only people here that think one solution can solve the housing crisis is KC Tenants. It seems like you agree with me more than you agree with them so it's a bit confusing why you continually argue with me while defending them.

[CrossroadsUrbanApts]

Thanks Chuck for making many excellent points in your last few posts. To steal a bit from Twitter though, I think we are at the point shown below (substitute incentives for zoning):

So much housing discourse is just people who think "zoning reform is NECESSARY but not sufficient" arguing with people who think "zoning reform is necessary BUT NOT SUFFICIENT."

https://twitter.com/jdcmedlock/status/1 ... 8417421566

I've also seen a fair bit of extreme skepticism on the left regarding anything that could be perceived as "deregulation". Contrast this with a liberal perspective more interested in effective regulation, which can include removing bad regulation as much as putting in place new regulations. A differing focus that pays as much attention to ends (outcomes) as means (process).

[phuqueue]

This framing of me "continually arguing" with you is a little confusing, given that the sequence of posts here was CUA crediting developers for bringing down rents in Austin, Portland, and SF; me kinda "well actually"ing that; and then you jumping in to reply to me and complain about "the market" (the distinction you attempt to draw now between a "functional" market and a "free" market is actually inconsequential, but we can let it rest). So basically I made one point in response to someone else's post and you started arguing with me (despite, apparently, agreeing with the point? or at least not intending to argue against it?), but I guess I'm the one coming after you. Sure, whatever. If this is just going to descend into some kind of meta-argument about the argument now then I don't really have anything else to add anyway.

[Metro]

KCT will be honored for their 5 years as a special action during today's Council meeting, via Duncan.
Cosponsors: Bough, Robinson, Parks-Shaw, Bunch, Willett, Lucas, Patterson Hazley
https://clerk.kcmo.gov/LegislationDetai ... FullText=1

I thought this was parody.

This board told us Bunch would become a good council person when the city elected other left wing nut jobs. They got that with Duncan what a disaster that guy is!

[moderne]

Saw No on stadium ad on TV sponsored by KC Tenants. I do not understand what advocating for No (or Yes) on the issue does for the interests of lower income renters. How is KC Tenants funded that they can afford to buy television ad space?

[bspecht]

Many 503(c)(3)s no longer have to report who they receive their money from. KCT had $1.22M in bank at end of 2022.

You can see KC Tenants financials + Form 990s here: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprof ... /845137189

[Metro]

Many 503(c)(3)s no longer have to report who they receive their money from. KCT had $1.22M in bank at end of 2022.

You can see KC Tenants financials + Form 990s here: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprof ... /845137189

I asked them and Jennifer Manley where they were getting their money and neither would respond.

[im2kull]

Saw No on stadium ad on TV sponsored by KC Tenants. I do not understand what advocating for No (or Yes) on the issue does for the interests of lower income renters. How is KC Tenants funded that they can afford to buy television ad space?

Many 503(c)(3)s no longer have to report who they receive their money from. KCT had $1.22M in bank at end of 2022.

You can see KC Tenants financials + Form 990s here: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprof ... /845137189

I asked them and Jennifer Manley where they were getting their money and neither would respond.

Y'all really don't read my posts on this subject, do you?

KCT isn't a tenant advocacy organization. It's also not a "KC" organization. And, "Affordable" housing isn't their game or goal.

Their funding comes from exactly where you'd expect it to come from.. out of town interests.

Their founder lives in Mission Hills, and graduated from Harvard. She's not exactly opaque about her goals.

[langosta]

This is the next version of that group of anti progress retirees from Kansas.