Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-2VALORY GREENFIELD MIRIAM HARMATZ ARTHUR J. ROSENBERG CHARLES F. ELSESSER JONEL NEWMAN ATTORNEYS City Commission City of Miami Miami, Florida 33130 FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 3000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 450 Miami, Florida 33137 Telephone: 305-573-0092 Fax: 305-576-9664 November 30, 2005 KENT R. SPUHLER DIRECTOR Re: City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revisions Planning Advisory Board Hearing - September 21, 2005 Dear Chairperson and Members of the Board: SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM F'zzoON is-ros. We are writing on behalf of numerous poor residents of the City of Miami served by Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. to provide comment for your consideration and incorporation in the proposed revisions to the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. As you know the City of Miami is in the midst of a development boom unprecedented in the City's recent history. The City's "Large Scale Development Report" indicates over 70,000 units of housing either recently constructed or planned in the City in the near future solely in the major residential projects. Virtually, none of the units in that report are affordable to Miami households working at low wage jobs. Not only are the poor being excluded from living in these newly developed projects, increasingly these projects are being built in neighborhoods - such as Little Haiti, Edgewater, Wynwood, and Overtown - where they are displacing those very same families. "Gentrification" - the economic displacement of lower income communities by higher income households - fueled by this development boom is a major policy concern in all of low income communities in the City. These communities are seeing their neighborhoods changing rapidly. First, tenants are driven out by increasing rents. Then, poor long time homeowners are forced to sell due to aggressive code enforcement. Elderly homeowners are enticed into selling their homes to speculators for a fraction of their escalating value. School attendance diminishes as the number of children dramatically decrease. Stores close as their clientele move elsewhere. Ultimately the neighborhood dramatically changes. While some could argue that it is an improvement, all too often it is an improvement that is not enjoyed by the neighborhood's long time residents. We are writing because we believe that the City's EAR of its Housing Element, written in the City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 2 midst of these dramatic changes, not only ignores the impact of these developments on the housing needs of its poorest residents but actually proposes changes that will fuel the rapidly accelerating loss of affordable housing. Our concerns are consistent with the insufficiencies found by the Department of Community Affairs but are more fundamental than mere failures to provide sufficient data. Rather, we believe that a fair analysis of the City's policies will show that they are decreasing the housing opportunities for its lowest income residents and massively increasing residential opportunities for far wealthier households at the expense of the residents of many of the City's oldest and most storied communities and neighborhoods. Overview Specifically, our concerns complement the Department's finding that the EAR fails to meet the requirements of § 163.3191(2)(G), in that it fails to specifically provide any quantifiable assessment of the progress made by the City in achieving its Housing Element Objectives - specifically Objectives HO-1.1 and HO-1.2. We believe that accurate housing data would show, and we believe the City agrees, that the City has failed to meet the sole quantifiable goal of its Housing Element, i.e., the City's commitment to increase the stock of affordable housing within the City by at least 10% by 2005. However, we disagree fundamentally with the City's two fold response to that failure as it is set forth in the EAR. First, the City simply attests to "some progress" in achieving Objective HO-1.1 and "progress" in achieving Objective HO-1.2. As recognized by the State, this response simply abdicates the City's responsibility to fairly assess the degree to which the City's policies have impacted the development and preservation of affordable housing throughout the City. The second response of the City is equally misguided. Rather than undertaking a hard look at the impact of the City's policies on the housing of its poorest residents, the City simply changes the language to focus its policies on higher income households, including specifically affordability for moderate income and middle income. We believe that these responses mask an approach that provides little if any positive assistance toward the provision of affordable housing for the City's most needy households. The combination of a failure to measure results and a refocusing of resources on higher income households simply permits the City to continue with a development policy in which affordable housing for the most needy is disappearing at an extremely rapid pace while virtually all new "affordable housing" is focused on households of 80% of median or above. Submitted Into the public record in con o ction with item Y �- priscilla A. ThompsonClerk City City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 3 We believe that if the City were to adopt and apply the type of measurable goals that we (and the Department) recommend, the dramatic loss of affordable housing within the City would become clear. Moreover, those same measurements would argue against the changes recommended in the EAR to focus the scarce City housing resources toward moderate and middle income households. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE MEASUREMENT OF THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OBJECTIVES Lack of Measurable Progress The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) found five major shortcomings with the City of Miami's Adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), adopted on December 9, 2004. The DCA roundly criticized the EAR's lack of "sufficient data and analysis to adequately evaluate whether the plan objectives within each element, as they relate to major issues, have been achieved, as required pursuant to § 163.3191(2)(g), F.S." DCA Letter to City of Miami, April 28, 2005. Section 163.3191(2)(g), Fla. Stat., requires that the report shall present: (g) An assessment of whether the plan objectives within each element, as they relate to major issues, have been achieved. The report shall include, as appropriate, an identification as to whether unforeseen or unanticipated changes in circumstances have resulted in problems or opportunities with respect to major issues identified in each element and the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the issue (emphasis added). The DCA reported that despite the Miami comprehensive plan containing a number of objectives in a readily measurable form, the city failed to directly evaluate any of their objectives. Moreover, the DCA continued, criticizing the City for failing to even attempt evaluation of those less directly measurable goals: Most of the comprehensive plan objectives are not measurable or not directly measurable, and for that matter neither are many, perhaps most, of the associated policies. Perhaps because of this, the EAR tends, for objective after objective, to reach the generalized conclusion that the City has made progress in achieving the objective... The EAR for the most part does not provide sufficient data and analysis to enable a more precise determination of the extent to which the policy has been achieved. Submitted Into the public record in connection Aith item PZ.")-t) on 05 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 4 The DCA then recommended that the EAR be revised "to evaluate directly those comprehensive plan objectives that are stated in measurable terms." For those items not patently measurable, the DCA recommended the appropriate data be provided to substantiate the EAR's conclusions. The use of readily measurable indicators throughout the comprehensive plan would allow the EAR process to have meaning and would avoid the criticisms levied by the DCA. The EAR's lack of direct evaluation of Miami's progress towards affordable housing is understandable when the document it is evaluating and assessing lacks specificity and measurable indicators. Moreover, it is too easy for the EAR to assume progress has taken place when it does not have to substantiate its conclusions. Developing Indicators Indicators serve as yardsticks or measures of progress. They determine how a strategy or policy can be measured, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of the strategy/policy. Choosing the proper indicator and deciding how and when it will be evaluated are both important steps towards systematically assessing the success of the comprehensive plan's elements. Four important criteria to consider when creating indicators are: 1) Relevancy — Does the indicator provide meaningful information to citizens and the local government? Does the information provided help to better accomplish the various objectives and larger goals? Does it tell an outsider what is most important and pertinent about the community? 2) Measurable — Can it be clearly and unambiguously assessed? Most often, they are quantifiable. 3) Understandable — Is it easily interpreted and analyzed by both citizens and the local government? A community indicator is only as useful as its interpretation and use by residents of the community. It should be clear and obvious in terms of which direction of change represents "getting better" and which represents "getting worse." The more understandable a set of indicators, the more they will be catalysts for positive action. 4) Affordable/accessible — Indicators must be affordable; otherwise, they will never be used. The burden they place on the agency responsible for their measurement must be assessed. Indicators can also help provide internal consistency in comprehensive plans. Often times, various elements of the plan overlap and interrelate. If the same or similar indicators are used to Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P? . ao on v1- ,1 os Priscilla A. Thorhpson City Clerk City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 5 measure these interrelating elements, then their impact on one another can be better understood. Rather than inserting them within the plan, an appendix can contain all the indicators, including information such as how often they should be measured and what party is responsible for their measurement. Suggested Indicators for Affordable Housing • Supply and demand for affordable housing • Percent of income paid for housing • Homelessness • Home purchase affordability gap for buyers with (a) median renter household income and (b) median household income • Home ownership rate • Apartment vacancy rate • Trend of housing costs vs. income • Public dollars spent for low income housing • Housing affordable to low-income households at 30%, 50% and 80% of median income • Distribution of affordable housing throughout city • Waiting time for subsidized housing • Annual applicants for affordable housing • Single family housing growth compared to population growth • Yearly percentage increase in number of dwelling units • Number of houses versus population • New multi -family units as percent of total new residential units • Number of rehabilitated affordable housing units • New privately -owned housing units • Housing that is inadequate, overcrowded, or costs over 30% of income • Percent of households able to afford buying median single family house While these suggested indicators provide a strong measure of the demand for and supply of affordable housing in the city, like indicators should be developed to evaluate how well specific strategies and/or policies remedy the need for affordable housing. For example, Policy HO-1.1.2 provides for the continued participation in the county Documentary Stamp Surtax Program. Indicators designed to measure this policy could include: • Total amount of funds for affordable housing generated annually by Documentary Stamp Surtax Program. • Designated uses for funds generated by Program. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ.>D on I �os Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 6 • Number of affordable housing units created with Program funds. In the same vein, the indicators provided above should be linked to the appropriate policy. For example, the "distribution of affordable housing throughout city" indicator measures the effectiveness of Policy HO-1.2.3, which provides: The City's housing programs will provide for low and moderate -income, low density housing in scattered site locations as an alternative to the geographic concentration of low-income housing. The City's Consolidated Plan uses indicators, which can be found in tables summarizing its specific housing policies. The tables give the housing objective and then name the accompanying program used to achieve the objective, the funding source, the performance measure, the projected performance over the next five years, and the measured performance over the past five years. To date, the EAR's only assessment of the comprehensive plan's affordable housing objectives is whether the policies linked to the objectives have been implemented. There has been no attempt to evaluate the plan's success so far in any measurable way. Moreover, the EAR seeks to delay the only measurable "indicator" present in the affordable housing section of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan called for a 10% increase in the stock of affordable housing by 2005. The EAR pushes this goal off to 2010. THE FOCUS OF THE EAR ON HOUSING FOR MODERATE AND MIDDLE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS CONTRADICTS THE CITY'S OWN CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ANY REASONABLE QUANTIFIABLE ANALYSIS Despite the fact that the City has failed to undertake any quantifiable analysis of its changing affordable housing needs or its ability to fulfill those needs, the City consistently recommends refocusing its housing programs so as to serve higher income households. Indeed, the focus away from serving the lowest income households is almost a theme of the EAR Housing Element recommendations. The City's sole recommendation with respect to Housing Element Policy HO-1.1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, and 1.2.4, virtually all of the policies currently focused on the development and preservation of housing for the City's most needy residents, is to revise the policies "in order to allow the inclusion of, and assistance to, middle income households." In addition, the City recommends deleting a requirement that there be a "variety of housing types" in City center neighborhoods - Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pi.>o on ‘1})1DS Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 7 presumably abandoning any effort to insure continued access to housing for lower income households in the rapidly developing downtown. The redirecting and refocusing of resources on higher income households directly contradicts the City's own studies regarding the need of its residents. Indeed, the City's own Consolidated Plan, developed in partnership with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development paints a picture of severe housing need for the poorest households in the City. The plan specifically documents the "gentrifying" impact of development on the City's poorest communities. In the last five years, the City of Miami's urban core has undergone a dramatic transformation that has had a profound impact on the housing market. Once regarded as blighted high crime areas, many of the distressed urban core neighborhoods that were targeted during the last Consolidated Plan are now considered among the Nation's most sought-after real estate markets. Although this renewed interest in the urban core has led to a surge of new construction and a dramatic increase in property values, the lives of the low to moderate income residents living in or near these neighborhoods have not improved. In many ways, their living conditions have become more difficult. Indeed, all of the distressed neighborhoods in the City of Miami experienced the following in various degrees: • Loss of businesses • Loss of residents • Loss of affordable housing All of these factors indicate that the City of Miami is experiencing signs of gentrification. This is evident by the dramatic increase in real estate values, the shortage of affordable housing, and the growing interest of investors in urban core communities, where many of the City's low income families reside. Clearly, the effects of gentrification have had a positive impact on some communities by helping to improve the housing stock, attracting new businesses and increasing the tax base; however, it has also lead to the displacement of low income residents, conflict among old and new residents and the disruption of the social fabric of existing neighborhoods in some communities. City of Miami Consolidated Plan, XII. Housing Strategy. Moreover, contrary to the City's assertion that "progress" is being made towards its goal of preserving and increasing the availability of affordable housing for its poorer residents the Consolidated Plan documents the City's inability to either produce housing or prevent the loss of affordable housing for its lowest income residents. The Consolidated Plan states: Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz•>0 on iy)i 05 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 8 Finding 6: The City of Miami's stock of affordable multi family rental units are declining and not being replaced with new construction The Market Study also determined that the City of Miami experienced a loss in multi- family structure types between 1990-2000. The City lost 14% of its units in 10-19 unit structures (2,028 total units) and 4 percent of its units in the 5-9 unit structures (581 units). These structures types traditionally support affordable rental housing in older urban neighborhoods. Finding 9:... The lack of rental affordability is likely to increase as contract rents begin to catch up with market rents. Also, the dwindling supply of multifamily structures, e.g. 5-9, 10-19 unit structures, will tighten the rental market and impact rent prices. City of Miami Consolidated Plan, VI. General Housing Needs Assessment, and the Plan continues: The following is a description of obstacles that the City of Miami faces in trying to meet the underserved needs in the jurisdiction... Housing • Growing shortage of affordable housing for very low income families (particularly rental) • Deteriorating housing stock (over 80 Percent of homes in the City of Miami and the NDZ were constructed before 1979) • Low production of affordable housing compared to need • Scarcity of affordable sites due to escalating costs of real estate • High cost of land and construction and low profit margin to developers • Lack of capacity among non-profit developers to meet need • Reduction in government funding for affordable housing City of Miami Consolidated Plan, XII. Housing Strategy, and finally the Plan states: Severely cost burdened households are defined as those spending more than 50 percent of their household income on housing costs, including utilities. In 2000, 20% of households were severely cost burdened in the City of Miami. A total of 26,899 households were spending more than 50 percent of their household income on housing. That proportion is estimated to remain constant to 2010 when almost 30 thousand households are predicted to be severely cost -burdened. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 'Pz. >v on 11 \ os Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 9 City of Miami Consolidated Plan, VI. General Housing Needs Assessment. None of this data or research is utilized by the EAR to measure accomplishments or to dictate policy. This is not surprising in that all are inconsistent with both the City's finding of "progress" towards its Housing Policy goals and the City's EAR recommendations to focus more policy attention and funds on higher income households. In fact the policy recommendations of the Consolidated Plan, based on the Plan's extensive documentation and projections, directly contradict the policy recommendations of the EAR. These projections suggest that housing assistance programs should be targeting the extremely low-income [those earning less than 30% of median income] population (38 percent) first, then the moderate -income [those earning between 50 and 80% of median] population (35 percent) and thirdly the low-income [those earning between 50% and 80% of median] population (27 percent)... Priority Housing Needs: Projections suggest that the first priority for housing assistance programs should be given to the extremely low-income population since this group will make up the largest percent of the population in need of assistance (38%). City of Miami Consolidated Plan, VI. General Housing Needs Assessment. Finally, we cannot overemphasize the utility for the City in applying the measurable criteria suggested above to its own performance. Much of the data has already been collected in the City's Consolidated Plan and could easily be incorporated into the EAR of the Housing Element. We believe it would demonstrate that the City's "progress" is significantly lacking and that a radical restructuring and redirection of City housing policy is needed, not towards more assistance for the higher income families but towards the protection and maintaining of the long time residential neighborhood and their existing inhabitants. We believe that a good faith effort to evaluate the existing City Housing Element policies requires such an examination. SUGGESTED POLICY PROPOSALS FOR THE CREATION AND PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING As we have stated we believe that the City has not done enough to preserve and increase housing for the most needy households. More importantly, we believe the City can do better. We propose for the City's consideration the following series of proposals which we believe could assist in the furtherance of this goal. Submitted Into the public record in connectio ith item P2. sD on i}�l oS Priscilla A. Thompson City Cleric City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 10 INCLUSIONARY ZONING: As a condition for approval, require residential developments above a certain size to include a specified number affordable units. LAND ASSEMBLY ASSISTANCE: There are many vacant privately owned lots in Miami's distressed neighborhoods (such a Liberty City and Little Haiti). The City should collaborate with experienced infill developers and private lenders in an aggressive strategy of acquisition followed quickly by new construction. • Fact: A capable developer experienced with working in low income neighborhoods has no trouble obtaining construction loans PROVIDED THAT the following two items are available: • readily available and reasonably priced building lots • subsidized purchase loans for the home buyers. • Barriers: • Even in distressed neighborhoods land is becoming increasingly expensive. • Government sponsored 2nd mortgage loan programs (such as Surtax and SHIP) place a cap on the size of the purchase prices that can qualify. For this reason higher land cost can't always be absorbed into the development cost of a house and then passed on to the customer in the form a higher sales price. • In other words, overly high land prices may make an otherwise desirable acquisition economically unfeasible • Solution - Forgivable Matching Acquisition Loans: The City should partner with selected lenders and experienced infill developers by providing forgivable loans that could be matched with private sector financing for use in property acquisition. • The amount of each forgivable loan would vary from deal to deal (depending on how much acquisition subsidy was needed in order to make the proposed new affordable home in question economically feasible). The loans would be forgiven if the house, when constructed, was sold to a qualifying low income purchaser. • Once this funding mechanism was in place the participating developers Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2. >0 on )411 b5 Pr,: E',• A. 'Thompson City Clerk City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 11 would proceed to aggressively seek out the owners of vacant parcels and negotiate standard purchase contracts with the appropriate financing contingency clause (such clauses are needed because each acquisition would be subject to a quick decision by the lenders regarding approval or disapproval). • Bureaucratic delays in making disbursements must be avoided because most acquisitions are required to be closed within 30 days after the purchase contract has been signed. COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE LAND: Create a comprehensive inventory of the ALL vacant lots in distressed neighborhoods. The inventory of properties should posted to a website in a user friendly format that allows potential developers to easily browse through the available properties. The inventory should have "clickable" aerial photos to zoom in on particular neighborhoods. The ideal system would have in one location information on ownership, code enforcement liens, back taxes, zoning, infrastructure, etc. LAND ASSEMBLY - LIEN FORECLOSURE: The City of Miami has a huge inventory of unpaid lot clearance citations affecting vacant parcels in distressed neighborhoods. The City should formally record the citations in the Public Record so as convert them into liens under the provisions of a state statute. This should be followed by an aggressively policy of judicial foreclosure. At present most of these so called "liens" are never recorded in the Public Record. An aggressive program of judicial foreclosures would provide an incentive for the owners to sell some of these long vacant parcels to people who would actually use them for a productive purpose. Many of these parcels, especially those located in the most distressed neighborhoods, would end up being owned by the City thus becoming available for redevelopment. ALLOW "GRANNY FLATS": Adjust the zoning codes to allow construction of more "accessory dwelling units" (ADUs), also known as granny flats, garage apartments, carriage houses, or ancillary units. For some home owners, the most attractive aspect of ADUs is the potential for extra income from renting out the units. ADUs offer density without making the street appear overbuilt. EASE ACCESS TO PREDEVELOPMENT FINANCING. Developers of single family affordable infill housing need easier access to financing for pre -development and construction costs. Small-scale developers, without the deep pockets, need pre -development financial assistance to cover the extraordinary costs associated with building scattered site houses distressed neighborhoods. Submitted Into the public record in connection w th item f2•�-o on viotjos Priscilla A. Thompson. City Clerk City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 12 PRE -DESIGNED AND PRE -PERMITTED PLANS: The City of Miami should authorize the creation of a variety of pre -designed units with pre -approved building permits. The designs should then be made available at no cost to infill developers building affordable single family homes in distressed neighborhoods. This idea would go beyond the present "cookie cutter" approval process (wherein a developer of a multi -unit project has only to get a design approved and permitted the first time that it is used). The cookie cutter approach is helpful but a small infill developer STILL has to hire an architect to create the initial design and he STILL has to hassle with getting that initial design approved, and he STILL is limited to using that one design only. SPEED UP THE PERMITTING PROCESS. The approval process needs to be streamlined and accelerated for scattered site, single family infill development. Suggestions include: "One - Stop Shopping" (all services surrounding the permitting process should be obtained from one designated department); set mandatory deadlines for smaller projects, assignment of facilitators, fast tracking smaller infill projects; pre -application meetings; adhere to minimum standards (reviewers should not be able to required small infill developers to build above and beyond the stated minimum code standards); self help inspections (allow inspections by certified architects rather than county staff) HOUSING LINKAGES: local government could condition approval of larger commercial or office building projects with a requirement that affordable housing units be provided. EMPLOYER SPONSORED HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS: Encourage large businesses to include homeownership assistance in the benefits package offered to employees at the workplace. Such a program could include a partnership with the local public/private affordable housing developer network with the employer either helping individual employees with down payment assistance or paying into a fund for such assistance. ALLOW PAYMENT OF GOVERNMENT FEES AFTER COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION: Allow governmental permit, impact and utility connection fees to be paid at the time an affordable house constructed in a distressed neighborhood is sold rather collecting them "up front". Such fees are a burden to small builders because they cannot be financed. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz•zo on \1 \ os Priscilla A. Thom on City Cte4c City Commission City of Miami November 30, 2005 Page 13 Conclusion We thank you for this opportunity to submit these preliminary comments. We would • request that you refer the proposed EAR to your staff and the Planning Advisory Board for further revisions consistent with these comments. Charles Elsesser, Jr. Esq. Florida Legal Services Inc 3000 Biscayne Blvd. #450 M': �'�' 33137 ohn Little, Esq. Legal Services of Greater Miami, lnc. 3000 Biscayne Blvd. #500 Miami, FL 33137 Elisabeth Chaves Payton & Associates, LLC 1200 Suntrust International Center One Southeast Third Ave. Miami, FL 33131 Submitted Into the public record in connectionWith item 1"2.-0 on1,-l1os Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk