KCRag Forum

He helped write the ordinance/set aside and then voted against it.

MAC’s request for the TIF set aside seemed a bit sketchy when the presented it to a midtown business group a couple months ago. If I remember correctly, they wanted to continue an existing TIF on the midtown marketplace project and take a 3rd of the money. I was sitting next to a couple midtown developers with a WTF look on their face. This request was a major arrogance play destined to fail.

CorneliusFB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:40 pm MAC’s request for the TIF set aside seemed a bit sketchy when the presented it to a midtown business group a couple months ago. If I remember correctly, they wanted to continue an existing TIF on the midtown marketplace project and take a 3rd of the money. I was sitting next to a couple midtown developers with a WTF look on their face. This request was a major arrogance play destined to fail.

Isn't this basically the workaround for the Katz project? Area cities have successfully used a similar model in the past (see Village West). I don't understand the problem.

The council set the standard. And then when a developer met it, the council said it wasn’t affordable

I wonder if Bunch will flip again like on Katz and come to some kind of middle ground. Would really be a shame for a big project like this to just collapse and then either land have to go on the market and sit or just remain as is. Mac provided the affordable housing as stipulated, but now because it’s “majority market rate” it’s just not good enough. So many people just don’t have a grasp on reality.

Goonies wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:07 pm

kboish wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:28 pm KC Tenants twitter handle declares victory after prevented the construction of 77 affordable housing units.

I am curious how many victories they have declared for the actual creation of affordable housing units

What's considered affordable again? Isn't it like 1k? KC Tenants can't even afford a place for $700 if we're being honest

There are a few benchmarks. I believe these are the 2 most commonly used.

30% of income of an earner making 50% of Area Median Income
30% of income of an earner making 20% of Area Median Income

kboish wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:28 pm KC Tenants twitter handle declares victory after prevented the construction of 77 affordable housing units.

I am curious how many victories they have declared for the actual creation of affordable housing units

The Mac proposal included the rehabilitation and preservation of the affordable apartments in the New Yorker. Do those residents think this was a victory? Other Mac residents were portrayed as gentrifying yuppies. My neighbors are an incredibly diverse mix of working folks supporting key Kansas City institutions (University Health, Children's Mercy, KU Med & other central city employers). How do we keep those employers strong and continuing to provide job opportunities for every skill level if we deny well-situated and moderately-priced housing? The households that now won't have those 77 affordable apartments as an option would have had access to jobs, educational facilities and services across Kansas City. A victory, indeed.

Pastense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:04 am

kboish wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:28 pm KC Tenants twitter handle declares victory after prevented the construction of 77 affordable housing units.

I am curious how many victories they have declared for the actual creation of affordable housing units

The Mac proposal included the rehabilitation and preservation of the affordable apartments in the New Yorker. Do those residents think this was a victory? Other Mac residents were portrayed as gentrifying yuppies. My neighbors are an incredibly diverse mix of working folks supporting key Kansas City institutions (University Health, Children's Mercy, KU Med & other central city employers). How do we keep those employers strong and continuing to provide job opportunities for every skill level if we deny well-situated and moderately-priced housing? The households that now won't have those 77 affordable apartments as an option would have had access to jobs, educational facilities and services across Kansas City. A victory, indeed.

This whole post needs to be sent to the council and KCTenants, they need to realize they’re actively contributing to a lower housing supply which is making housing MORE expensive.

Or just post it on a reddit

Wasn't the $10.5mm support spread out over 20 years? KCTenants should learn that, according to the Missouri Housing Development Commission, the cost of a new, affordable two-bedroom apartment in Kansas City is $277,000. The 77 apartments in the Mac proposal would have cost the city only $136,000 per unit. KCTenants and the City Council will have a hard time getting more affordable housing if they kill similar proposals.

Pastense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:58 am Wasn't the $10.5mm support spread out over 20 years? KCTenants should learn that, according to the Missouri Housing Development Commission, the cost of a new, affordable two-bedroom apartment in Kansas City is $277,000. The 77 apartments in the Mac proposal would have cost the city only $136,000 per unit. KCTenants and the City Council will have a hard time getting more affordable housing if they kill similar proposals.

That's correct. Bunch is trying to argue on Twitter that since the New Yorker already exists as "affordable housing," any renovation doesn't count and that this project would only add 17 units.

I obviously don't hope for this outcome, but maybe Mac just needs to gut the New Yorker and replace it with more market rate?

I'm curious, is the New Yorker considered a quality affordable housing project today? Or do people consider this sub-standard affordable housing and part of the reason more affordable housing is needed? If its the latter, you can't have it both ways. Preserving these units (while upgrading their quality) is part of your goal and you have to count them towards the 77. If its the former, then yeah, its fair to exclude them from the count.

kboish wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:07 am I'm curious, is the New Yorker considered a quality affordable housing project today? Or do people consider this sub-standard affordable housing and part of the reason more affordable housing is needed? If its the latter, you can't have it both ways. Preserving these units (while upgrading their quality) is part of your goal and you have to count them towards the 77. If its the former, then yeah, its fair to exclude them from the count.

I don’t know how people will ever consider this better affordable housing than anything MAC would’ve brought to the table. The fact that Bunch actually argued that this housing as it stands is acceptable standards is bewildering, and shows how truly out of touch he is. I guarantee he never even saw the inside of these current units.

kboish wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:07 am I'm curious, is the New Yorker considered a quality affordable housing project today? Or do people consider this sub-standard affordable housing and part of the reason more affordable housing is needed? If its the latter, you can't have it both ways. Preserving these units (while upgrading their quality) is part of your goal and you have to count them towards the 77. If its the former, then yeah, its fair to exclude them from the count.

new yorker is the one with no sprinklers. protests when they tried to renovate iirc

normalthings wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:16 am

kboish wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:07 am I'm curious, is the New Yorker considered a quality affordable housing project today? Or do people consider this sub-standard affordable housing and part of the reason more affordable housing is needed? If its the latter, you can't have it both ways. Preserving these units (while upgrading their quality) is part of your goal and you have to count them towards the 77. If its the former, then yeah, its fair to exclude them from the count.

new yorker is the one with no sprinklers. protests when they tried to renovate iirc

I don’t think any of those lines ARE sprinklers. It looks like water pipes for radiators.

FWIW It appears that KC rejected 77 affordable apartments (I count preservation/rehabilitation as a good thing) that would have cost the city $137,000 per unit spread over 20 years. MHDC says that new construction of an affordable apartment costs $200k+ in Jackson County. So now the HTF can build 2 apartments per year for 20 years? That's quite a victory for folks needing affordable housing.

Pastense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:41 am FWIW It appears that KC rejected 77 affordable apartments (I count preservation/rehabilitation as a good thing) that would have cost the city $137,000 per unit spread over 20 years. MHDC says that new construction of an affordable apartment costs $200k+ in Jackson County. So now the HTF can build 2 apartments per year for 20 years? That's quite a victory for folks needing affordable housing.

No matter how much math you throw at them to disprove their points, they won’t be swayed, they think they’ve legitimately made affordable housing in the city better by doing this…

Follow the money. Who’s in control of the Housing Trust Fund money?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:56 am Follow the money. Who’s in control of the Housing Trust Fund money?

I genuinely have no idea

what a shame, and what a sham group this Housing Trust Fund group is. Really need to get some better leadership in City Council. This group is way to hyper focused on the optics of what we keep them elected or pandering to groups to take them to the next level of politics.

It's shame someone that has been a good developer getting kicked in the junk like this even trying to do the best for affordable housing.

Now it means only a very wealthy developer will tackle it and do it all with their own money and therefore not give a shit about affordable housing. If people were worried about gentrified yuppies taking over the housing they just pushed the ball more in that court.

Otherwise you'll just have abandoned buildings and or apartments being run by landlords who do not care to improve their buildings. Thus a negative for those living there.

Good job bozos, glad you are taking care of those who are considered vulnerable from your Ivory Towers