New River Housing

Good Morning,

One of my goals is the creation of a strategic housing plan for NRBH. It has been a slow going process, mostly information gathering & plugging in pieces here and there. Anyway, getting involved is something I try to do. Surfing around I found this picture at the city of Kingston Model For Affordable Housing Development website. I like this site becuase it offers some clear directions.

Over the past week several topics related to affordable housing in Watauga County were addressed. First was the Watauga Democrat report on questions of how to develop workforce housing in an area of "secondary water pressure"; Second was a joint meeting of the Watauga County Housing Opportunity Committe, Watauga County Planning Commission, and the Town of Boone Planning Commission.

The focus of all this is affordable housing in the 80-120% AMI level--workforce housing. This is particularly important as pressures from the "second" home/resort market and student housing market squeeze the un-subsidized middle class out of the homeownership market altogether.

The newspaper recounts a presentation to the Boone Town Council related to locating a new development at the edge of town. Its cetainly not that the town leaders don't want new workforce housing--they are all for this. The issue is water! I suspect that water will cap local economic growth more than any government. Nature does have limits.

A brief from the Fannie Mae Foundation outlines some of the concerns and some directions for policymakers: Workforce Housing: The New Economic Imperative? By Carol A. Bell (2002).

Another concern for local planners is economic--it has long been recognized that Watagua County residents earn, across the board, less than the state average for all occupations & that the cost of living in Watauga County is higher than the state average. This point was made by County Planner Joe Furman.

The joint planning meeting introduced a proposal by the county to build workforce housing on a piece of land acquired for industrial park expansion. This is the Brookshire property & subject of ongoing conversation by county planners.

The Brookshire property is described in the Mountain Times as:

"The county paid $2.6 million to buy 73 acres near Boone, adjoining the South Fork of the New River. The county later paid $45,000 for an adjoining two acres. The commissioners have explored a mix of industrial facilities, recreational fields, and affordable housing, and heard from county planning director Joe Furman and three groups hoping to use some of the space during last week’s annual board retreat."

While there were a number of students and community members in attendance, most of the issues were noted by members of the NWCoC. Many others reacted as if they were facing the issue initially--which they may have been. As with all projects, "wait & see" & "stay involved" is my motto.

There was little mention of environmental issues beyond a question of proximity to the New River. It seems to me that part of making the units affordable over the long-term is to enhance them with energy effiency and "green" building concepts. It also seems that density is important. I also proposed that affordability could be enhanced by encouraging builders of high-end resort housing to contribute to the affordability of housing for those who provide services to visitors.

That proposal generated some discussion. Some members wanted to talk about "inculsionary zoning". Defined by Heller in his Field Guide to Inclusionary Zoning as

"Inclusionary zoning is a land-use concept in which local ordinances require builders to include a certain amount of housing for low- and moderate-income households. In contrast, exclusionary zoning is a technique that effectively drives up the cost of housing, excluding lower-income households from the community.

Although I was referring more to the concept of credits--emissions trading.

Emissions trading relies on caps set by a regulatory body that are then bought and sold on a free market. This seems similar to the concept of rationing water based on expected use per person per type of building--the exact issue mentioned above that the Town of Boone is struggling with. Except that a finite limit is recognized at the outset.

In this case, every developable lot in the county is allowed say $500,000 of enhancement--that's probably not the right word. If a builder wants to erect a $750,000 structure they must offset with credits from somewhere else in the county. So, they end up building two structures: one at $230,000--median housing cost in the county right now, and one at $770,000.

An exchange could be set up where builders could sell & purchase credits to meet the needs of homeowners & contractors. Fees could support the exchange & maybe even support NWCoC efforts.

I don't know, its an idea to explore some more.
rmcox

Labels: affordable housing, strategic plan, workforce housing