HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Statement of Objections and Evidence in Oppositionto Major Use Special Permit for Sawyers Walk-Crosswinds ProjectCITY COMMISSION
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
FILE NO. 06-00614mu
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM pziSON ia-ia-o2.
IN RE: SAWYER'S WALK/CROSSWINDS APPLICATION
FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS AND EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO MAJOR USE
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SAWYER'S WALK/CROSSWINDS PROJECT
POWER U Center for Social Change, Inc.' on behalf of itself and its members, and the
following individual affected residents and homeowners in Overtown: Bea Gilbert, Joann Love,
Reginald Munnings, Keith Ivory, Francis Knight, Carol Thomas, Howard Watts, Devonnaire
Turner 2 submit the following statement of objections in opposition to the granting of the Major
Use Special Permit ("MUSP") and subsidiary permits requested by the Developer. POWER U
and the individual residents and homeowners object to the project itself for a number of reasons
including the following:
The Crosswinds project as presently configured is simply not a good deal for the City. It
'POWER U CENTER FOR SOCIAL CHANGE, INC., (hereafter POWER U) is a Florida Not
for Profit Corporation and membership organization, located at 1633 NW 3rd Ave. in Overtown.
It is dedicated to organizing and assisting residents in low income communities to advocate for
their own needs. Its membership includes residents, tenants and homeowners, throughout the
Overtown neighborhood, including in close proximity to the project. A substantial portion of
POWER U's resources are currently devoted to organizing and assisting low income residents of
the Overtown neighborhood of Miami in their advocacy for affordable housing and economic
development for the current and former low income residents of the Overtown community.
2 These individuals will testify at the hearing and provide their names and addresses. Their
interests in opposing the project are also expressed herein.
0(0 - 00i09 ttou +,s tct,i " u ': , o , �
h ,SorUSA`�aLCi r2Crm f
will significantly alter the cultural heritage and familial and neighborhood ties that currently exist
in Overtown an historic center of Black culture in South Florida. The physical impact of the
proposed development will dramatically change the land use in Overtown and preclude
additional development of low and moderate income housing.
The project will have significant environmental impacts which have not been presented
by the applicant - including those outlined herein. The project will open up Overtown to massive
high end development, which will eliminate remaining affordable housing and, with it, much of
the traditional neighborhood.
POWER U will be affected as an organization in that its neighborhood will be
dramatically changed and its corporate purpose will have been undermined by this project. In
addition, dramatically escalating land prices fueled specifically by this project, will affect the
ability of POWER U and its members to remain in Overtown.
The individuals named above are all home owners or renters living in Overtown in the
immediate proximity of the project. Each of the individuals, in addition to concerns raised orally
at the hearings, wish to register their direct and personal interest in the project well beyond that
of the general public in that (1) increasing land prices directly and intentionally fueled by this
project will decrease the present stock of available low income housing in the area and make it
more difficult for them to continue to live in Overtown and, indeed, in Miami itself; (2) this
project will destroy the general appearance, as well as the culture and character of the
neighborhood network which they so deeply value; (2) the failure of the project to comply with
basic City planning requirements will increase congestion and degrade the environment in their
neighborhood and prevent their enjoyment of their community, including taking advantage of
Submitted Into the public
2
reoor, in connection with
item VZ11 onf2'f -07
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
parks, neighborhood shopping, enjoying the neighborhood atmosphere and character.
POWER U and the individual residents and homeowners therefore request that the City
Commission deny the request for the Major Use Special Permit and subsidiary permits for the
following specific reasons:
1. The project fails to satisfy the MUSP criteria and should not be approved.
2. The project does not comply with the MUSP criteria with respect to
environmental impact and the existing environmental impact study is insufficient.
3. The project is inconsistent with the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan and the
Redevelopment Agency's Housing Policy for Overtown, and the Development of
Regional Impact and this Commission should therefore deny the MUSP.
4. The project, as presently configured, requires a zoning variance. Because the
project does not qualify for the variance required, this Board should recommend
that the MUSP be denied. In addition, the project's request for a Class II Special
Permit should be denied.
5. The review of the project should be delayed in that it is subject to a reverter which
is due to expire shortly.
HISTORY OF THE PROJECT
This project should be subjected to heightened scrutiny because it is being built on
publicly owned land. The property involved in this project, Blocks 45, 46, 55 and 56, were
purchased with funds provided to Miami -Dade County and the City of Miami by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development and the United States Department of
Transportation (then the Urban Mass Transit Authority) and has remained essentially
3
Submitted Into the public
recoil!in connection with
Mtern (Z I1 on (Z-I'?- 07
444 easciiia A) Thompson
undeveloped until the present.3
The Crosswinds project is one of the largest residential projects currently in the planning
stages in the City of Miami. The currently proposed project involves 1,050 units (with a possible
increase to 1200 units') in mid rise and high rise structures on Blocks 45, 46, 55 and 56 in the
Overtown neighborhood. The units are "for sale" units with 80% of the units sold at market rate
and 20% targeted to persons making 140% of County median income (approximately $83,000 for
a family of four).5 An additional fifty units will be deeded to the City for families making up to
80% of median income (or $47,450 for a family of four). The project also involves 75,000
square feet of commercial/retail space.
It is being built in an extremely low income African American community, desperately in
need of affordable housing for its low income residents and in need of projects that will anchor
the current community and not fuel speculation and unrestrained development. This project fails
to meet those needs.
The Sawyer's Walk partnership was initially given development rights to the
property in 1990 by the City of Miami. Because this current proposal resulted from those initial
3 A small condominium project was developed on part of Block 45. Otherwise the four blocks
remain exactly as they existed after being vacated and cleared in the 1980's.
The Amended Settlement agreement allows for an increase to 1200 units upon payment to the
City of an additional $15,000 per unit.
5 The Settlement Agreement states that the "affordable units" are to be available to household
making up to 140% of area median income. Since it is impossible to construct a project without
fixed prices, providing a range of incomes will always result in the units being priced to be
affordable to families at the highest end of the spectrum. Any affordability to families making
less than 140% of median is provided by individual subsidies - which are not discussed in the
project description and would have to be provided through other existing City subsidy programs.
4 Submitted into the public
recordin connection with
item Z11 onl2-07
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
development rights - even though it is very different from that original proposal - it avoided the
need to conduct any public bidding process or, indeed, any public process of any kind. This
current project is essentially, an entirely new project being developed by an entirely new entity
but with very limited public process. Power U, its members and the named individuals believe
that this lack of process resulted in a project that not only fails to meet the needs of the
community but will actually do substantial harm to it.
OVERVIEW - THE CROSSWINDS PROJECT WILL RESULT IN THE
DISPLACEMENT OF POOR FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSES FROM
OVERTOWN THROUGH GENTRIFICATION AND MASSIVE PROPERTY TAX
INCREASES.
The central and most serious concern is that the Crosswinds Project will result in massive
displacement of poor families and small businesses from Overtown through gentrification and
significant property tax increases. City of Miami's own Consolidated Plan,6developed in
partnership with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, specifically
documents the displacement of the current poor residents, caused by the impact of the up scale,
market rate developments, such as the Crosswinds project, 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:
6 The Consolidated Plan is required by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development of local jurisdictions such as the City of Miami as the bedrock planning document
for the use of all federal housing funds, including Community Development Block Grant Funds.
24 CFR. Part 91. It requires a certification that the local jurisdiction is following the plan with
respect to projects utilizing Community Development Block Grant funds. 24 CFR § 91.225.
5
Submitted Into the public
recordin connection with
item v2 11 on IZ- I3-01
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
• 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. The Plan continues:
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.
City of Miami Consolidated Plan, VI. General Housing Needs Assessment.
The Consolidated Plan then states that the most serious obstacles that the City of Miami
faces in trying to meet the underserved needs in the jurisdiction include:
Housing
• Growing shortage of affordable housing for very low income families
(particularly rental) .. .
• Low production of affordable housing compared to need
• Scarcity of affordable sites due to escalating costs of real estate...
City of Miami Consolidated Plan, XII. Housing Strategy.
Lest there be any doubt as to the impact of the Crosswinds Project on Overtown, recent
studies of the Midtown project document the tremendous gentrifying impact of such massive
development. The following chart represents the appreciation in single family homes in the
6
Submitted Into the public
recorsi in connection with
itemVZi7 on1Zi3O?
Ptsoilla A. Thompson
four block groups immediately, west (2), south (1) and east (1) of the Midtown. Project.'
Census
Tract
Block
Group
Median
Price, SFH
Sales 2000'
Median
Price, SFH
Sales 2005
Price
Increase
Percent
Change
200.1 %
Population
1,00E
2600
2
$61,975
$186,000
$124,025
2600
3
$75,960
$235,000
$159,040
209.4%
1,754
2702
1
$93,236
$507,500
$414,264
444.3%
1,224
2800 1
$82,268
$220,000
$137,732
167.4%
59C
1 In 2005 dollars; SFH = Single Family Homes
Total Population: 4,574
[Please refer to the map attached as ATTACHMENT D to see where the aforementioned 4 block
groups lie in relation to the Midtown project. They are colored light orange. Attached as
ATTACHMENT E is a map which graphically shows the appreciation surrounding Midtown.]
As you can see property prices have increased dramatically there since 2000, over 400%
in one case. Furthermore, looking at the map of the greater north central vicinity including
Wynwood we can see the concentration of property value spikes around the Midtown project and
the Design District. This is clearly no coincidence; rather it reflects the effects of large-scale
development on the housing market as well as an active policy agenda for revitalization of the
area. Looking at the median price in 2005, it is clear that lower -income households could not
afford to purchase a home here. And Midtown, as currently approved and under construction, has
less than the 1000 units presently approved for Crosswinds.
Other examples of development and gentrification include East Little Havana, the part of
Buena Vista near the Design District and the north east side, Village West or West Coconut
Grove, and Miami Beach. They all show dramatic property value increases and demographic
indications of gentrification over the last 15 years associated with intensified development
' The following data was provided by Marcos Feldman, Research Associate at RISEP,
FIU and is part of a forthcoming study ( with Alex Angee, Emily Eisenhauer and Yue
Zhang), " Gentrification and Neighborhood Change in Miami", RISEP-FIU,
forthcoming.
7
Submitted Into the public
record
iinlcon a Zn" d
item
Priscilla A. Thonnpson
activity. This is especially present right now in East Little Havana along the river and
throughout the neighborhood.8
The Crosswinds Project is destined to have the same impact on Overtown. It would
create over 1,000 upscale "for sale" units, in an area where the median family income is just
$13,213 and 63 percent of the residents are renters. The property price increases will
particularly impact small landlords, poor renters and small businesses. Unprotected from
property tax increases, small landlords and small businesses will see their property taxes
skyrocket. These costs will be passed along to tenants, requiring many small businesses and
poor tenants to leave. These impacts - which are directly predicted by the City's Consolidated
Plan and the City's experience with Midtown — have nowhere been considered.
1. THE SAWYER'S WALK/CROSSWINDS PROJECT FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA AS SET
FORTH IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ZONING CODE.
The City of Miami Zoning Code requires special consideration of projects requiring
Major Use Special Permits, specifically because of their impacts on the surrounding community.
Because of their magnitude, character, or location, certain developments or
redevelopments as defined, have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, and
general welfare of the citizens and residents of the City, it is declared to require
consideration and authorization by the City Commission before building permits
to approve construction are issued.
Section 1700. In the present case, this project should be rejected because of its failure to comply
with the planning principles required for a Major Use Special Permit.
Id.
8
Submitted Into the public
recor in connection with
item VZ 11 on l2-13 41
Priscilla A. Thompson
,.qCity
A. The Major Use Special Permit for the Sawyer's Walk/Crosswinds Project
Should Be Rejected Because the Project Fails to Integrate Itself Within the
Area and with Respect to Surrounding Existing Uses.
The Major Use Special Permit code requires that:
The design and development plan shall demonstrate functional internal
relationships within the area to be encompassed and in particular the relationships
of the concept plan to surrounding existing and proposed uses, activities, systems,
and facilities (transportation, recreation, view corridors, pedestrian systems,
service systems, and similar uses).
Section 1702.2(a). This current design of this project fails to fulfill this criteria.
A project would have a "substantial" impact on urban design if it would result in
buildings that are considerably different from those existing in the neighboring area. Similarly,
visual resources could be substantially impacted if an action would result in or change above-
ground development or would impair the public's ability to view and enjoy visual resources. All
studies of Overtown continually refer to the need for buildings in keeping with the scale of
Overtown, a neighborhood of limited height - three to four stories. This need for scale is echoed
in the report of Dr. Vos:9
Community Character - Overtown consists of an interesting, eclectic mix of
single family homes, small stores, restaurants and multifamily units. Most
buildings are between 1 and 3 stories. There are people on the sidewalks and
traffic is relatively modest with on street parking. There are no large parking
garages, big box stores or large scale buildings and most structures are at a
human scale. It is important that new development occurs at a scale level that is
compatible with this. Given the characteristics, densities should not be increased
vertically but horizontally, through infill and utilization of vacant lots.10
9 Dr. Vos received a Ph.D. in Regional Planning from the University of Illinois at Urbana -
Champaign and a Master's degree in Environmental Science from Wageningen University in the
Netherlands. A copy of his Curriculum Vitae is attached to his article at Attachment A.
10 "Jaap Vos, "Thoughts about an Environmental Assessment for Sawyer's Walk in
Overtown"(Hereafter "Assessment") , p.11. A copy of the article is attached to this Statement
as Attachment A.
9
recoc,oj in connection With
et9m Z I1 on 12- 13- 0?
A. Thompson
City Clerk
The planned buildings are dramatically taller - mid rise and high rise buildings -
representing a fundamental change in the architectural scale of the Overtown neighborhood. The
planned heavy building bulk and height will also diminish the quality of open space for current
residents and workers by decreasing the availability of light and airflow while increasing
uninviting shadows onto local streets, sidewalks, and playgrounds. In addition, the current plan
appears to create open space that is only available to residents of the project in the interior
courtyard of the buildings. This further reduces the open space available in the Overtown
community and has the possibility of signaling the creation a two tiered system of open space -
public and private - with private open space reserved for the "new" residents of the community.
In addition the huge massing, little to no set -backs, no street flow through the Project,
open space effectively limited to Project residents' use and stores geared primarily for residents,
in essence, creates a "gated community", with an atmosphere of exclusion, unconnected with the
surrounding neighborhood. These design impacts are inconsistent with the requirements for a
Major Use Special Permit and the Permit should be rejected until the project is redrawn and these
deficiencies are cured.
B. The Major Use Special Permit for the Sawyer's Walk/Crosswinds Project
Should Be Rejected Because the Project Will Have a Significant and
Deleterious Effect on the Surrounding Community.
Miami Zoning Code Section 1305.3 requires a careful review of the proposed project and
the impact that the use of the project will have on the surrounding neighborhood. Just as
noxious uses, such as those producing noise, fumes, etc., should be cause for rejection so also
residential uses which will dramatically impact the surrounding neighborhood should also be
10
Submitted Into the public
in connection yiith
item Z
��_
Ptisdua A. Thomhom ��
h
�y.
cause for rejection. Overtown is currently relatively low density, low rise residential community
(particularly when compared with the neighboring downtown) characterized by buildings that are
one to four floors in height. Despite its poverty and predominance of renters, it is a community
characterized by long tenure. Indeed, the length of residency is extraordinary for such a poor
population. The report of Dr. Vos, reveals that, according to the 2000 Census, while 89% of
residents are renters, 48% of the renters had lived in the same unit for 6 years or more and 31
percent had lived in the same unit for over ten years." Moreover, for those households who had
moved within the past five years many had simply moved from one unit in Overtown to another.
As discussed in the report of Dr. Vos, it is hard to overestimate the degree to which Overtown is
currently threatened with over development.12
Now, economic reality is that Overtown is an area with an economically and
socially marginalized population that contains prime real estate. Under these
circumstances large scale redevelopment will occur regardless of government
incentives. The challenge is no longer how to attract private development interest
to the area, the challenge is how to harness these private interests so that the 8178
remaining residents have an opportunity to remain in the area and improve their
quality of life, and their educational and economic opportunities.
Economic reality is such that, the residents' interests are no longer furthered by
the requirements for affordable housing and minority business involvement that
are described in the original plan. Any kind of redevelopment will most likely
lead to indirect displacement of the current residents of Overtown.
Given this impact of this project, an impact which is not ameliorated in any way by the
project, the Major Use Special Permit should be rejected.
11 Jaap Vos, "Inventory of Basic Housing Needs For Current Residents of Overtown"
(hereafter "Inventory"), p.7. A copy of the article is attached to Dr. Vos Declaration which is
attached to this Statement, as Attachment A.
12
Assessment, p.7
11
Submitted Into the public
recordinconn
item VZ 11 o
Priscilla Thompson
C. The Project as Presently Configured Does Not Comply With The Design Review
Criteria.
Zoning Ordinance 1305.2 sets forth specific Design Review Criteria ("DRC") which
MUSP applicants must satisfy in order to be granted a MUSP. Of particular relevance to this
project are the following requirements:
I. Site and Urban Planning
(1) Respond to the Physical contextual environment taking into consideration
urban form and natural features.
II. Architecture and Landscape Architecture:
(2) Respond to the neighborhood context.
(3) Create a transition in bulk and scale.
(4) Use architectural styles and details (such as roof lines and fenestration), colors
and materials derivative from surrounding area.
(5) Articulate the building facade vertically and horizontally in intervals that
conform to the existing structures in the vicinity.
III. Pedestrian Oriented Development:
(2) Design facades that respond primarily to the human scale.
V. Vehicular Access and Parking:
(4) Use surface parking areas as district buffer.
The proposed project fails to satisfy all of the above criteria and this Commission should
deny the MUSP on that basis. As to DRC I(1) and II(2) and (3), the reports and testimony of Dr.
Vos shows that the construction of this project threatens the historic, low rise and working class
community character of Overtown, which is primarily a low density, low rise residential
community characterized by buildings that are one to four floors in height. Plopping down four
large buildings that will each exceed 120' in height and that are designed to house over 2,000
new residents clearly does not respond to the neighborhood context, create a transition in bulk
12
Submitted Into the public
mooitem
rIn n
Zl�on�lZ�1 "U7
Priscilla A. C� i n
and scale or respond to the physical contextual environment.
With respect to DRC II(4) and (5), DRC III(2), these buildings do not in any way conform
to or echo existing architecture which reflects the low rise nature of the community and the human
scale. As previously noted, Overtown is,
an interesting eclectic mix of single family homes, small stores, restaurants and
multifamily units. Most buildings are between 1 and 3 stories. There are people on the
sidewalks and traffic is relatively modest with on street parking. There are no large
parking garages, big box stores or large scale buildings and most structures are at a human
scale. It is important that new development occurs at a scale level that is compatible with
this. Given the characteristics, densities should not be increased vertically but horizontally,
through infill and utilization of vacant lots.13
Finally, the proposed project fails DRC V(4) in that it fails to use surface parking areas as a district
buffer.
2. THE SAWYER'S WALK/CROSSWINDS PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
HOUSING OBJECTIVES IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
CONSOLIDATED PLAN
The City of Miami Comprehensive Plan Objective HO-1.2 states that a major objective of
the Comprehensive Plan is to "[c]onserve the present stock of low and moderate income housing
within the city..." The recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the City of Miami
Comprehensive Plan concedes that the City is failing to achieve this goal and is, in fact, losing
affordable housing.14 Citing to the City's most recent Consolidated Plan the EAR finds that:
[T]he Consolidated Plan found that the City of Miami experienced a loss in multi-
family structure types between 1990 - 2000. The City lost 14 percent of its units in
10-19 unit structures (2,028 total units) and 4 percent of its units in 5-9 unit
structures (581 units). These structure types typically support affordable rental
housing in older urban neighborhoods; ...
13 Vos, Assessment, p. 11.
14 The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report is available on the City website at
http://www.ci.miami.fl.us/Planning/pages/community_planning/FULLREPORT 111405.pdf
13
00104f4 pubet
1,2;1.111
t cleat
City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report, September 2005, p. 90. The Report, again
quoting the Consolidated Plan, then goes on to identify Overtown as the least affordable rental
housing area of the City.
[T]he Consolidated Plan found that existing contract rents within the NDZ
[Neighborhood Development Zones] are above 30percent threshold for
neighborhood residents. Lack of rental affordability is greatest in Overtown (38
percent) and Wynwood (36 percent). The lack of rent affordability within the
NDZs is largely the result of low median household incomes as contract rents are
substantially below the City's median contract rent..."
City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report, September 2005, p. 90.
Despite the identification of these needs and the failure of the City to fulfill these plans, the
City is undertaking a project which will utilize valuable City -controlled land for a project which
not only fails to address the need but also will significantly exacerbate the affordability problem by
fueling the indirect displacement of many more of these very low income residents. Dr. Vos in
another study specifically described his conclusions regarding the impact of this very project on the
Overtown neighborhood.15
The City's Consolidated Plan16, cited by the City in the EAR, paints a picture of severe
housing need for the poorest households in the City. As is shown in the extended excerpt from the
plan which is quoted at page five of this Memorandum, poor residents are suffering displacement,
caused by the impact of the up scale, market rate developments, such as the Crosswinds project, on
the City's poorest communities.
This project is an express and planned choice by the City government to utilize this one
15
16
See quotation from Assessment, at page 11 of this Statement.
The City's Consolidated Plan developed in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development and utilized as the base data in its Evaluation and
Assessment Report
14
tz
�..
��+��pb"ii1itinto '�1'ri}pubtie
r , 4,.. in connection
with
VZ 11 o 12- (O._ �.----1
ease 11_ _l mpson
time opportunity of City owned land in an area consistently identified as being in desperate need
for rental housing for poor households instead of for needs directly contradicted by its own plans.
Rather than developing a project consistent with those needs as set forth in its own land use plan,
the City has developed a Plan that will simply induce and amplify the very obstacles that its
planning documents complain of. Eighty percent of the 1050 units in Sawyer's Walk/Crosswinds
will be market rate - most likely not affordable to anyone in Overtown. The remaining twenty
percent (including the fifty units set aside for the City) will be affordable to families making 140%
of median or approximately $83,000 a year." Few, if any, current residents of Overtown could
afford any of these units.
Moreover, even if these units were affordable they would be of little use to many of the
current residents of Overtown. Overtown is a neighborhood of children. Thirty nine percent of the
population of Overtown is under the age of nineteen - much higher than either the City of Miami or
the County. However, only three of the units are larger than two bedrooms. They are designed for
upscale, unmarried, young professionals who desire to, and can afford to, live downtown.
3. THE DISPLACING IMPACTS OF THE SAWYER'S WALK/CROSSWINDS
PROJECT RENDER IT INCONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSING OBJECTIVES
IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN
AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HOUSING POLICY REQUIRING
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.
The original families displaced from this land in the mid-1980s received relocation
assistance. But that original displacement did not identify any additional indirect displacement.
However the development climate has changed dramatically since then. Dr. Vos now predicts
17 Most of these units will achieve affordability only through other City subsidy programs.
15
Submitted Into the public
reco in connection with
item VZ 11 on 12 1.3- 07
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
substantial induced displacement fueled by Crosswinds.]$ Indeed, the City's Consolidated Plan
predicts as much. (See Section 2.) However, unlike the original project, the Crosswinds project
makes no provision whatesoever for assistance for these indirectly displaced families. Indeed, it
fails to even recognize their existence.
The City of Miami Comprehensive Plan Objective HO-1.5 requires that the City "[p]rovide
for assistance to displaced occupants where public redevelopment programs require relocation." A
similar policy has been adopted as part of the Housing Policy of the South East Overtown Park
West Community Redevelopment Agency (SEOPW CRA) which also requires:
In the future, if any unforeseen redevelopment project involving the SEOPW CRA
requires the involuntarily displacement of anyone from either a rented or owned
housing unit, the project proposal must contain a Project Relocation Plan which
adheres to all applicable laws and regulations. The Project Relocation Plan must be
approved by the Board of the SEOPW CRA in a publicly noticed CRA Board
meeting prior to any final approval of the project.
Redevelopment Plan, Section 6.
The Reports of Dr. Vos, the City's Consolidated Plan, and the recent history of
development in the City of Miami, all demonstrate significant indirect displacement caused by
market rate development such as the identified project. The City of Miami's Comprehensive Plan,
recognizing the enormous impact that involuntary displacement has on communities and families
and the consequent impact on land use planning, requires City assistance to such displaced
occupants when the relocation is caused by public redevelopment. This project is public
redevelopment and it will cause indirect displacement. Yet there has been no study, no
identification of potential displacement and certainly no provision of any relocation assistance. As
a result of this failure, these households will be forced out of the community and will be unable to
18
Assessment, p.8
16
Submitted Into the public
recorA in connection with
item V Z t-1 on IL-J111
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
secure adequate replacement housing.
4. THE SAWYER'S WALK/CROSSWINDS PROJECT REQUIRES A VARIANCE.
WITHOUT A VARIANCE IT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S ZONING
ORDINANCE
The Sawyer's Walk/Crosswinds Project is in an SD 16 and SD16.2 zone.19 City of Miami
Zoning Code, Section 616.8.4.3, which describes special lot coverage requirements for those
zones, sets out "upper level footprint maximums" for heights between 40' and 120' and also above
120'. The Section requires that for heights between 40' and 120' the "upper level footprint
maximum" is 70% of the "net lot area." The submitted plans set out the "net lot area" and the
"upper level footprint maximum" for the four lots as follows:
Lot #1 Net Lot Area = 90,084
40' to 120' - upper level footprint maximum(70% of Net Lot Area) = 63,059
Actual 40' to 120' Upper Level Footprint = 75,120
Variance = 12,061
Lot #2 Net Lot Area = 90,084
40' to 120' - upper level footprint maximum(70% of Net Lot Area) = 63,013
Actual 40' to 120' Upper Level Footprint = 75,120
Variance = 12,061
Lot #3 Net Lot Area = 149,948
40' to 120' - upper level footprint maximum(70% of Net Lot Area) = 104,963
Actual 40' to 120' Upper Level Footprint = 123,758
Variance = 18,795
Therefore, this application does not meet the "upper level footprint maximums" of the City
zoning ordinance. The application therefore requires a variance in order to proceed. However, no
variance has been requested. Had a variance been requested, Zoning Code Section 1702.6
requires that it be heard first by the Zoning Board:
19 The application continually describes the zoning as SD 16 and SD 16.1. This is incorrect.
The zoning is SD 16 and SD 16.2.
17
Submitted Intothe P
recur in conne 0"1
item tiZ 11 on
Priscit;a A. Thompson
CIS Clerk
For applications involving zoning changes, Special Exceptions and/or variances the
Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning shall submit his/her
recommendations first to the Zoning Board and then to the Planning Advisory
Board at properly noticed regularly scheduled public hearings of the boards. Upon
consideration of the application, the Zoning Board and the Planning Advisory Board
may recommend approval or denial of the application and further concur or disagree
with any or all of the recommendations of the Director of the Department of
Planning and Zoning, and such actions of the board shall be included as part of the
record for transmission to the City Commission.
This application has not gone through the Zoning Board and no zoning variance has been
requested. Therefore, this project must be rejected and must either be reconfigured to comply with
the zoning code or a zoning variance must be requested and that zoning variance must be processed
as set forth in Section 1702.6.
(A) The Projects Request for a Class II Special Permit Also Should Be Denied.
In addition, the Project requests a Class II Special Permit to allow it to transfer over 21,494
square feet of open space from the exterior to the interior of the building, specifically the interior of
the upper floors. This would effectively exclude the community from the use of this open space
and would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the DRI plan and the Design Review
Criteria which require open space that is usable and allows for convenient and visible pedestrian
access from the public sidewalk. This Class II permit effectively insulates the open space from the
public and further exacerbates the project is separateness from the existing community. This
Class II permit fails to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code which requires conformity with
the Comprehensive Plan, the DRI plan and the Design Review Criteria and therefore should be
rejected.
18
Submitted Into the public
recordin connection with
item VZ 11 on 1Z- I -07
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
5. THE SAWYER'S WALK/CROSSWINDS PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S HOUSING POLICY FOR OVERTOWN WHICH
REQUIRES INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FOR LOW AND VERY LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS.
The South East Overtown, Park West Community Redevelopment Agency (SEOPW CRA)
Housing Policy requires the Agency to assist with the development of affordable housing by:
c) Establish'ingI inclusionary zoning policies that will require a percentage of the
units in all new rental and homeownership developments to be affordable to low
and very low income families. with hest efforts being made to serve existing
Overtown residents; and
d) Assisting developers, who provide rental housing serving families, including
seniors, earning below 50% of the area median income, to secure project based
assistance for those units.
The parcel being developed is the most significant publicly owned parcel in the Redevelopment
Area targeted for residential. Despite that the land is being provided to the project, and that it is
developing over 1000 units of housing, only fifty units are targeted for less than 140% of median
and those will still require an income of over $47,000 a year. The Redevelopment Agency Plan
was developed specifically to attempt to mitigate the impacts of over development on the current
residents of Overtown. The failure to comply with those criteria in this project - one in which the
City owns the land - will render it impossible to obtain such concessions from developers who are
developing their own land. The failure of the Redevelopment Agency to comply with these
guidelines on its own project, underscores the need for refusing the Major Use Special Permit.
6. THE PROPOSED PROJECT APPLICATION'S DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
STUDY IS INSUFFICIENT AND FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE MAJOR USE
SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA AS SET FORTH IN THE
CITY OF MIAMI ZONING CODE.
City of Miami Zoning Code Section 1702.2.3 requires that each "applicant shall submit a
development impact study which shall demonstrate whether the impact of the proposed
Submitted Into the public
19 recordin,-nnection with
item VZ II on 12'11-01
Priscilla A. Thompson
City laic
development is favorable, adverse or neutral on the economy, public services, environment and
housing supply of the City." The Development Impact Study submitted by the applicant fails to
address those required impacts.
A. The Development Impact Study Submitted by the Developers Fails to
Adequately Address the Impact of the Project on the Environment of the City.
The City of Miami Zoning Code requires that the Development Impact Study address the
impacts of the project on the environment and the impact of the environment on the project. The
Development Impact Study fails to do so. There are numerous impacts which are not addressed at
all and others which are inadequately addressed.
a. The Major Use Special Permit Application Should Have Studied the
Impact of Noise on the Project.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development sets out criteria for studying the
environmental impacts of residential developments. The current project fulfills both of the criteria
posed by HUD for noise review of a residential project - proximity to a high traffic freeway
(literally "across the street") and proximity to an elevated transit line. Indeed these uses border the
project on two sides.
The prime concern of a CDBG environmental impact assessment for noise
should be the effect of existing and projected noise levels on the proposed activities
and facilities. An assessment will be needed if housing or other noise sensitive uses
are proposed and any of the following conditions are met:
•
•
roadways within 1,000 feet of the site with such characteristics (e.g., high
traffic levels, high speed, heavy truck/bus usage, slope gradients, etc. that
would indicate high ambient vehicular noise levels.
At -grade or elevated transit lines or railroads within 3,000 feet of the site.
HUD Environmental Review Guide for Community Development Block Grant Programs, p.67
20
Submitted Into the public
recorp4 in connection with
dpm VZ I l on I Z 1. a)
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Cleric
As early as 1982 this property was studied in an Environmental Study, which determined
the area as a "very noisy urban environment" due particularly to the traffic flow on I-95.20
According to the 1982 EIS, at p. 3-13,
the major noise sources affecting the community include Interstate-95 and the
Miami International Airport Landing pattern. I-95 is immediately adjacent to the
western boundary of the project area. No part of the community is more than 1000
feet from the expressway. Noise monitoring conducted by DERM in 1980
determined that peak noise levels can exceed 90 dBA.
Since the writing of the original EIS, noise pollution has been recognized as a far more serious
problem. And with the profound increase in both I-95 traffic and air traffic, the level of noise on
the site has assuredly increased. It is HUD's policy to "generally prohibit HUD support for new
construction of noise sensitive uses on sites having unacceptable noise exposure." 24 C.F.R. §
51.100. In support of this policy, HUD has provided certain national minimum noise standards
applicable to HUD Programs. "The purpose of these standards is to protect citizens against
excessive noise in their communities." 24 C.F.R. § 51.101. The HUD regulations define
"unacceptable noise exposure" levels and "normally unacceptable noise exposure" levels for
outdoors. 24 C.F.R. § 51.103(c) defines normally unacceptable noise level as consisting of above
65 Db Day -night average sound level (Ldn) and unacceptable noise level as consisting of above
75 Db Day -night average sound level (Ldn). In addition HUD regulations at 24 C.F.R. §
51.101(a)(8) and (9) provide that it is a HUD goal that exterior noise levels do not exceed a 55 Db
Day -night average sound level and that interior noise levels do not exceed a 45 Db Day -night
average sound level.
The 1982 EIS cited to measurements that exceeded 90dBa. Traffic has certainly increased.
20 The elevated rail line was not yet a factor.
21
Submitted Into the public
recorA in connection
item rZ Li on 2-
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Cleric
Yet the application contains no data with respect to noise. Given this data and the failure of the
application to study the noise impacts, the Major Use Special Permit application should be rejected
or deferred pending an intensive study of the noise levels.
b. The Major Use Special Permit Application Should Have Studied the
Environmental Impacts on the Human Environment, Such as the Socioeconomic and
Demographic Changes Which Will Result from this Project and the Displacement it
Will Cause.
Affordable housing in Overtown and Miami is lacking and decreasing further at a rapid
rate. The lack of affordable housing particularly for the lowest income households has reached
well -documented crisis proportions. A recent study by the Research Institute on Social and
Economic Policy at Florida International University found Overtown as the Miami neighborhood
with the most severe housing affordability issues.21 This Project will only serve to reduce the
existing supply and increase the existing demand for affordable housing in Overtown and Miami in
general. As a result, once this Project is built, new affordable housing will have to be constructed
elsewhere to meet all affordable housing needs of the area.
As is acknowledged by the City and demonstrated by research,22 the 1050 units to be
developed at the Crosswinds site will not be affordable to the vast majority of current Overtown
residents. Indeed, the income needed to purchase one of the twenty percent affordable units is
approximately eight times the median income of Overtown.23 And the increase in population
21 Feldman, Marcos and Jen-Wolfe-Borum (2005). Affordable Housing Cost for Families
Residing in Low -Income Miami -Dade Neighborhoods. (Hereafter "FIU Study") Research
Institute on Social and Economic Policy, CLR&S, University Park, Miami, Florida. A copy of
the article is attached hereto as Attachment C.
22
23
FIU Study; Inventory; Assessment
Assessment, pp 8 & 10.
Submitted Into the pub
repo .i.�n connection with
item YL11 on IZ-13-O7
22 Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
generated by these units will be substantial. Dr. Vos found that, using the average household size
for the City of Miami, the project could result in up to 2,740 new residents, a thirty three percent
increase in population. As Dr. Vos states:24
Such a dramatic and sudden increase in population can have negative consequences
for the social fabric of any community. However, the negative consequences are
especially severe if the new residents are significantly different than the existing
residents. Given the composition of Overtown's population and the suggested price
point for the units in the proposed development, the new residents will be very
significantly different from the existing residents in both racial and ethnic
background and socio-economic status.
In addition to the direct impacts of this population, this population growth and the
accompanying future development will result in the displacement of affordable housing in
Overtown. As new, more affluent people move into the 1,000 units of market -rate housing,
property values in the vicinity of the Project will increase, as anticipated by the City and
developers. As the land becomes more valuable, many landlords will either raise rents or sell their
property to make a profit, depleting Overtown's affordable housing supply. This is not a
speculative proposition, but instead, is a data -driven scenario that has been experienced in similar
urban developments. This will have a radically increasing cumulative impact, as the increased
rents and new development spurred by this project in turn create further accelerated rents and new
developments. Moreover, the increasing property values will also lead to the loss of subsidized
units as project based Section 8 units "opt out" of their contracts and public housing units are
"vouchered out" in the face of the development pressure.
These are not mere market forces but rather conscious land use changes - from low rise,
low density, low income housing to high density, high rise, high income housing - driven by a
24 Assessment, p. 10
Submitted Into the public
reCOUir inconnection witho
23 item .on __-j1 .. --
Pri5Gib1a A. Thompson
_. .. City Cleric
specific public policy designed specifically to accomplish that goal. All of this leads to the indirect
displacement of the current residents as their rents become unaffordable or their subsidized units
are demolished for new development. This unregulated development particularly impacts lower -
income communities such as Overtown where sixty one percent of the households have an income
of less than $15,000 a year. With larger family sizes than many other communities in Miami,
particularly as compared to the newly developed high rise communities, Overtown residents are
especially vulnerable to increases in housing costs. As stated by Dr. Vos:25
The 1982 EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] discussed the displacement of 503
residents in 328 dwelling units. These 503 residents would consequently be given
the opportunity to relocate back into the community. Since all these residents have
already been displaced, the current proposal will no longer directly displace
residents. However, the displacement consequences of the current proposal are
even more daunting than in 1982. This time the threat is indirect displacement in
the form of the secondary and cumulative consequences of redevelopment. As
mentioned before, redevelopment pressure in Overtown is building, with housing
prices at an all time high, rental properties in decline and a continued need for new
housing for a growing population. At the same time, the residents of Overtown are
now even more marginalized than in 1982. Redevelopment of Overtown without a
clear plan that takes care of the needs of the current residents is likely to lead to the
displacement of all 8178 residents in Overtown, probably within the next 5-10
years. Residents will be displaced either because they can no longer afford to live
there or because the character of the community has changed so much that they are
no longer welcome in their own community. Large scale displacement will likely
start to occur soon since the current residents truly live at the very edge of existence,
and as renters have no protection against eviction and quickly increasing property
values.
The displacement creates additional environmental ills in that it necessitates the creation of
additional affordable housing which has significant physical impacts through (1) the actual
construction; and (2) the need for new housing in more affordable communities, which induces the
environmental ills of sprawl. All of these environmental impacts should have been assessed in the
25 Assessment, p. 10
etto
i2- 01
Major Use Special Permit application but were not.
c. The Major Use Special Permit Application's Housing Impact Study is wholly
inadequate.
The Major Use Special Permit Application's Housing Impact Study, which incorporates
and summarizes the only evidence presented by the developer regarding the beneficial housing
impacts of this project, is fundamentally inaccurate both factually and with respect to housing
policy. The Developers' Study makes two fundamental claims. First, it argues that because a
significant number of households in Overtown live in subsidized housing, there is little likelihood
of harm from increased rents. This claim misunderstands that nature of the subsidized housing
and the law with respect to its use. In fact, a careful analysis of the subsidized housing being
utilized in Overtown reveals that the subsidized housing itself may be the most at risk of being lost
due to rising rents. The Developers' report finds that the subsidized housing in Overtown consists
largely of tenant based Section 8 vouchers, public housing, and tax credit housing. The tax credit
housing is of the least benefit to the poorest families because it is largely targeted to families
making 60% of median income (approximately $36,000 for a family of four). Thus the only
subsidized housing actually of substantial benefit to an extremely low income neighborhood is
tenant based Section 8 vouchers and public housing. However, both are subject to cancellation
and will be put under enormous pressure to cancel as the neighborhood changes. While Section 8
vouchers pay a portion of the tenants' rent, the total rent that Section 8 vouchers can pay is limited
by federal regulations. Once the market rent exceeds that amount, the landlord must terminate the
voucher tenant. And landlords routinely terminate the vouchers if rents increase to even close to
the voucher payment because the landlord can make the same or more money renting to a non -
Submitted Into the public
25 recor in connection with
itemZ [ on 12- I O
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
subsidized family, without all of the cumbersome federal rules. And tenant based Section 8
vouchers provide no long term security as they can be terminated by the landlord at any time after
the first year. Thus as Crosswinds increases the rents, the subsidized tenants using Tenant Based
vouches will be forced out of the neighborhood. That is what happened around Midtown, and is
currently happening in many other areas of the City.
The other type of subsidized housing currently being utilized, "public housing", is possibly
the most threatened type of subsidized housing in existence. U.S. HUD is putting enormous
pressure on local housing agencies to demolish and "redevelop" public housing, particularly in
redeveloping downtown areas. Already over 100,000 units of public housing have been lost
nationwide. If Crosswinds is approved, it will affirm the City's desire to dramatically change the
Overtown neighborhood and pressure will surely begin mount to demolish and replace the public
housing projects - much as was done with Scott Homes. As with Scott Homes, that decision
would be catastrophic. However, while the ultimate decision may rest with the County Housing
Agency which administers public housing, the decision to approve Crosswinds will certainly light
the fire that will almost surely lead to demolition of the existing public housing.
The second fundamental claim made by the Developers in their impact study is that the City
is already deeply engaged in subsidizing housing in the Overtown area. However, this claim is
poorly researched, supported by inaccurate and misleading data. Indeed, an analysis of the
supporting data actually demonstrates how little has been done to address the housing needs of the
lowest income households. On page fourteen, the analysis lists projects which are supposedly to
break ground in 2007 and which will contribute some additional units. There is no affordability
criteria mentioned. Moreover, not a single one of the residential projects have begun
Submitted Into the public
26
recor in connection with
item'Z Il on l2 �0 O1
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
construction. Indeed, almost 25% of the rental units are attributed to "Solomon Yukon", almost
certainly Salamon Yuken, who was recently written up in the Miami Herald as failing to perform
on City contracts and currently owing the City almost $800,000 in defaulted loans.
Finally, at Attachment B, the study lists a number of units which the report states have
recently received City of Miami Housing Assistance. However, several of these properties do not
exist. For example there is no 137 unit project at 230 N.W. 20`h St. In addition, the property at
200 NW. 16`h St. is boarded up and foreclosed on. Moreover, few show any recent building
permits. But more importantly, the City chose to do nothing to protect the tenants. Thus, for
example, the tenants at 439 NW 9`h St. have endured substantial recent rent increases. The rent for
a one bedroom has increased by almost 25%.
For these reasons and for the reasons argued throughout this memo, the Developers'
Housing Impact study is wholly inadequate and should be rejected.
7. THE SAWYER'S WALK/CROSSWINDS PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT REQUIREMENT THAT ALL LOW
INCOME HOUSING LOST THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT BE REPLACED
ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY
In February, 1987 the City of Miami filed an Application for Development Approval for
Southeast Overtown Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the area designated as
Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Area which includes the project area
for this requested MUSP. In February, 1988 the City Commission held public hearing and issued
a Master Development Order for the DRI. As part of the approval of that DRI the City agreed to
certain replacement housing provisions, including the following:
Monitor development and redevelopment activities to ensure that for each habitable
unit of low income housing eliminated as a result of public action within the project
area, the City will assist in the provision of standard low income housing through
Submitted Into the public
27 recorA in.connectio ,yiit
itemVZ ILonCZ-19
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
new construction and/or rehabilitation within the City of Miami.
Master Development Order 9[13 City Resolution 88-110
and
Any net loss of habitable low income units within the study area must be
counterbalanced by a gain in another area of the City.
Id. In addition the City took on certain reporting requirements, including:
The City shall prepare an annual report and submit copies to the Council, the City
Clerk and Florida Department of Community Affairs on or before each anniversary
date of this Development Order.. .
The annual report shall include, at a minimum:
j. The number of low income housing units lost from demolition and conversion
within the Project Area, as well as the total number of new low income housing
units within the City.
Master Development Order 125, City Resolution 88-110. The City of Miami has not complied
with any of these requirements.
8. THERE IS NO NEED FOR COMMITTING SCARCE PUBLIC RESOURCES TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING FOR HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 140% OF MEDIAN
INCOME.
When this project was first agreed to by the City the upper level targeting was 120% of
median income. This past August, this Commission raised that targeting to 140% of median
income. Calling condominium units priced for families making 140% of median "affordable" is
ridiculous. 140% of area median income for a family of four is over $83,000 - for a family of
three it is almost $75,000. According to the current UTD bargaining agreement a teacher with a
bachelor's degree who worked for the Miami Dade school district for 22 years and has reached the
very top of the pay scale, makes only $62,000. Starting teachers make $34,000. This is not
housing for teachers.
28
Submitted Into the public
recoryi in connection with
item 1/2iI oni1-Q7
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Just this past week in an article in the Florida Housing Coalition Journa126, Stan Fitterman
analyzed the utility of subsidies for families making 130% of median in six Florida counties,
including Palm Beach County.27 Using data from the Shimberg Center at the University of
Florida, he found that in all of the counties studied a significant percentage of the housing sold -
both single family and condominiums - were affordable to families making 130% of median
without subsidy. His conclusion - jurisdictions should look very closely at the relative need before
subsidizing families making 130% of median or more.
I performed an identical analysis, also using data from the Shimberg Center, with respect to
condominium sales in Miami -Dade County and in the City of Miami. For Miami -Dade County,
140% of median income for a family of four is $83,000. Using a standard mortgage calculator, the
family should be able to afford a mortgage of approximately $230,000. In Miami -Dade County in
2006, according to the Shimberg Center, the median sales price for all condominiums was
$252,000. Twenty five percent of the condominiums in Miami -Dade County as a whole (over
12,000 units) sold for less than $190,000 in 2006. Similarly, in 2006 in the City of Miami, over
25% of all condominiums sold for less than $230,000. Given these numbers, why are scarce
government funds and scarce government owned land being used to subsidize these units.
This is not the way the City should be spending scarce subsidy dollars. Indeed, the private
market is currently creating condominiums of the same size and location for the same cost as
Crosswinds without using any government subsidies. Related is now building a third LOFT
26 Better Subsidy Decisions Follow From Better Information, Stan Fitterman, 23 Housing News
Network 9 (Fall 2007), (a copy is attached as Attachment F.
27 The analysis included Alachua, Escambia, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, Pinellas and St. Lucie
Counties.
29
Submitted Into the public
recce in connection with
item_,on 42_ rb--01
Priscilla A. Thompson Clerk
project and planning a fourth LOFT site. The pricing for the one bedroom units starts at $220,000.
All are almost identical to the Crosswinds model, in size and their location is closer to downtown.
And none require free government land, tax increment financing or the like.
CONCLUSION
For all of these reasons, my clients believe that the Major Use Special Permit and the
subsidiary Class II Special Permit should be denied.
Dated: December 13, 2007
By:
CHARLES F. ELSESSER J
Charles F. Elsesser, Jr.
Florida Bar No. 971162
FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES
3000 Biscayne Blvd.
Miami FL 33137
Telephone (305) 573-0092 ext 208
Facsimile (305) 576-9664
Email: charles@floridalegal.org
30
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item VZ17 ontZ
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Thoughts about an Environmental Impact Assessment for Sawyer's Walk in
Overtown
Jaap Vos, Ph.D.
For comments or questions please contact:
Jaap Vos, Ph.D.
Higher Education Complex, Suite 1008 E
111 East Las Olas Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
e-mail: ivos(c'fau.edu
phone: (954) 762 5652
Submitted Into the public
orb in connection with
item 1`Z ( on j 2-13=��
Priscilla A. pson
Coy Clerk
ATTACHMENT A
INTRODUCTION
Overtown was established at the turn of the century and became home to many
African Americans working to build Henry Flagler's railroad. The neighborhood
quickly grew and during the 1920's, 30's and 40's, the community enjoyed a
vibrant entertainment district, shops, offices and a hospital. The neighborhood
included a successful business district and provided a thriving social and civic life
for its 40,000 residents.
Overtown continued to prosper during the 1950's but the construction of
interstate highways during the 1960s changed the character of the area. 1-95 and
1-395 were built right through the heart of Overtown, dividing it into four separated
areas that exist today. As a result of the highways, residents were displaced and
the neighborhood's local economy was devastated. During the 1970's, Urban
Renewal projects caused further demolition of housing in the area, while the new
development that was supposed to replace that housing was never constructed.
TABLE 1 Basic Statistics'
Area: 0.85 Square Miles
544 Acres
Number of Housing Units: 3963
Housing Units:
29.5 % Vacant
63 % Renter Occupied
7.5 % Owner Occupied
Total Population: 8178
Racial Composition:
Gender:
88 % Black
7.5 % White
3 % Multi -Racial
1.5 % Other
9.4 % Hispanic2
47 % Male
53 % Female
Median Household Income: $11,329
Median Family Income: $13,213
Residents below Poverty Level: 56 %
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SF-3, 2000
2 Reflects persons of Hispanic origin, not a race category
Submitted Into the public
recor�Z (Annection with
on 1 Z 13 01
item
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Overtown today, is one of the poorest communities in South Florida with
substandard housing, inadequate infrastructure, two Interstate's dividing up the
community and residents that are among the poorest in Southeast Florida and
probably the state. Yet, residents of Overtown face once again a threat to their
community. With Miami -Dade County running out of vacant developable land,
developers are looking at Overtown for the construction of condominiums and the
popular mixed use developments. The rebirth of downtown Miami, the proximity
of this area to downtown and the relatively inexpensive land make this a prime
area for redevelopment. While Overtown is in desperate need of investment, it is
unlikely that this development will have positive effects on current residents of
Overtown.
Table 1 shows that Overtown has just over 8000 residents remaining and that it
is still a predominantly black community with 88 percent of the population
identifying themselves as black. Despite its location just northwest of downtown
Miami, less than 10 percent of the population is of Hispanic origin. Almost 30
percent, or 1169, of the total housing units in Overtown are vacant, while 63
percent, or 2479 units, are renter occupied. Only 297 of the housing units in
Overtown are owner occupied.
THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
In 1982, the Department of Transportation's Urban Mass Transportation
Administration published the Final Impact Assessment for Overtown Station
Redevelopment. In this Assessment, three alternatives for the four blocks in
question were reviewed:
1. No action alternative.
2. Sole reliance upon private investments.
3. The use of public funds to acquire properties within the subject area for
redevelopment by private interests in accordance with the redevelopment
strategy set forth in the adopted Overtown Redevelopment PIan3.
Based on the assessment, the decision was made to acquire the four blocks
through the use of eminent domain and proceed with alternative three.
This is not the time and place to question the validity of the three altematives, but
the fact that now, 24 years after the Assessment, redevelopment of the four
blocks has still not occurred begs the question whether the preparers of the
Assessment fully understood the economic situation and challenges that
Overtown faced and faces.
Table 2 shows a summary of the consequences of the three alternatives
according to the original Assessment. Negative items that have occurred since
1982 have been printed in italics. None of the positive impacts identified under
scenario 3 or any of the other scenarios have occurred. It is safe to state that the
scenario that was ultimately followed (public acquisition of lands without
s U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transit Administration, Ovcrtown Statiq��illed Into the public
Redevelopment, Final Impacts Statement, March 1982, page ii. .7
recor(1 in connection with
item �Zon1Z1 -01
Gila A. Thompson
redevelopment) combined most of the negatives while not achieving any of the
positives that were identified in the original Assessment.
TABLE 2, Summary of consequences of alternative scenarios4
Positive
Negative
No action
Remaining source of low cost
housing
Decrease of long term land values
No large scale displacement
Decrease of tax base
Deterrence of investment and
redevelopment
No opportunities for minority business
development and investment
Potential rapid transit patronage will not be
maximized
No improvement of job market within
community
Full development of potential for
community will not be realized
Perpetuation of slum and blight
Residents will not have benefit of public
relocation assistance if private investment
occurs
Sole reliance
upon private
investments
Socio-economic and physical
conditions will be improved
Minority business redevelopment
opportunities will not be encouraged
Land use compatibility with
surrounding activity centers will
be heightened
No guarantee for minority business
investment opportunities
Transit patronage and security
will be increased
Probably no construction of lowfmoderate
cost housing
No guarantee that cultural aspects will be
preserved
No relocation assistance
Minimized community involvement
Use of public
funds to
acquire
properties
Enhancement of socio-
economic and physical
conditions
Large scale displacement
Heightening of compatibility
with surrounding activity
centers
Short term Impact of construction and
traffic congestion
Transit patronage and security
will be increased
Existing residents will have
opportunity to participate in
shaping redevelopment plans
Current property and business
owners will have priority for
locating back into community
A U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transit Administration, Overtown Station Area
Redevelopment, Final Impacts Statement, March 1982, pages iii-v.
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item QZ 11 on 12- (3 - 01
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
It is important to ask why redevelopment by private interests never occurred after
public funds were used to acquire and clear the four block area. While it was
probably a combination of several factors, a major reason was that the area was
simply not interesting for developers and that even government subsidized land
assembly and the presence of an incentive package for consequent development
could not swing the balance. Overtown was an area that was too much of a risk
for developers and there were many other opportunities in Miami -Dade County
that were more profitable and far less risky. As the 1982 EIS stated:
"it is unlikely that any development will occur in the short term. Market analysis
of the area predicts that new development will take ten years or more to occur."5
In the early 2000s, the climate for developers started to change. Miami -Dade
County started running out of developable land, housing prices increased rapidly
and downtown Miami saw massive reinvestment and construction of high end
condominiums. With this change came a renewed interest in redevelopment of
the four block area that was acquired 24 years ago. It is pertinent to realize the
fundamental difference of the situation in Overtown in 1982, compared to the
current situation. The 1982 EIS was correct that redevelopment was unlikely to
occur in Overtown without strong incentives to private development interests.
Under "Adverse Effects" the 1982 EIS states about the future of Overtown under
the no action alternative:
As a high crime area which requires extensive social services, the neglect of
environmental, social and physical problems, would likely permit the spiraling
increase in crime and social decay with their attendant human and govemmental
costs.6
On page 4-7 under a description of the All Private Investment Alternative the EIS
states:
Displacement under the private sector alternative would probably not begin to
occur until the late 1980s. The period of active private sector development would
first be preceded by speculation and then by land assemblage by major
developers .. the major impact of the private sector altemative would be
twofold:
1. All 503 individuals currently residing in the area would be displaced by
private action and thus receive no relocation benefits.
2. The housing that would be built on this site would be market rate housing
and as a result less than 8% of the current residents of the four block area
would be able to live in the housing units to be constructed........
i U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transit Administration, Overtown Station Area
Redevelopment, Final Impacts Statement, March 1982, page. 4-2
6 U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transit Administration, Overtown
Redevelopment, Final Impacts Statement, March 1982, page. 2-4
Station Area
Submitted into the public
Irecoc� in connec�ionZith
iternZ 11 on 2- 4J
A Thompson
.."1"'' + Clerk
In view of the current high rate of decline in black business in Overtown, it is
likely that few or none will remain when private development finally does occur.
This will further reduce any opportunity for black business participation in
redevelopment opportunities.
Since redevelopment never occurred after the initial land assembly, all these
negative consequences of the no action alternative actually took place.
However, not only were residents displaced from the four block area, the rest of
Overtown followed almost exactly the scenario as described under the no action
alternative. The only thing that the writers of the 1982 report did not predict
correctly was the timeframe, it actually took 20 years, not 10 years, before private
development interests became interested in large scale development in
Overtown. In these 20 years, there has been a further decline of the
neighborhood, residents have been further marginalized and the amount of both
black land owners and black business owners has declined. Extremely low rates
of homeownership (see table 1) make redevelopment without displacement
significantly more difficult since renters are the first to bear the burden of
increased property values. While residents that own their home are protected
from sharp increases in property taxes through Florida's "Save our Homes"
program, this program does not extent to owners of rental property. Therefore,
increases in assessed property values will lead to increases in property taxes
which costs will be passed on to the renters. What we are faced with now for
Overtown is an extreme version of the private investment alternative described in
the 1982 EIS.
CONSEQUENCES FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The difference between Overtown in 1982 and Overtown in 2006 can be
summarized as follows:
Residents have been further marginalized and private development
pressures have increased.
Table 1 clearly shows the economic problems of Overtown's residents, both the
median family and median household income are very Iowa and over half of the
population lives below poverty level. It should be clear from table 1 that
Overtown's residents live at the edge, if not beyond, the economic margins of
existence. This makes the current residents in Overtown even more vulnerable to
private redevelopment pressures than the residents in 1982. What makes the
situation even more pressing is the fact that there are no longer alternatives for
residents that would be displaced. Housing costs in southeast Florida have
skyrocketed and there are no longer any viable alternatives for low and very low
U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transit Administration, Overtown Station Area
Redevelopment, Final Impacts Statement, March 1982, page. 4-8
8 For comparison, the median household income for the City of Miami is about twice as high at $23,483,
while the median income for Miami -Dade County is three times as high at $35,966 (based on 2000 US
Census. Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item YZ 11 on 12 I3 0-
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
income residents. Meanwhile a 2005 study by FIU showed that Overtown's
residents have the lowest incomes in Miami -Dade County.9
Meanwhile private redevelopment pressures have increased very significantly.
Where development in southeast Florida has traditional moved from the eastern
urban core on the coast to the west, we have reached the limits of westward
expansion. Given the still increasing population growth, developers are now
aggressively looking at those lands in the original eastern urban core that are
underutilized and can be redeveloped at higher densities. Not only have areas
such as downtown Fort Lauderdale and downtown Miami seen a remarkable
renaissance but undesirable areas such as the Sistrunk area in Fort Lauderdale
are also facing strong redevelopment pressures.
Given these charges, it is of the utmost importance that any development in the
current situation is based on the first three "primary tenets" of the Overtown
Redevelopment Plan as referenced in the 1982 EIS:
1. Existing residents must be afforded the opportunity to reside in the
community and share in the redevelopment process.
2. The programs aim at not only physical changes, but also improve job
opportunities, income levels and business development.
3. Black business and community development institutions should be
full participants in the process.10
Maybe most important is that redevelopment of the four blocks should be based
on a vision for the future of the entire Overtown community (as described by he
boundaries of the Overtown NET area). Redevelopment should not be based on
a 25 year old plan, formulated by a CRA that was formed based on an economic
reality that no longer exists and whose boundaries were based on economic
development criteria in 1982. Evaluating the current proposal based on these
criteria shows a total disregard for the needs an aspirations of the current
residents of Overtown. The acquisition of the four blocks was based on an
economic reality that no longer exists in 2006. 25 Years ago, the concern was
how to bring sorely needed economic opportunities back into the community.
Now, economic reality is that Overtown is an area with an economically and
socially marginalized population that contains prime real estate. Under these
circumstances large scale redevelopment will occur regardless of government
incentives. The challenge is no longer how to attract private development
interest to the area, the challenge is how to harness these private interests so
' Feldman, Marcos and Jen Wolfe-Borum (2005). Affordable Housing Cost for Families Residing in Low -
Income Miami -Dade Neighborhoods. Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy, CLR&S,
University Park, Miami, Florida.
1D U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transit Administration, Overtown Station Area
Redevelopment, Final Impacts Statement, March 1982, pages 1-3 and 1-4, emphasis added submitted-'
tt�1
rublq
item Y L I 0
Priscilla At Thompson
that the 8178 remaining residents have an opportunity to remain in the area and
improve their quality of life, and their educational and economic opportunities.
Economic reality is such that the residents' interests are no longer furthered by
the requirements for affordable housing and minority business involvement that
are described in the original plan. Any kind of redevelopment will most likely lead
to indirect displacement of the current residents of Overtown. Residents are not
served by low income housing units' since these are out of their reach. A 2006
FAU study found that any redevelopment strategy for Overtown has to provide
roughly for 522 extremely low income housing units (30% or Tess of median
family income) and 2150 units that are well below extremely low income
housing.12 According to the 2005 Settlement Agreement, the current proposal
calls for 1,050 units in the form of mid rise and high rise structures with for sale
units in the initial sales range of $130,000-$300,000 per unit. None of these units
would be within the reach of current residents. Interestingly the settlement
agreement states that not less than 20% of the units shall be sold to qualified
buyers whose gross income is between 80.01% and 120 % of the Miami -Dade
mean income.. Based on the previously mentioned FAU study, few if any of the
current residents in Overtown could afford these affordable units. In addition, 89
percent of residents in Overtown are renters, and the current proposal states:
`the Residential Units will be primarily for sale with the possibility of some rental
units.14
ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE REVIEWED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
The scenarios that were reviewed in the 1982 EIS are no longer valid. The new
EIS should review alternative redevelopment schemes for the site, regardless of
whether the developments are private or public. There are at least four different
scenarios that should be considered:
1. No action.
2. Construction of very low, low and moderate income residential units.
3. Creation of park/open space.
4. Sawyers Walk proposal.
II The U.S. Department of Housing and Development states that "Families who pay more than 30 percent
of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such
as food, clothing. transportation and medical care.. Low income housing is identified as housing for those
families making 80% or less of the median family income..
''Susana Alonso, Ryan Correia, Aldo Fritz, Aaron Postak, Kelly Ray, Jennifer Rosenberg, Jaap Vos and
Aivia Williams, March 2006, Inventory Of Basic Housing Needs For Current Residents Of Overtown.
r' The use QS mean income is questionable, HUD uses median and the US Census does not report mean
income levels:77-
r4 Settlement.Agreement, January 27, 2005 between Sawyers Walk and Southeast Overtown/Park West
Community Redevelopment Agency, p24 public
Submitted Into the p
in connection with
item 2 l 1 on IZ- 3 -. 0_
Prilta A. Thompson
• ...141.1 City CIeri
TABLE 3 Factors to consider in environmental impact assessment15
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATION
POPULATION N
•
•
•
•
•
•
New residents (# and %)
Seasonal residents (# and %)
Age and gender composition
Racial and ethnic composition
Family size, family structure
Religion
Other
CHANGES
RELOCATION
•
Direct displacement
PEOPLE
•
Indirect displacement
_OF
COMMUNITY
•
Density
CHARACTER
•
Bulk
•
Height
•
Parking
•
Open Space/Public Space
•
Other
ENVIRONMENT
•
Short term health concems
•
Long term health concerns
•
Physical safety
•
Environmental degradation
•
Water retention
•
Flooding
•
Water quality
•
Other
COMMUNITY
•
Police/Fire response time
INFRA
•
Hospital Beds/Emergency units
STRUCTURE
•
Libraries
•
Parks
•
Banks
•
Impervious surface
•
Public transit
•
Other
LAND VALUES
•
Property taxes
•
Rent
•
Housing prices
•
Safety
•
Other
DISRUPTION
•
Noise
•
Foul or unusual odors
•
Air pollution and dust
•
Vehicular traffic
•
Water pollution
•
Closed roads and bridges
•
Disruption of utilities
•
Other temporary closures
15 The factors in this table are hosed on: Rabel Budge, A Community Guide to Social Impact Assessment,
University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign, 1993. Submitted Into the public
reco Un connection with
item on 12- 19,.0_
Priscilla A. Thompson
�_ :. City Clerk
10
Each scenario should at least be reviewed based on the seven categories of
criteria in table 3:
1. Changes in population,
2. Relocation and displacement of people,
3. Community character,
4. Environment,
5. Community infrastructure,
6. Land values,
7. Temporary disruption.
Most of these issues are standard for environmental impact assessment and
speak for themselves. Several do however warrant additional attention in the
context of Overtown.
Changes in population
According to the 2000 US Census, Overtown has 8178 residents and 3963
housing units. The current proposal adds 1050 units16, which represents a 26
percent increase in residential units. Using the average household size for the City
of Miami17 that would mean 2740 new residents, a 33 percent increase in
population. Such a dramatic and sudden increase in population can have negative
consequences for the social fabric of any community. However, the negative
consequences are especially severe if the new residents are significantly different
than the existing residents. Given the composition of Overtown's population and
the suggested price point for the units in the proposed development, the new
residents will be very significantly different from the existing residents in both racial
and ethnic background and socio-economic status. Based on the suggested price
point of the units in the current development proposal, new residents will make at a
minimum 4 times the salary of current Overtown residents.18
Relocation and displacement of people
The 1982 EIS discussed the displacement of 503 residents in 328 dwelling units.
These 503 residents would consequently be given the opportunity to relocate back
into the community. Since all these residents have already been displaced, the
current proposal will no longer directly displace residents. However, the
displacement consequences of the current proposal are even more daunting than
in 1982. This time the threat is indirect displacement in the form of the secondary
and cumulative consequences of redevelopment. As mentioned before,
redevelopment pressure in Overtown is building, with housing prices at an all time
high, rental properties in decline and a continued need for new housing for a
growing population. At the same time, the residents of Overtown are now even
more marginalized than in 1982. Redevelopment of Overtown without a clear plan
16 The 1982 EIS is based on the addition of 520-670 new housing units, about half of the current proposals.
17 According to the 2000 US Census, the average household size for the City of Miami is 2.61.
19 Given the price points for the new residential units, the cheapest units will be for new residents at income
levels between 80 and 120 % of the median family income for Miami -Dade County. The median family
income for a family of 2 in Miami -Dade County is $44,700. Realistically units will be sold at the highest
price which is 120% of median which means $53,600.
Submitted Into the public
reco in connection with
item VZ f on IZ-l�-01
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
11
that takes care of the needs of the current residents is likely to lead to the
displacement of all 8178 residents in Overtown, probably within the next 5-10
years. Residents will be displaced either because they can no longer afford to live
there or because the character of the community has changed so much that they
are no longer welcome in their own community. Large scale displacement will
likely start to occur soon since the current residents truly live at the very edge of
existence, and as renters have no protection against eviction and quickly
increasing property values.
Community character
Overtown consists of an interesting, eclectic mix of single family homes, small
stores, restaurants and multi -family units. Most buildings are between 1 and 3
stories. There are people on the sidewalks and traffic is relatively modest with on -
street parking. There are no large parking garages, big box stores or large scale
buildings and most structures are at a human scale. It is important that new
development occurs at a scale level that is compatible with this. Given the
characteristics, densities should not be increased vertically but horizontally,
through infill and utilization of vacant lots.
Environment
It should be clear that the residents of Overtown have faced more than their share
of environmental concerns with the construction of 1-95 and 1-395. Any new
development should try to mitigate these negative effects. In addition, high density
development will decrease the amount of permeable surface and increase the risk
of flooding as well as surface water pollution.
Community infrastructure
As mentioned before, Overtown is a true pedestrian community. The addition of
1050 units will have substantial impacts on road capacity and pedestrian safety.
Since the site is currently open space it will reduce the amount of open space and
pervious surface.
Land values
Redevelopment in Overtown will lead to an increase in property values. In cases of
high home ownership this is typically a benefit for local residents since it increase
the equity in their home while Florida's "Save our Homes" program limits increases
in property taxes due to increases in property value to a small percentage each
year. Unfortunately, 89 percent of residents are renters. Units that are rented out
are not protected and therefore, while increases in property values are beneficial
for homeowners and increase their equity, are almost instantly reflected in
increases in rent.
More than the sum of the parts
It is important to realize that an assessment of the consequences of
redevelopment is not simply a matter of adding up the positive and negative
impacts. Great care should be given to the secondary and cumulative impacts
Submitted Into the public'
record in connection with
_._..on 12-13 - 07
eta A. Thompson
City Clerk
12
of any proposal for redevelopment in Overtown. While any of the impacts by itself
can have a negative or positive impact, it is the combination of impacts that
ultimately make for a good or bad proposal.
The residents of Overtown have been marginalized and are extremely vulnerable.
While redevelopment should occur in Overtown, it has to be based first and
foremost on improving the quality of life for the residents of Overtown.
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item QZ 1 I on ,1 Z- 13 -- 0/
Priscilla A. Thompson
v. City Clerk.
Vos Abridged Resume, only including publications between 2000-2006
JACOBUS J. "JAAP" VOS
111 East Las Olas Boulevard, HEC 1008E
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
jvosfau.edu
EDUCATION
Ph.D. Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign, May 1996.
Specialization environmental planning.
Master of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, March 1989.
Specialization environmental planning.
ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE
Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic
University, May 2003 - present.
Assistant Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic University,
August 1997 - May 2003.
Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic
University, August 1995 - July 1997.
Research Assistant, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana -
Champaign, September 1992 - July 1995.
Conducted research on the role of minorities in environmental planning, concentrating on
the role of blacks in solid waste management in Illinois.
Instructor, Department of Environmental Studies, Agricultural College Delft, May 1991 -
August 1992.
Developed undergraduate program in Environmental Studies. Taught courses in
environmental planning and management, environmental science, and environmental
health for both environmental studies majors and non -majors. Developed environmental
specialization for business school.
Instructor, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural College Delft, September 1989 - April 1991.
Developed Environmental Studies program for students in Agriculture. Taught courses in
environmental science, environmental law and environmental policy.
Research coordinator, Agricultural University Wageningen, January 1988 - January 1989.
Advised students on the development and completion of interdisciplinary research
projects. Acquired research projects and awarded finances to research groups.
Submitted Into the
pubit
recor.p4 in, connection with _
item Z 7 on 12- i 3 O
Priscilla A. Thompson
Vos Abridged Resume, only including publications between 2000-2006
PUBLICATIONS
Jaap Vos (2004), The Everglades: Where Will All the Water Go? In: Mark Lappen and Owen
Furuseth, Big Places, Big Plans, Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning, pages 97-114,
Ashgate Publishing.
Jaap Vos (2003), The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan: The Missing Link With
Land -Use, Natural Resources and Environmental Administration, Volume 24, Number 1, pages
1-4.
Jaap Vos (2002), Segregation, Restoration, and Gentrification on the North Fork: Can
Participation Prevent Another Injustice, Projections, the MIT Journal of Planning, Vol 3,
pages 133-156.
Alka Sapat, Jaap Vos and Khi Thai (2002), Environmental Injustice: An Emerging Issue in
Public Policy, International Journal of Public Administration Volume 25, Numbers 2&3, pages
143-168.
Jaap Vos, Alka Sapat and Khi Thai (2002), The Role of Local Officials in the Occurrence of
Environmental Injustice: A Case Study, International Journal of Public Administration.
Volume 25, Numbers 2&3, pages 305-332.
Jaap Vos (2001), A Community Based Outreach Strategy for Environmental Justice: The
COELT Program in Florida, Critical Planning, Summer 2001, pages 86-98.
Jaap Vos (2000), Teaching Environmental Planning and Policy by Linking Theory and
Praxis, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Volume 6, No 2, April 2000, pages 105-113.
Grants
Intermodal Transportation Safety & Security VPT Lab, Federal Transit Administration
Grant # 812104, PI, $148,705.
South Florida Regional Resource Center, Broward Design Collaborative, PI with Margi
Glavovic Nothard and Peter Magyar, February 2004, $25,000.
South Broward Drainage District Districting, South Broward Drainage District Grant #
812089, PI, $4,618.
South Florida Water Management District, Environmental Studies and Community Outreach.
Grant # C-14012, received by Broward Community College Consortium, April 2002-June 2003,
PI.$31,000. Submitted Into the public
recor in connection with
item �Zr 1 on 12--6 01
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Vos Abridged Resume, only including publications between 2000-2006
Broward Urban River Trails, New River Cultural and Environmental Survey Grant # F0128.
PI with Ralph Johnson, September 2001-September 2002, $30,000.
Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Trends and Conditions Grant # BD-171. In
cooperation with Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, PI, September 2001-June
2002, $87,500.
Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Trends and Conditions Grant # BC-852. In
cooperation with Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, PI, November 2000-June
2001, $87,500.
Kids Ecology Corps, Development of Environmental Curriculum and Tree Planting for High
Schools. Class project for URP6421, Environment and Society. January -April 2000, $2000.
Curriculum available at: http://www.kidsecologycorps.org/curriculum.html.
Conference Papers
Jaap Vos and Lorraine Guise (2004), Designing an Effective and Measurable Water
Conservation Strategy for Water Utilities, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Portland, Oregon, October 21-24.
Sayre Berman and Jaap Vos (2004), Redevelopment of Downtown Fort Lauderdale, Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Florida Chapter of the American Planning
Association, Gainesville, Florida, October 13-16.
Sayre Berman and Jaap Vos (2004), Redevelopment of Downtown Fort Lauderdale: Modern
Urban Renewal and Inverse Displacement, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Planning Association, Washington, DC, April 24-28.
Jaap Vos and Lorraine Guise (2003), A Challenge for South Florida Water Utilities: Meeting
Urban Water Demands During Everglades Restoration, Paper presented at the ACSP-
AESOP Joint Congress, Leuven, Belgium, July 8-12.
Jaap Vos and Tykus Holloway (2002), Transportation and Air Quality in Florida, Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning,
Baltimore, November 21-24.
Jaap Vos (2001), Community Environmental Outreach: A Proactive Environmental Justice
Approach, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools
of Planning, Cleveland, Ohio, November 8-11.
Jaap Vos and Sara Stevenson (2000), Planning and Sustainable Development: Equity,
Environment or Economy? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of
Collegiate Schools of Planning, Atlanta, Georgia, November 2-5.
Submitted Into the public
recora in connection with
item V2 li on t2 1 _0-)
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Vos Abridged Resume, only including publications between 2000-2006
Jaap Vos and Ron Nyhan (2000), Data Envelopment Analysis as an Environmental Justice
Tool, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society for Public
Administration, San Diego, California, April 1-4.
Jaap Vos (2000), COELT: A Community Based Strategy for Environmental Justice, Paper
presented at the Eighth Annual Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Bellingham,
Washington, June 17-22.
Jaap Vos (2000), Sustainable Development; Leading Principle of Public Policy or Paper
Tiger? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Florida Political Science Association,
Miami, Florida, April 6-8.
Book Reviews
Jaap Vos (2003), Book Review in Journal of Planning Education and Research, Faludi,
Andreas (2002). European Spatial Planning. Vol 23: 215-216
Jaap Vos (May 2001). Book Review in Journal of Political Ecology, McCally, David (1999)
The Everglades: An Environmental History,
http://dizzylibrary.arizona.eduJej/jpe/volume_8Nos-vol8.htm.
Jaap Vos (Summer 2000), Book Review in Journal of the American Planning Association, de
Jongh, P and S. Captain (1999), Our Common Journey: A Pioneering Approach to Cooperative
Environmental Management.
Technical Reports
Jaap Vos (2006), Thoughts about an Environmental Assessment for Sawyer's Walk in
Overtown, Report prepared for Power U Center for Social Change.
Jaap Vos et.al. (2006), Inventory of Basic Housing Needs for Current Residents of
Overtown, Report prepared for Power U Center for Social Change.
Debra Works, Ralph Johnson, Jaap Vos and Kitty Oliver (2002), The Cultural and
Environmental History of the North Fork of the New River, report prepared for Broward
Urban River Trails, F-0128.
Jaap Vos (2002), Trends in the Emission of Air Pollutants from On -Road Motor Vehicles in
Florida, Anthony James Catanese Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions, Report
prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, BD-171.
Jaap Vos and Stella Quintero (2002), Transportation and Environmental Justice, Anthony
James Catanese Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions, Report prepared for Florida
Submitted Into the public
reco i in connection with
item r Z I- on I Z-
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Vos Abridged Resume, only including publications between 2000-2006
Department of Transportation, BD-171.
Jaap Vos and Stella Quintero (2001), The Effects of Transportation on Water Quality,
FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental & Urban Problems, Report prepared for Florida
Department of Transportation, BC-852.
Jaap Vos and Stella Quintero (2001), The Effects of Transportation on Ecosystems, FAU/FIU
Joint Center for Environmental & Urban Problems, Report prepared for Florida Department of
Transportation, BC-852.
Jaap Vos and Tykus Holloway (2001), Transportation and Air Quality: Towards a Better
Understanding of Trends in Emissions, FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental & Urban
Problems, report prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, BC-852.
Jaap Vos and John O'Brien (2000), An Exploration of Trends in Transportation, Air Quality
and Energy in Florida, FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental & Urban Problems, Report
prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, BC-450.
Invited Presentations
Interdisciplinary Forums on the Theories, Models, and Methods of Sustainable
Development, Invited speaker, Towards a Spatial Theory of Sustainable Development,
University of Cincinnati, November 11-12, 2005.
Florida Planning Officials Training Program, Invited speaker, Engaging the Public, Schreiber
Conference Center, Port St. Lucie, May 4, 2005.
Defending Our Changing Community: Regional Gentrification Summit, Invited Panelist,
Transition and Gentrification in Fort Lauderdale, African American Research Library &
Cultural Center, April 2, 2005.
3th Annual Environmental Ethics Conference, Invited Panelist, Justice for All, A Story of
Successfully Including the Community, March 26, 2004.
Symposium International Approaches to Sustainable Development, Invited panelist,
Sustainable Development: A Cautionary Tale, Catanese Center for Urban and Environmental
Solutions, February 5, 2004.
Symposium Art and the Environment, Invited panelist, The Role of the Arts in Environmental
Protection, Florida Atlantic University, January 18, 2002.
Annual Conference of the American Collegiate Schools of Planning, Invited panelist for
session on growth management in Florida, Growth Management and the Environment in
Florida: About Missed Opportunities, Cleveland, Ohio, November 9, 2001.
Submitted Into the public
recor in connection with
item Z ► on 2i- I 07
Priscilla A. Thompson lerk
Vos Abridged Resume, only including publications between 2000-2006
Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection, Invited speaker
for Brown Bag Seminar Series, Air Quality and Transportation: Making Sense of Non -Sense,
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, April 11, 2001.
2" Annual Conference of the Center for Environmental Equity and Justice, Invited panelist
workshop, Integrating Environmental Justice into Business, State and Local Government
Activities: Policies, Rules and Legislation, Florida A&M, Tallahassee, Florida, August 10, 2000.
Minority Economic Think Tank, Invited panelist, The Economic Implications of Everglades
Restoration for South Florida's Minorities, Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
February 18, 2000.
HONORS, A WARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS
FAU Broward Faculty of the Year 2004-2005, Florida Atlantic University, February 25, 2005.
Who's Who Among America's Teachers, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006
2002 Star Award, ArtServe and the Culture Foundation of Broward, Thirteenth Annual Encore
Awards, Broward County, April 2002 (for the work with the Kids Ecology Corps on
Environmental Education).
Finalist Broward Faculty AchievementAward, Florida Atlantic University, November 2001.
2001 Star Award, ArtServe and the Culture Foundation of Broward, Twelfth Annual Encore
Awards, Broward County, April 2001 (for the work with the Kids Ecology Corps on
Environmental Education).
Professor of the Year, Florida Atlantic Planning Society, Florida Atlantic University, May,
2001.
Nominated for Florida Atlantic Distinguished Professor of the Year Award, Florida Atlantic
University, 2001.
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Wildlife Research Team, Board Member, May 2006, ongoing.
Broward County Public Arts and Design Committee, Member, November 2005, ongoing.
Florida Earth Foundation, Board Member, June 2005, ongoing.
Submitted into the public
recor in connection with
item �Z 11 on i Z- (3 - 01
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Vos Abridged Resume, only including publications between 2000-2006
Professional Designers Forum, Member, Broward County, May 2003- December 2004.
Florida Planning Officials Advisory Committee, Member, May 2003- October 2004.
Kids Ecology Corps, Board Member, April 2002, ongoing.
African American Environmental Leadership Council, Facilitator for Workshop on the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Fort Lauderdale, March 27, 2002.
Broward County Adopt -a -Waterway -Program, Liaison for Department of' Urban and
Regional Planning with The Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental
Protection Water Resources Division, August 2001, ongoing.
Moderator and Co-organizer of the Second Environmental Equity and Justice Conference,
Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, May 13, 2000.
NAACP Environmental Justice Committee, Member of Committee of Fort Lauderdale Branch
of NAACP, January 1999-2001.
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item YZ llt on
Priscilla A. CThompson
INVENTORY OF BASIC HOUSING NEEDS
FOR CURRENT RESIDENTS OF
OVERTOWN
Prepared for Power U Center for Social Change
PREPARED BY:
Susan Alonso
Ryan Correia
Aldo Fritz
Aaron Postak
Kelly Ray
Jennifer Rosenberg
Jaap Yoe
Olivia Williams
For comments or questions please contact
Jaap Vos
Associate Professor, Chair
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Florida Atlantic University
Higher Education Complex, Suits 1008 E
111 East Las Olas Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
e-md: jvosSfau.edu
phone: (954) 782 5852
March 2008
ATTACHMENT B
Submitted into the public
recor�j in con c�onl? with
item 1/111—on
Priscilla A. City Clerk
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTIOM 1
Figure 1 Aerial of Overtown 1
METHODOLOGY 3
BASIC CHARACTEFISTIC$ 3
Table 1 Basic Statistics 3
Figure 2 Mnual Household Income in Overtown 4
Figure 3 Mnual Household Income In the City of Miami 4
Figure 4 Mnual Household Income in Miami -Dade County 4
gCONOMIC CHARACTERISTICSAND HOUSING NEEDO S
Figure 5 Household Income Distribution In Overtown 5
Table 2 Affordable Monthly Housing Costa Based on Median Household Income 5
Table 3 Comparison of Affordable Housing Definitions 8
Table 4 Fair Market Rent for Miami Dade County 8
Figure 8 Affordable Monthly Housing Cost In Overtown 8
Figure 7 Tenure of Renters In Overtow t 7
OTHER CHAR ACTERISTIC$ 7
Figure 8 Percentage of Population Ling Below Poverty Level In Overtown 8
Figure 9 Percentage of Population Ling Below Poverty Level in City of Miami 8
Figure 10 Percentage of Population Living Below Poverty Level in Mlaml-Dads County 8
Figure 11 Age of Population In Overtown 9
Figure 12 Age of Population in City of Miami 9
Figure 13 Age of Population In MIam -Dads County 9
Figure 14 Level of Education for Overtown 10
Figure 15 Level of Education for City of Miami 10
Figure 18 Level of Education for Miami -Dade County 10
Figure 17 Means of Transportation for Overtown Resident 11
Figure 18 Means of Transportation for City of Miami Resident 11
Figure 19 Means of Transportadon for Miami -Dade County Resident 11
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND CONSEOUENCES FOR REDEVELOPME_NI PROPOSALS IN 12
OVEATOWN
LIST OF MAPS 13
Submitted Into the public
reco n connec i n with
item L 11 on i
Priscilla A. Thompson�lerk
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS April 14, 2006
INTRODUCTION(
Ovewtown was established at the tuns of the century and became home to many African Americana worldng to build Henry
Flag*** railroad. The neighborhood qulddy grew and during the 1920's, 30's and 40's, the community enjoyed a vibrant
entertainment district, shops, offices and a hospitai. The neighborhood included a successful business district and
provided a thriving social and civic life for its residents.
Overtown continued b prosper during the 1950'e but the construction of interstate highways during the 1960e changed
the character of the area. Figure 1 sham how 1-96 and 1-396 were built right through the heart of Ovenoms, dividing it into
four separated areas that exist today. As a result of the highways, residents wen displaced and the neighborhood's local
economy was devastated During the 1970's, Urban Renewal projects caused further demolition of housing In the area,
while the new development that was supposed to replace that housing was never constructed
Overtown today, le one of the poorest communities In South Florida wits substandard housing, inadequate Infrastructure,
two Interstate's dividing up the community and residents that are among the poorest In Southeast Florida and probably
the stab. Yet, residents of Oven ms face once again a direst to thsk community. With Miami -Dads County running out of
vacant developable land, developers an looking at Overtown for de construction of condominiums and the popular mixed
use developments. The rebirth of downbwn Miami, the proximity of this area to downtown and relatively Inexpensive land
make this area a prime area for redevelopment While Ovenown Is M desperate need of Investment, it Is unlikely that this
development will have positive effects an current residents of Overtown. Furthermore, 1-96 and 1.396 have dNided the
neighborhood up In fax areas that have different physical characteristics and different levels of desirability for developers.
It is Important to realise that
The location of /-96 and I-396 In Overfown make redevelopment of Overfown as gag community
unlikely.
In fact one developer already suggested that Overbwners "could have' the section of Overtown west of 1-95, as long as
they could redevelop some of the area east of 1-96.
FIGURE 1 Aerial of Overtownt
Submitted Into the public
recor4 in connection with
item a 11 on JZ- - 07
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Source: Florida Cepartment or Transportation. 2003
Page 1
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS April 14, 200e
In the fall of 2005, a group of 24 graduate Urban and Reglonai Planning student at Florida Adandc University was asked
by PowerU Center for Social Change. a local grassroots organization In Overown, b help them formulate a vision for the
future of Overtown. PowsrU was concerned about the recent redevekopment proposals within Overtown and the
consequences of these new development an the affordability and character of Overbwn. Tins most important
requirement for this vision was that it would be first and foremost based on the needs of the current resident. In addition
hi students formulated 7 mon basic requirements.
Al redeveioprnent proposals within Overtown need to:
1) Increase economic opportunities for current and new residents of Overtown.
2) Ensure that the benefits of redevelopment an enjoyed by everybody.
3) Reduce harm to health.
4) Reduce poverty.
5) Reduce poor housing, increase "affordable' housing.
5) Reduce unemployment.
7) Reduce poludon.
After visits to Overtown, interviews with residents, review of planning documents and a general literature review, the
students concluded at the end of the fail semester that any redevelopment In Overtown would lead to displacement of
most, if not al. of the current residents since the economic reality for resident in Overtovai is so desperate that any
increase in housing costs will make housing unaffordable for them. The conclusion of the students was that the residents
of Overbwrt find themselves in a very difficult dilemma
Tit* structural nature of the problems in Overtown is such that in order For Overtown to compete
with other neighborhoods for Mlanit major investments haw to be made whkdl in turn old
probably end up destroying the essence of Overtown and lead to dlaplacentent of most of the
CUMIN residents. .
-"Submitted Into the public
recorg in connection with
item rz I `7 on 2,L 13 07
Priscilla a A. Thompson
City Clerk
The current quality of life In Overtovrrh, the reality of daily life and the lack of economic opportunities for residents need to
be addressed In typical situations, such as was the case for Overtown until recently, it Is almost Impossible to attract
Investment because of the risk and undesirability of the area for investors. The challenge In these situations Is to find
anybody who le wiling to make Investments in the community. In these situations, Improvements In a community lead to
increases In housing costs but these can be somewhat mitigated with careful planning and commitment from focal
decision -makers. Even under these dreummatances, there is sudh a need to attract )nveebnent and such a lack of assets
among resident that any vision often ends up acting In the interest of private developers and wealthier outsiders rather
than existing residents.
The current situation in Overtown Is however significantly different, in the past 5 years or so, the area has become of
Interest to developers because of it's proximity to downtown Miami, relative inexpensive land and a poorly organized
community that has very limited financial and political means to stop undesirable development In land use terms,
Overtown is simply an underutilized place of prime real estate. Under this scenario, the problem is no longer how to attract
inveeters, the challenge is:
1) to attract investors that are willing to Invest In the current residents,
2) that are committed to working with residents and bcal officlale, and
3) are willing to make suboptimal economic decisions based on a genuine concern for the current resident.
The Issue that needs to be addressed in Overtown is:
How to attract Investment that will improve the situation for currant (and new) residents of
Overtown while reducing outside pressures for large scale redevelopment.
The students concluded that it was Impossible to formulate a vision for Overtown without a solid understanding of the
socio-economic situation and needs of the current residents. While M would have been possible to organize design
charettes with residents and create graphic representations of a their vision for Overtown, any such activity would be a
false promise to residents since economic reality would have forced them out of Overtown long before the vision is
realzed. Any such vision would simply ignore the need to reduce the outside pressure for redevelopment.
eased on this realization, a group of 7 graduate students decided to continue the work and to look for aitsrnatiw
strategies for the redevelopment of Overtowrn. The approach that these students took is similar In that the starting point
again is that any redevelopment needs to meet the needs of current residents. In addition, the second requirement i3 that
redevelopment Nil not lead to the direct or indirect displacement of any resident in Overtown. While many studies
discuss the reed for development without displacement and try to keep displacement b a minimum, few if any
acknowledge botch the direct and indirect displacement of residents. Based on these two requirements, the goal of this
report is to:
Determine the basic need tor affordable housing units to accommodate the exlatlng population In
Overtown while anticipating the imminent redevelopment of the neighborhood'.
To accomplish this, this report gives a detailed description of the basic socioeconomic characteristics of Overtown's
current residents. Based on these characteristics, the total number of units that need to be available at different price
points to meet the needs of the current residents are determined In the next phase, the consequences for redevelopment
based on a scenario for mixed income housing with opportunities and strong incentives for vertical mobility and economic
empowerment will be determined
' AtbrdaMlly I defined as a monthly rant or mortgage ward (Including utilities and taxes) not exceeding 30% of a houssnold's income. The U.S.
Department of Horning and Development stave that 'Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing ars considered cost
burdened and may have a,fanrty affording neced«tles such as food, clo5Mrq, transponatlon and medical care.
Page 2
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS Apra 14, 2008
This report also contains a set of maps of Miami and Overtow s. These maps an graphic representations of 2000 US
Census data and are included to give the reader a better understanding of the characteristics d Overtown and allow the
reader to understand the data for Overtown in the larger context of the City d Miami.
METHODOLOGY
Most of the data used for this report Is from the 2000 U.S. Census. Where possible the data was updated with information
from the 2004 American Community Survey. For this study we used Census Tracts 31 and 34 and Block Groups 3601.01
and 3801.02. We used U.S. Census Summary File 1, which contains 100 % data, were possible. Some of the variables
That are reported are only available In U.S. Census Summary File 3, which contains sample data in all cases, we haw
,dentified the data source that was used lo produce our maps and graphs. The data tables were transformed Into figures
to better v suailze Overtovm's conditions.
The 2000 U.S. Census data is relativey old and probably does not reflect the current situation exactly. Given the double
digit Increases In property values In the past years In southeast Florida and the modsat Increases In wage Warne In
Florida, it Is likely that the reality of Overtown Is even more severe than Indicated by the data It Is also likely that since
the collection of the data, sane residents have been displaced.
BASIC CHARACTERISTICS
Table 1 gives some of the bask etstistics of Overtown. The table shows that Overtown has just over 8000 residents
remaining and that it is still a predominantly black community with 88 percent of the population Identifying themselves as
bladc. Despite its location Just northwest of downtown Miami, lea than 10 percent of the population is of Hispanic origin.
AMnoet 30 percent, or 1169, of the btal housing units In Overto m an vacant, while 83 percent. or 2479 units, are renter
occupied. Only 297 of the housing units in Overtown an owner occupied.
TABLE 1 Basic Statistiw
Area:
Number of Housing Units:
Housing Units:
Total Population:
Racal Composition:
Gender.
Median Household Income:
Median Family Income:
Residents below Poverty Level:
swat u.s. Ctrilua &ts&. SF3. 2 * • •
0.85 Square Miles
544 Acres
3963
29.5 % Vacant
63 % Reiter Occupied
7.5 % Owner Occupied
8178
88 % Black
7.5 % White
3 % Mult -Racial
1.5 % Other
9.4 % Hispanics
47%Male
53 % Female
$11,329
$13,213
56 %
Low rates of homeownership make redevelopment without displacement significantly more difficult since renters are the
first to bear the burden of increased property values. While residents that own their home are protected from sharp
increases in property taxes through Florida's "Save our Homes' program, this program does not extent to owners of rental
property. Therefore, increases in assessed property values will lead to increases in property taxes which costs will be
passed on to the renters.
Table 1 clearly shows the economic problems of Overtown's residents, both the median 'amity and median household
income are very low' and over half of the population lives below poverty level. It should be clear from table 1 that
Overtown's residents live at the edge, it not beyond, the economic margins of existence. This information alone is enough
to conclude that
The high percentage of renters /n Overtown, the extremely low Incomes and the high percentage
of people living below poverty level, make 1t very difficult, if not Impossible, to prevent
displacement of residents once redevelopment takes place.
Redeem persons of Hispanic origin. cot a nil category
Fa congarisoa the median household moms for the City of Miami is about twice as high at $23,483, while tins median income for Miami -Dade County is
dune time. as high u $35,966.
Submitted Into the public
record,in connection with
item Z 1`� on tZ-(3�01
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Page 3
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS
Aptil 14, 2006
FIGURE 2 Annual Household Income In °velem,
11 •
11
Annual Household Income: Overtown
NW
t`' lif -:' 117! ;-•7-- '•• r--•7,-iT 4. 7,- 7;+7:',. 7--. s-7 ,f , :-..,4. .
' -c- 5- ..., 10-7f"-'ti:A 4-.4 1-7,=' 7--*-'7.1:',•;-.-- P...-:-. 4...; '*•••":4-: --!, ---
-
- f ! i k • i '''..,-1 .-.-.-.'"-. '.x.'-• '_ q.'; 1., '0",; '''-':r- "4: •': -
30% •
25%
4 j,i-F'P.-,-.i,,.-74- --
-0
" ti 4.-t IC c -fi ,i4 'AA ; ,.. 3: s.;,1,: 4,4,', -;-.,..:,,:.-..,,:,-••?,;.4. .,-E.,,,.
.... •;*:- 1. A f4 .4.,e4.-.4,r,:ta: 4 .. ofr.?,,,-;,,t.i .--:,41. . it ,i1c. ;., - ,_-: , • .
. •
,,4, ,
'7,441 Ilik,:,..1-4 r...,...r-1-..1-.6 1
,-Ims
Lou than $10,000 to 515,002 to S25,003 to 336,003- 5.50.01:0 $75,000 or
Si 0,000 314,9411 324.901 34,9110 540,900 574,9110 mom
Annual Income in Donets
Sauna U.$. Gnus &Male 3F4.14ausehol0 Immo In lag (P81). 2099
FIGURE 3 Annual Household 111001110 In City Of Mieml
0
00
•
Annual Household Income: City of Mlaml
g.F.,
-.!. • T,,,• 1, .1 .:::1- , — , .'; , ,.1 tV.,:;;,' -'7,.: .. 7 '-• • ,
45%
,
-,_ 1, .,, ;, 4. 7.,_.„ •-,:,•-•.,, ,,,!-i';.';$ i,,`• - . - .."- ''.'• • -'. :",.-,..:, i ,..:,f..;r7..,:;--' .,, .• 7% ,.' -;
40%
,,:- 0'?..:.;, -' •K ,;; !. ,4-k.,--.'.-
".-, .1
..,. . • ...-:- --. - ,- . - _•. % , - , ,,•,•
.7. :4`,1.• .: :,,,, 4 U:: .i '. r ',•±F4 ',..e; i•-,..i, ... •..,' 51:i-, • i -t - •,--.4 7:,
25%
r ,..,,-::::.,'-:,.;,,..::: s;, ,;,A ..-!, if, ,;
-' T,-:-:._.
' ' . c •••-- " ", ••+,.7:-':
I. , ;-- , . „
•'' .':, "‘ '' :t.":"C' .....a.,'" 4'4'4 ,i i, 14'16:1; "
20%
:,•, ••••• 8 .1.,, .
--..„ le'
• ' S . •••;,, 1;'• ' •
4,Slar
15%
it *71.4litios,,,,, .0,,;,.- WWI.
' SW— t tr....
1°14
5%
II
NI
44 .4
Z.11 xt. i :r..71 .01 U7 I ZI I
MO it'll . la Wil fill Wil I
Los tnan 510,000 to 315,000 tO $25.000 10 $35.000- $50,003- $75,000 or
St 0,000 514,901 324,900 34,9110 340,900 314M* more
Annual Income In Collets
Scum U.& Census ewer% SP-3. Harialiold 141C011111 In I OS (P31). 2019
FIGURE 4 Annual Household Income In Mbunl-Dade County
3 I • 35% :
o• 0
+.2 = 30%
5. 2 %
0 20%
C u
; 6 15% 14%
• 1 I
2. 5% 4---
31 3%
50%
1 45%
40%1
Annual Household Income: fillaml-Dade County
Ira
IPS
Submitted Into the public
rccor in connection with
item y2 /1 on lid -a
Priscilla A. Thompson
city Clerk
Lau man S10,000 to 515,000 to S25,000 to $35,003- S50,000- 125, COO or
$10,000 114,9011 324,900 34,99O $49,901 $74, NO more
Annual Income In Dollars
SG4ow u.S. Census Burma, SP-3, Hominoid usame es 1 9911 (PM 2000
Page 4
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS April 14, 2008
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICSAND HOUSING NEEDS
Figures 2 to 4 give a representation of annual househdd Incomes In Overbuy% the CIty of Miami and Mlaml-Dade County.
The graphs show clearly that Overtown has a dlspropor1lonats percentage of residents with an extremely low household
income. While both the City of Miami and Miami -Dade County have a relatively homogeneous distribution of income
levels, 45 percent of households in Overtown have a yeary income below $10,000. Figure 5 shows that 81 percent of
household have an annual income below $15,000 and 77 percent of households are below $25,000. Another indicator of
the desperate economic situation for residents in Overtown is that 58 percent of Overtown's residents had income levels
below poverty status, compared to 18 percent of Mlarni-Dads County's residents.
FIGURE 6 Household Income Distribution In Overtown
1
Man' Household Inane
70% X7 MI MI 1
eo% IMil i 2
soxill 4111 MI WI i
AEA Ilti 2-J NA 1
30% IL! SU EU WI i
ii ir i 1
lox 111 14i Mil ice! $
:ill i NE11 OM #
ox
■ U.7
MI rt.11
■ WM41
10.000 16,000 46,000 36,000 60,000 75,000
income in Dollars
Sand on U.& Cerwaeursau. SF-3. Nouns ntd ireono In tear rem 2030
The U.S. Departrnent of Housing and Development (HUD) defines affordability of housing as a monthly rent or mortgage
amount (Including utilities and taxes) not exceeding 30% of a households income. Applying this definition to the median
income In selected neighborhoods in the City of Miami, a study by Fill In the fall of 2005 showed that affordable housing
for Overtown translates to a monthly housing coat of $354 whfie residents at the 80% of median income level could only
afford $2835.The FIU study (which defines Overtown slightly different than this study) used median family income rather
than household Income. Family Income only Includes those households were the members are related and excludes a
significant percentage of households. In the cane of Overtown there are 2791 households but only 1648 family
households. Typically family households have slightly higher incomes than non family households.
TABLE 2 Affordable Monthly Housing Costs Based On Medlin Household Income
Overtown
City of Miami
M laml-Dade County
Affordable Monthly Housing
Cost at Median Household
Income Level
$283
$587
$899
Median Household Income'
$11,329
$23,483
$35,986
Table 2 shows the monthly affordable housing costs based on median household Income for Overtown, the Clty of Miami
and Miami -Dada County. Table 2 shows a median monthly affordable housing cost of $283 (with a median household
income of $11,329). Table 1 also shows that the affordable housing cost for the City of Miami is about twice as high at
$587, and triple the amount of Overtown for Mlami-Dade County. The results In table 2 have far reacting consequences
for Overtown. Typically. price points for affordable housing are determined at the County of City level. In the case of
Overtown using either one of these price points will lead to the displacement of current residents. It is essential for
redevelopment In Overtown b realize that
Construction of affordable housing units based on the use of City or County Median incomes In
the determination of what constitutes affordable housing will lead to the displacement of the
current residents in Overtown.
e importance of this can not be overstated. Residents of Ovenown are not helped by the construction of affordable
housing units unless these units are at the lowest price pants. Table 3 shows the definitions from the State, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the City of Miami. The table cleary shows that the residents of
Overtown will only be helped with the construction of housing for very low and extremely low income groups'.
Submitted into the public
recor in connection with
item VZ ll on l2-6.01
es
i�r'I,cilla A. Thompsol
Feldman. Marcos lad loa Wolk-aarum 120051
irordah{e Naums Coat !or Families Retidine s Lnw-laeotee Nucor Dade Vetahho+tsooda
'agitate on Social sad Economic Policy. CLRatS. University Part. Miami. Fiords City Clerl
based on U.S. Cetus Bureau. SE-3. Household locum in 1999 tP52tt 2000
Importan to nose is Mu family mconn is used to determoe the definition of income gap. As meaei000d before family incomes toad to be New than
household iocoetea. According to the 2000 US Census. the mediae household income for Miami -Dade County was 535 966, the median family income was
significantly bights as S4O260. The mediae household income for the City of Miami was $7.3. 3. the nadiaa family income was $27.225.
Page 5
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS
April 14, 2008
TABLE 3 Comparison of Affordable Houakt4 Definitions
' of
Median
Inca ne
HUD
City of
Miami
2000 County
Household
Income Levee
2000 City
Household
Income Level
2000 Overtown
Household
Incm oe Level,
2005
C°Inife
2008
HUDt°
30 %
Extremely
Low
Extremely
Low
510.789
$7.044
$3.399
511.750
$11.350
50 %
Very Low
Low
S17.983
$11.742
55.685
$19.550
$18.950
$30.300
80 %
Low
Moderate
528.773
518.788
59.063
531.300
Table 4 shows the "monthly fair market rent' for Miami -Dads County. The table clearly shows that moat Overtown
households can not only not afford fair market rant but also would have to more than double their annual household
incams to be able to afford an efficiency.
TABLE 4 Fair Market Rent for Miami Dade Coun
Efficiency
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Monthly Fair Market Rent
$682
$775
_
5929
,
Annual Income Needed
, S27,280
$31,000
$37,160
IaaSlat FM, 2006
The Fill study found that after correction for inflation, the median monthly affordable housing cost for Overtowrt Is 3354.
For this study it is important to get an understandlg of the actual income dislribudan in Overtown. While the median
income gives a good indication of the general needs of a community it Just means that 50 percent of the population has a
higher income and 50 percent of the population has a lower income. Theoretically that means that means that at this
price point 50 percent of the current residents cannot afford to live in Overlown
Applying the HUD definition b the distribution of annual household incomes in Overlain, figure 5 shows the "acceptable'
monk* housing costs for residents in Overtowm. According to the HUD definition 1257 households or 46 percent of the
households lei Overbwn can afford Tess than 3250 a month for housing. These Wince are In sharp contrast with the fair
market rent for Mlaml-Dads County In Tabu 4. In fact, according to the Census date, only about 25 percent of the
households In Overtown can afford a "fair market rent" efficiency. In other words:
75 percent of the households In Overtown cannot afford any unit at fair market rent
Figure 6 shows the affordable monthly housing coat for current Overtown residents (based on the HUD definition of
affordability as meaning a monthly housing cost not exceeding 30 percent of household Income). From figure 8 It
becomes clear that In order to provide for the housing needs of current residents in Overtown any redevelopment strategy
needs to Include 1257 units with a monthly housing cost of tees than $250, 437 units with a monthly housing cost between
$251 and 3375, 456 units with a monthly housing cost between 3378 and 3625, 282 units with a monthly cost between
$626 and 3875, 149 units with a monthly housing cost between $878 and 31250 and finally 111 units with a monthly
housing coat between 31251 and $1875.
FIGURE 8 "Affordable" Monthly Housing Cost In Overtown
a
O
=
Affordable Monthly Housing Cost In Overtown
200
r
e //
'.a 4
"'1
.;
}
y `E
bit
{.
:
200
iwaSue S260 1261•1371 s376-612e SUFISM 167641260 11261•s1ors
Payment Range In Dollars
Comparison of the data in figure 6 with the definitions of affordable housing in table 3 and using Miami -Dade County's
median income level leads to the following conclusion:
The redevelopment strategy needs to ensure the availability of roughly 260 units extremely low
income housing unite and 2412 units that are well below extremely low income housing b��
Submitted! Into the pu
o t with
item
r .,1► 2000 laic reflects t s Census 2000 household
recur'tt neeoar d.� pIla A. Thompson
This .feu reflects the family income kve4 far a famly of ane used by the County for Section 3 and Section 8 homeownership and
rchabditan ^ (, ,rt
0 This dam Wiens the fiscal year 2006 HUD income level, published by the US Department of HUD. Office of Policy. Developmem and Restateh Ci V t711
Page 8
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS April 14, 2008
Using the City of Miami's median incase level, the strategy has to ensure the availability of roughly 522 extremely low
income housing units and 2150 units that are well below extremely low Inane housing. These results clearty show the
severity of the situation for current Overbwn residents and illustrate that:
The provision of some "affordable" housing units as part of a larger development proposal win
not only not help current residents but In fact win moat likely lead to Indirect displacement of
existing residents because of Increased housing expenses caused by Increases In property
values, property taxes and rents.
Since 89 percent of residents ars renters, increases In properly values will be direct, translated into Increases In property
taxes for the owner of the unit, who in turn will have to pass this cost on to the renter" .
While 86 percent of residents are renters, figure 7 shows that Ovatown Is by no means a transient community. In fact
according to tie 2000 Census. 48 percent of the renters had lived In the same unit for 6 years or more, while 31 percent
has lived In the same unit for over ten years. While 52 percent of people had moved In their units within the past fire
years, the majority of thee* residents have most likely moved form one unit b another within n Overbwrt.
FIGURE 7 Tenure of Renters in Overtown
I j
3
Year Householder Moved Into Rental Unit In Overtown
30%
25%
s
,ram
c . t i 2. t
1
j
d.aat,��
4
r'�'a ,'
`
!R 4;
�,,' egf:r ,g"'"ey
15%
lox
-
5%El
ox
I
}' ,
19110 to Noah 1996 to 1900 1900 t0 1904 19e0 to 19e9 1070 to 1979 1960 or latter
2000
Range of Years
Sarno UA. Carew Sweat 9F-31'NUS by Veil Householder Mame Into Unit (i741).2000
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
The net series of figures give additional information about the residents of Overtown In comparison to the City of Miami
and Miami -Dads County. The Information is intended to give a better Idea about the needs in Overtown and specific
challenges and opportunities that might arise because of the characteristics of the population. The information le also
represented in a series of maps In the appendix d this report
The firer sad of graphs, figures 8 to 10 gives an indication of poverty status. Table 1 already showed that 58 percent of
residents. or 4330 residents, Iva below poverty level. In comparison 28 percent of the City of Miami's population lives
below poverty level, and 18 percent of the population of Miami -Dade County. The series of figures clearly show that
poverty rates in Overtown are much higher In all age ranges but that the differences are most striking in the below 18 age
category. Figure 8 shows that 87 percent of the residents under 18 in Overtown live below poverty level, for the City of
Miami this number is 39 percent and for the County it Is 23 percent
Figures 11 to 13 show the age distribution for Overtowrn, the City and the County. The figures show that 'he distribution of
age is very similar for the City d Miami and Miami -Dade County. The population of Overtown is slightly different in that it
s has a higher percentage of young residents. Figure 11 shows that almost 40 percent of the population in Overtown a
..Inds(20 and 58 percent of the population is younger than 35.
Fgures 14 to 16 give the educational attainment for Overtown, the City of Miami and Miami-0ade County. Figure 14
'ndkales that more than half of Ovedown's population over 25 did not receive a high school diploma. Further, only 4
percent of Overtown residents over 25 have obtained an education beyond high school.
Finally. figures 17 to 19 provide information about the way residents get to work. Again there are significant differences
between Overtown and the rest of the City of Miami and Mlaml-Dade County. 30 Percent d Overtown's workers use
public transit to gat to work. while another 13 percent bliss to work: ;n comparison, 81 percent of the wotkere in the City
of Miami and 88 percent of the workers in the County use a car to get to work.
Florida's ..Save our Homo' proper pewees homeovoen again: increases is prapaty values by limicise increases in property ma due to atcteases a
precuN' .air to a amW percesesp each year. However. den protection is ally is place for bomcoweas who use the uric as their primry retideece and have
filed for a homesteade:emgiaa Lair In are reeled out are cot protected asd tbeefou:. while increases o property values are beneficial far bomaowness and
ircnafe their equity, are almost isuasdy reflected m increases is rent
Page 7
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS
Apr$ 14, 2006
FIGURE 8 Percentage of Population Living Blow Poverty LwM h Overtown
Powity Straus by Agog OvertoMn
L
1CU% e
90` } f y
Emit 1 1 .' 17
30%
20%
10%
0%
4
.:• ,y
t
i.. VP
�i'►4
-S .`
Mill L NM 2
MI/ nil MU IS
`") #! NI
Lhdar /a
181054 861074
Age Flange In `Aare
75 and agar
FIGURE 9 Percentage of Population Living Below Poverty Level In City of Wahl
1
Poverty statue biker Ctly d lAkard
une
'
,.g
7� .r- R }• ,:
_ ►�
r 7 =
sr �._ ;
.:
q z
iv. R
• - -
-
.
40%
r
-1--.. .
, -
2 4 .
,
y;, .. M1
309E
r t
�
1094
Bider 18
Mole 55b74
Ago Rego h Yaws
75wdower
FIGURE 10 Percentage of Population Living Below Poverty Level In Miami -Dade County
Posey stale. by Aga Miri•Didr County
icow
40%
33%
20%
10%
0%
under18 18b04 631074
Aga Ringo In Yews
Submitted Into the publidr
record in connection with
item- l onl2-I'3-01
Page 8
73 ww over
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS
April 14, 200S
Id
3
I1•
-
FIGURE 11 Aga of Population In Ovsrtown
Age of Total Population: Overtown
�w
40%MillarMIEMMINIttll
2
:
III
I
:
.514
I
y014 a 1�1 .- I
II
If Si
Slilliffittnitill
Ox
so:
II Al i
II Xi ill
u t1 El
2�
air - minima
1 i
3
3
2
undw 19 20 to 34 36 to 54 Sd 14364 94 to M SG and Orr
Ago Range in Years
Sang U.S. Craa Strew. SM. Sea 4 Age (r+a). 2000
FIGURE 12 Aga of Population In City of Ularnl
45%
e 40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
ax
0%
Age of Total Population: City of Miami
n ` ,
i 1 1
i 7
1NI MI nil =
Undw 19 20 to 34 36 to 34 Sato M 64 to M 65 and ONr
Age Range In Years
Souee U.& Crew trurv. apt. Sea 4 AP (•+a. 2006
FIGURE 13 Age of Population In Mlarni-0ado County
Aga of Total Population: Malml-Dads County
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
lax
5%
3%
2
-�fa�llk
Uncle 16 20 to 34 35 to 54 56 to M ea to M 66 and Ow
Aga Range In Years
Sayer u.s. Caws &am SF -I. Sr by Aa (012). 2000
Page 9
Submitted Into the public
recordin connection with
item V2 11 on IZ-13- 07
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS
Aped 14, 2006
FIGURE 14 Leval of Education for Owrtown
Level of Education for Ovsrtown
Residents 25 years and over
4%
eNo High School Diploma
■ High School Graduate
■ Collow or mom
Sauesc u.s. Came !lures, S► 3. Sae W Sessional AaarinsI W MO Pt:4VM r 27 Yawl and OM (P071. 2000
FIGURE 15 Lavol of Education for Clty of Miami
Level of Education for Clty of Miami
Residents 25 years and over
47%
20% mNo 81yh School Diploma
MHO School Graduate
• •College or mom
Soursi u.8. Came auto. Sri. Sea hr Educalional Adrdnard far dra PapUW w 2$ Years and Qr (P37). 2000
FIGURE 18 Laval of Education for MIaml-Dade County
Level of Education for Mlaml-Dade County
Residents 25 years and over
4S%
32%
ONo High School Diploma
■ High School Graduate
■ Coltags ormow
Sousa: u S. Ceres Ovaau. SI-], Si e, Eomronal Miming !erne Papuaron 2,1 Yam and a,. , P37), 2000
Si ib YeIted Into
Lard in Connecto : 'ct
horn?Z- 11 or►1Z213 01
Prised 8 A. Thompson
cleric
Page 10
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS
April 14, 2006
FIGURE 17 Mode of Transportation for Owtown Ruldnnts
Mors d Trsrisportalfon liar VlkOfars fran O #stows
13%
3 a. trtdr. ar eapodd
• ____________n
■ soydsWdk
FIGURE 18 Mods of Transportation for City of Miami Residents
FIGURE 19 Mode of Transportation for Mimi -Dads County Residents
Marrs d Transportation tor Wtutars from Men'li-Dada
thf
491.
dr, tnak — v orpmd d
■ P bic tnro ortatkn
■ t3orcirWdt
• Oro, mows
Submitted into e ublic
with
record in connection
item a D on Z �1
Priscilla A. Thompson lerk
Page 11
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS April 14, 2006
pisCUSsiON OF FlNOINGS_AND CONSEOUENCES FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN OVERTOWt4
The data presented in tints report paints a bleak picture of Overly*" It is clear that residents of Overtown Ive at the outer
margins of economic existence. While Overtown is desperate for investment and physical improvements, the ultimate
challenge Is not about planning roads and buildings but about creatlrg opportunities fa Overbwn's residents. In fact, this
report has made the argument that most redevelopment strategies are likely to displace most of Overtown's current
residents if for no other reason than Increases in monthly Ivir g expenses. Since so many residents are renters, any
inaeasas in properly values will directly be translated in increases in rent which residents are unlikely to be able b afford.
The only way to recreate a viable community is to have a Tong term plan that in the first phase focuses solely on improving
educational, economic and political opportunities for current residents. Traditional redevelopment should be prevented
until current residents have had opportunitl s to improve their basic standard of living,
What /s needed Is a community development strategy that focuses on human capital building not
on the Import of capital through outside invsatmsnt and new residents.
Placentae' redevelopment based on construction of new residential and commercial buildings on terse lands most
desirable for economic interests wit lead to displacement Only a comprehensive community development strategy that
focuses flat and foremost on improving the living situation and econanic opportunities for current residents might be able
to prevent or at least minimize displacement. Such a strategy would Include the establishment of community bawd social
programs. Its initial land use strategy would most likely focus on improvements and revitalizaton of existing buildings
raver than the construction of new development
The challenge for Overtown is to turn liabilities Into opportunities while controlling the outside
pressure for large scaler condominium Mar redevelopment.
While to community development literature offers insights Into tools that could turn liabilities into opportunities, none of
these tools address how to control outside pressure for large scale redevelopment Based on our research, we strongly
believe that control of this outside pressure 1s the most important issue facing the residents d Overtown.
Submitted Into the public
recordin connection with
item Z 1 on 07
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Page 12
OVERTOWN, INVENTORY OF BASIC NEEDS
April 14, 2008
LIST OF MAPS
Locator Maps
Overtown Locator Map
Overtown Aerial
Overtown Aerial with overlay of Census Blocks
Density Maps
Overtown (excluding major roads)
Overtown
City of Miami
Economics
Median Household Income: Overtown
Median Household Income: City of Miami
Poverty Status: Overtown
Poverty Status: City of Miami
Affordable Housing: Ova/town
Housing
Housing Composition: Overtown
Housing Composition: City of Miami
Owner Occupied Housing: Ovefown
OWner Occupied Housing: City of Mlaml
Renter Occupied Housing Overbwn
Renter Occupied Housing: City of Miami
Vacant Housing: Overtown
Vacant Housing: City of Miami
Year Resident Moved In: Overbwn
Average Household Size: Overbwn
Average Household Size: City of Miami
Transportation
Means of Transportation: Overtown
Vehicle Availability: Overbwn
Commute Time:Overtown
Commute Time: Miami
Demographics
Racial Composition: Overtown
Racial Composition: City of Miami
Hispanic Population: Overbwn
Hispanic Population: City of Mlaml
Education Levels: Overtown
Male to Female Population: Overtown
Male to Female Population: City of Miami
Disability Status: Overtown
Disability Status: City of Miami
Age Composition: Overtown
Age Composition: City of Miami
Median Age: Overtown
Median Age: City of Mlaml
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
-�
item Z o
Priscilla A. Thompson
yClerk
Page 13
Affordable Housing Cost for Families Residing in
Low -Income Miami -Dade Neighborhoods
Marcos Feldman
(mfeld001 (1.flu.edu)
and
Jen Wolfe-Borum
(iwolf003(flu.edu)
August, 2005
Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy (RISEP)
CLR&S
Florida International University
University Park
Miami, FL 33199
www.risen-flu.org
305-348-2616
ATTACHMENT C
Submitted Into the public
recor91 in connection with
item i'Z fl on IZ- I - 07
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
INTRODUCTION
In recent years Miami has ranked among the most impoverished communities in the
Untied States. In 2003 The City of Miami ranked 5th in persons living below poverty, an
improvement from 1" place in the three previous years (ACS Ranking Tables, 2000-03).
At the same time, Miami -Dade County has experienced a housing boom characterized by
high rates of condominium conversion and an increasing shortage of affordable rental
units. As local media continues to document the gentrification process by which renters
are forced to make way for new high-rise condominium projects, concerned citizens
wonder if the many low-income families in one of the nation's poorest metropolitan areas
will be able to find affordable housing.
In light of these circumstances, this report seeks to answer the following question: How
much can low-income families in selected Miami -Dade neighborhoods afford to pay in
monthly housing costs? The following analysis provides affordable housing costs for
families within the City of Miami and selected low-income neighborhoods. We used data
on the number of families and their median incomes from the 2000 Census to determine
how much families can afford to pay in monthly rent or mortgage and utilities. Further,
we used 80 percent of the median family income to determine how much low-income
families can afford to pay in monthly rent or mortgage and utilities.
In addition to the City of Miami, we selected six neighborhoods for analysis: Allapattah,
East Little Havana, Liberty City, Little Haiti, Overtown, and Wynwood. Table 1 provides
an estimate of the number of families residing in each of these neighborhoods. We chose
these neighborhoods because they are home to some of Miami-Dade's poorest families
and therefore are more vulnerable to the process of gentrification that is transforming
many of Miami's low-income communities. Moreover, the central location of these
neighborhoods makes them particularly attractive to developers, planners and public
officials interested in "revitalizing" the urban core. As the wave of new housing
development sweeps through these neighborhoods in the coming years, it is critical to
understand how much these families can afford to pay for housing.
Table 1
Number of Families in the City of Miami and Selected Neighborhoods, 2000
Area
Number of Families
City of Miami
84,174
Allapattah
8,224
East Little Havana
4,612
Liberty City
12,118
Little Haiti
6,181
Overtown
1,313
Wynwood
2,069
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3
1
Submitted Into the public
record in connection
item PZ 1.1 on 12 - I - 01
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
METHODS
We chose to use family data as opposed to household data for this study because we are
interested in what a family can afford without the help of other household members. Our
focus on "neighborhoods" requires that we use data at the block group level. The most
recent source that provides family income data for geographic units small enough for our
purposes is the 2000 Census. The selected neighborhoods in this analysis are not defined
as geographic units by the U.S. Census Bureau,' therefore we used data for Census
defined block groups to determine the number of families and the median family income
for each neighborhood. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology was used to
layer neighborhood boundaries over Census defined block groups. For each
neighborhood we selected the block groups whose centers were located within the
boundaries of the neighborhood.
The boundary for the City of Miami was adopted from Miami -Dade Information
Technology Department's municipal boundary file.2 The neighborhood boundaries used
to select block groups were adopted from the Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser's
"major neighborhoods" boundary file.3 East Little Havana was not available in the
Property Appraiser's data so it was necessary to create a new layer in GIS by adapting the
neighborhood boundaries used by the Empowerment Zone Trust, Inc. and the Miami -
Dade Police Department'sto the nearest appropriate Census defined block group
boundaries to facilitate data analysis. To create the Liberty City boundary, the Property
Appraiser's `Brownsville/Model City" and "Liberty City" neighborhoods were combined
in accordance with the views of community organizers working in that area. Finally, the
Property Appraiser's geographic definition of Overtown was extended eastward to NW
1' Avenue in accordance with boundaries used by the Empowerment Zone and the
Miami -Dade Police Department.
The 2000 Census reports the number of families and the median family income by block
group. We weighted the median family incomes by the population of families for each
block group to determine a weighted median family income for the selected
neighborhoods. We then calculated a figure which defines low income families by taking
80 percent of the weighted median family income.3 A low income family would be
making less than or equal to this 80 percent figure. All figures were adjusted to reflect
inflation by using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) factor for April 1999 to April 2005.
The Census defines Miami City as a "place" and while family income data is available for 2000 and 2003
we did not use this data and applied the same methods to the city as we did for the selected neighborhoods
in order to maintain consistency. The block groups included in the Census defined boundary for Miami are
identical to the ones used in this analysis and our weighted median family income diverged from the same
Census statistic by less than S100.
2 For more information see the metadata at http:i 12islab. fiu. edwmetadata dadee 'n20itdpmunic.htrn.
3 For more information see the metadata at hup:. aislab.fiu.edwmetadatadade%20itdpallneig.htrn.
For Empowerment Zone Trust neighborhood boundaries see http:/,www.ezonetrust.orei and for the
Pol ice Department's neighborhood boundaries see hnp:/, wwtv.miami-police.org,net/neighborhoods.asp?
s Eighty percent of the median is an established standard used for indicating low income (U.S. Department
of HUD, 2005).
2
Submitted Into the public
recor .in connection with
item yZ Il on 1 07
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Housing cost refers to monthly rent or monthly mortgage payments including utilities. In
order to estimate the affordable housing cost we calculated 30 percent of the median
family income divided by 12 months. Families that spend more than 30 percent of their
income are considered to be "cost burdened" since they may not be able to afford basic
necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care.6 Thus we assert that
the housing cost for a family should be no more than 30 percent of its income.
One of the main data limitations in this study is that data on the size of the families we
examined is not provided. Provided such data we would be able to more precisely define
an affordable rent for a given family. For example, a family of four including two
children may have the same income as a family of two adults, thus the family of four
would need to be able to afford at least the housing costs of a two bedroom unit while the
family of two would need to be able to afford at least a zero or one bedroom unit.
Another limitation is the lack of a Census defined geographic variable for the
neighborhoods used in this study. We relied on block group data which represents the
neighborhoods quite well but not precisely.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS
Affordable cost for families at the median income level. How much can a family making
the median family income afford to pay for monthly rent or mortgage (and utilities) in
some ofMiami-Dade's poorest communities?
Table 2 provides the weighted median family income and affordable monthly rent or
mortgage cost (phis utilities) for the city and each of the selected neighborhoods. With
the exception of the western section of Liberty City, the City of Miami contains all of the
selected neighborhoods in this analysis in addition to other neighborhoods not considered
here (see map 1 in appendix). The weighted median family income for the City of Miami
is $32,453, and ranges from $14,161 to $27,227 for the selected neighborhoods. If
families throughout the City of Miami and the selected neighborhoods were to spend no
more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, the corresponding affordable rent
or monthly mortgage costs (including utilities) are $811 for the city and range from $354
to $681 for the selected neighborhoods.
These figures imply that families making less than or equal to the weighted median
family income, or the "bottom" half of families in the City of Miami and each of the
selected neighborhoods, cannot afford more than the corresponding affordable monthly
housing costs. For example, the 50 percent of families that earn less than or equal to the
City of Miami's weighted median family income of $32,453 cannot afford monthly
housing costs (rent or mortgage, plus utilities) of more than $811. In Allapattab, which
6 See the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (2005) discussion of affordable housing at
ittp: wwwltudgoy, offices,cod, affordablehousing indexcfm.
All of the findings presented in the following discussion are also displayed geographically in maps 2
through 12 in the appendix.
3
Submitted Into the public
record � con io�Zn� 13��7
item
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
has the highest median family income of the selected neighborhoods at $27,227, the
"bottom" 50 percent of families can afford a maximum of $681 in monthly housing costs.
In Overtown, where the median family income is the lowest of the selected
neighborhoods at $14,161, the `bottom" half of families can afford monthly housing
costs no greater than $354.
Table 2
Housing Affordability for Families* in the City of Miami and Selected
Neighborhoods, 2000 (in 2005 doilars**)
Area
Weighted
Median Family
Income***
Affordable****
Rent/Monthly
Mortgage Payment at
the Family Median
Income
City of Miami
$32,453
$811
Allapattah
$27,227
$681
East Little Havana
$20,521
$513
Liberty City
$23,896
$597
Little Haiti
_
$25,496
$637
Overtown
$14,161
$354
Wynwood
$20,660
$517
Source: Authors' analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3 data
*Data is collected on a household basis. A family includes a householder and one or more other
people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, ar
adoption.
** Dollar amounts reflect inflation from April 1999 to April 2005.
***Weighted family median income was derived by using the 1999 family median income for all
block groups for which the center lies within the neighborhood boundary. To calculate a
neighborhood median, the medians for the respective block groups were weighted based on
number of families and the standard method of calculating a median was then applied.
****A unit is considered affordable if it costs no more than 30% of the family's income.
How do the affordable housing costs compare to the prevailing costs of housing? One
approach to this question is to examine what are considered to be "fair rents" for Miami -
Dade County. Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are calculated annually by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for metropolitan and non -metropolitan areas
and are used to determine whether units are eligible for federal housing assistance
programs. The FMR amounts include the cost of rent and utilities and are dependent upon
the distribution of current rental prices for a given metropolitan area (set at the 50th
percentile for Miami -Dade County), the location of the dwelling and the number of
bedrooms.
4
Submitted Into the public
record�i in connection with
item 1'ZL_.on
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Can a family in the City of Miami or the selected neighborhoods afford a unit at Fair
Market Rental rates for the county? Table 3 provides the monthly FMRs and the income
needed to afford the FMR based on the standard that no more than 30 percent of income
should be spent on housing costs. According to our analysis, at least 50 percent of the
families in each of the selected neighborhoods (equivalent to at least 17,259 families) are
not able to afford the Fair Market Rent for a zero bedroom or efficiency unit. In the City
of Miami, at least 50 percent of the families (equivalent to at least 42,087 families) are
not able to afford the Fair Market Rent for a two bedroom unit.8
Table 3
Fair Market Rents for Miami -Dade County by Number of Bedrooms, and Income
Needed to Afford
Fair Market
Rents*, 2005
Zero
Bedrooms
One
Bedroom
Two
Bedrooms
Three
Bedrooms
Four
Bedrooms
Monthly Fair Market Rent
(FMR)
,
$682
$775
$929
$1204
$1419
Annual Income needed to
rent at FMR
$27,280
$31,000
$37,160
$48,160
$56,760
Source: HUD 2005 Fair Market Rents
*A unit is considered affordable if it costs no more than 30% of the renter's income.
Affordable cost for families at 80% of the median income level. Median family incomes
are substantially lower in the City of Miami and the neighborhoods selected for this study
than throughout Miami -Dade County overal .9 We would now like to draw attention to
low-income families within these low-income communities. Low-income families are
defined as those whose income is less than or equal to 80 percent of the weighted median
family income.
How much can a low-income family afford to pay for housing in a low-income
neighborhood within Miami -Dade? Table 4 provides the 80 percent of weighted median
family income figures and affordable monthly rent/mortgage cost for the city and each of
the selected neighborhoods. Eighty percent of the weighted median income (low income)
in the City of Miami is $25,962 and ranges from $11,329 to $21,782 for the selected
neighborhoods. If families were to pay no more than 30 percent of their income on
housing costs, the maximum affordable monthly cost of rent or mortgage (including
utilities) for the City of Miami is $650 and ranges from $283 to $545 for the selected
neighborhoods.
s The estimation of number of families is based on the population in 2000.
9 The median family income for Miami -Dade County, adjusted to reflect inflation from April 1999 to April
2005, is s48,103 (US Census 2000). Submitted Into the public
recor in connection with_
5 Ii
item YZ on I 1
Priscilla A. Thompson
- City Clerk
Table 4
Housing Affordability for Low -Income Families* in the City of Miami and Selected
Neighborhoods, 2000 (in 2005 dollars**)
Area
80% of Weighted
Family Median
Income (Low
Income)
Affordable***
Rent/Monthly
Mortgage Payment at
80% of Family
Median Income
City of Miami
$25,962
$650
Allapattah
$21,782
$545
East Little Havana
$16,417
$410
Liberty City
$19,117
$478
Little Haiti
$20,397
$510
Overtown
$11,329
$283
Wynwood
$16,528
$413
Source: Authors' analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3 data
*Data is collected on a household basis. A family includes a householder and one or mare other
people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or
adoption.
** Dollar amounts reflect inflation from April 1999 to April 2005.
***A unit is considered affordable if it costs no more than 30% of the family's income.
Consider the implications of these findings for low-income families within the selected
neighborhoods. In Allapattah, the highest monthly housing cost a low-income family can
afford is $545 if their income is at $21,782 (80% of the median). This means low-income
families residing in Allapattah can afford at most $545 in monthly rent or mortgage and
utility costs. In Overtown, the highest monthly housing cost a low-income family can
afford is $283 if their income is at $11,329 (80% of the median). This means that low-
income families residing in Overtown can afford at most $283 in monthly rent or
mortgage and utility costs. Whereas families making the median income in the City of
Miami can afford up to a one bedroom dwelling, low-income families throughout the city
cannot afford the FMR for a zero bedroom or efficiency unit.
6
Submitted Into the public
record in connection withon ?
item. 1--- Thompson
Priscilla A. City Clerk
CONCLUSION
This analysis illustrates that half of the families (those making no more than 50 percent of
the median family income) residing in the selected low-income neighborhoods within
Miami -Dade County can afford no more than $354 to $681 in monthly rent or mortgage,
plus utilities, depending on the neighborhood. Throughout the City of Miami the
"bottom" half of families can afford no more than $811 in monthly housing costs.
Furthermore, low-income families in the selected neighborhoods, meaning those earning
less than or equal to 80 percent of the neighborhood median family income, can afford n�
more than $283 to $545 in monthly rent or mortgage, plus utilities, depending on the
neighborhood. Throughout the City of Miami "low-income" families can afford no more
than $650 in monthly rent or mortgage, plus utilities.
The findings of this research have serious implications for many families in Miami -Dade
County and especially those residing in central city locations. Although more than 42,000
families in the City of Miami cannot afford more than a one bedroom dwelling, the
average family in the city in 2003 had at least 3 members (ACS, 2003), suggesting the
need for at least two bedrooms. The implications are worse for families in the city's
poorest communities, where a majority cannot afford a zero bedroom housing unit but
also tend to have families consisting of at least 3 members. Without adequate affordable
housing, the current wave of residential and commercial development will likely force
the majority of these families out of their homes and neighborhoods.
7
Submitted Into the public
recor4 in connection with
item on IZ- - 0 %
Prisalla A. Thompson
REFERENCES
United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Ranking Tables, 2000-
2003. [http://www.census.gov/acs/wwwiProductsiRanking/index.htm]
United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Miami City Profile, 2003.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Policy,
Development, & Research. FY 2005 HUD Income Limits Briefing MateriaL
[http://www.huduser. org/datasets/il/i 105BRIEFING-MATERIALs.pdf]
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2005 Fair Market
Rents. [http://www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr.html]
8
Submitted Into the public
recordin connection with
item -I on
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
APPENDIX
Map 1. City of Miami and Selected Neighborhoods.
LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES OF METRO MIAMI
MC4r r %.ug` %raWA Airil,. ti {fir'
��// //�aJ I aiI .�y.ih�
�%�GL G�R/1/yrQ�i / �iGdl lulireior ���%/./GOSal._ J 'hr. `�
;i;;i
Uligli
/ UTY O1 MIAMI %// / / 44.7240
mai
Adeigill
Cww Bos.
ck Group
f;
tat bra. Homo
Ubsny City
E3UdeHAW
*moot
/ Cdld d lilted
all 1.8 1 2.7
9
Submitted Into the public
recorsi in connection with
item Z !� on 17 I - O1
__..---
Priscilla A. City ��
Map 2. Median Family Income for the City of Miami and Selected Neighborhoods.
MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME.
Wawa
larornotional
Al rporl
Little Havana
a24521
mmIeaend monim-m•Loy11
ou 1121,121.(1404iP
imarionfaro,.1..zr
• ipslod to roloct Aliso from Aors 19Q GAmi 2035
10
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item KZ 11 on 12-13-07
Priscilla A. Thompson
- -_ City Clerk
Map 3. Affordable Housing Cost for Families in the City of Miami and Selected
Neighborhoods.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST FOR FAMILIES`
r—
Miami
International
Airport
wow
omme.
_a -nil
Census 81ocit Groups.
mbpano
Eji East Lida Havana
r" IIIII.ubarty City
Ij Little Held
Ovartowr
nwoott
W�- CUy of Mist*
r
•IE#-f-2
4'a��'"
111117wirie
1111 Arl
/ „Iv��i"'
• Based on the median tamity Income, adjusted to reRad inflation tromAprft 1999Io April 2005
11
Submitted Into the public
record,in connection with
item VZ I�1 on IL- I3 - of
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Map 4. 80 Percent of the Median Family Income for the City of Miami and Selected
Neighborhoods.
SO PERCENT OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME*
War NifFettlidwimpywArezozdy;:-.A.1_.:._......,
Leaend yintreff"
rma4, -e•re,
111111111111riaw.oz92y4w,,/,,,
1111111111KA
emr
A 4tated to rtilact Sicn am Apni 1999 to Apnl 2009
12
Submitted Into the public
record in connection Aith
item 1 Ofl 2L1.1.:_127
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Map S. Affordable Housing Cost for Low Income Families in the City of Maffei and
Selected Neighborhoods.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST
FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES'
INC
rA Wrr# .;7 4
4 4 A
r.,.Lepend
........sm.,irmlix"Nwz4.w.4wynwt.._-.. 2a r
rjappgamakezalz§-,%,00
MIMED e' FdraarIV t
Cs "'Are'
riallimPla2L"-4---": - x
..4r4WZAIWZ' Aefr -,./
..,
"11111111111W4704r
EllireSOVP
fiq
..
---1 Ai; 41,17-
If
. 3:
It s.'g
411.1 A
Almaimia,:,..i,: ;..
W&A ,.—rrolOw OW,* ii..;i t
• Sand on 31314 Otte moan fun* owns acitatecl to reflect ,rration fromApni 1990 to Apia 3305
13
Submitted Into the public
re.;orpi in connection
itrri I/L-11_0n 1_07
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Map 6. Affordable Housing Cost for Families in the City of MiamL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST FOR FAMILIES
'vs
4111111111111111P11 mon MEMa mum: 34.•1''''' 1111111111 1101
11.1.iria tzif.4
islisAmmirjoggaimak r.r 24 Z.1 h 4.C.:1 t
„
iact ICA 1 .4-44242 _4.4)
lc men tirl'416`.1
II I,
111111111111111.111kiiiitz 12 III 111111.1110MMINNIm _111111111141w.1i1t —eZIldA.ii,. , '
iA 1Ki 4
•'
Cohouu Block Groups
• 121 CA, Of Law •
1.3.04 exams defined as ,ess than or equal to 90% a( ths median fan* mane for the nsgrasonsad Incomes are Auto, to ruflect slalom from AO 1990 to pri 2005
14
Submitted Into the public
record inconnection with
item Uji_on.7.--
22
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Map 7. Affordable Housing Cost for Families in Allapattah.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST FOR FAMILIES
n carious Meek Groups
MI AIbpa ah:
Data from US Census 2000
Analyse and Maps by RIS
tow income b Mood as less than of equal to 30% of this n don tansy ncoma for Me neighborhood tnmmes are ad otsd to rend Mahon from Apre 1990 to Aprl 2005
Submitted Into the public
recorcl, in connection ith
item VZ 11 on JZ- i - Oi
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
15
Map 8. Affordable Housing Cost for Families in East Little Havana.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST FOR FAMILIES
i 01 112 3 SW 11 to 5t"�J. Data m US Census 2000
fir- s AnaWU and M aos by R I g
law ncoms s dolma W as hiss Iran or aqua to 80% of the median famry income for the n.gitorhood incomes an adkusasd to rstlsd n0a0an f►an Apr01990 to A pr12005
16
Submitted Into the public
recor4 in connection with
item KZ 17 on 1Z- l 3 n
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk.
Map 9. Affordable Housing Cost for Families in Liberty City.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST FOR FAMILIES
MIN17ndCt
Data frorn US Census 2000
0 02S Q11 I1TS .� maivsis and M aps by RISEP
tow nCOnle a tithed as ISSethan or equal t0 80% of the nrtltan fan* ncorrr for the naiQftortlood Incomes are adjusted to rafted nsatlan Iran Apra 1999 to Apr12006
17
Submitted into the pt
record o ,� _ p �-_ i
n with
item �-- 1L�-'—so=n
Priscilla A. Thompson
ty Clerk
Map 10. Affordable Housing Cost for Families in Little HaitL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST FOR FAMILIES
tl u25 55 0:75 • ' `J.. ,.« ,t 1.r bit.ko.Ia CRnP s 2
NNrsitt indMaos RIS
tow mon* s dsansd as ,ass than or equal to 20% of the mecum ►am r cams for the nagtbornood Lammas are adauledto reflect Mahon fronAprl 1999 to Aiwa 2005
18
Submitted Into the public
recor in connection
item Kwith
Z 17 on I2- l 0-)
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Map 11. Affordable Housing Cost for Families in Overtown.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST FOR FAMILIES
0 01 12 as s 6 1 ; : •an from us canals 2000
MMII=MINIMSAloo analv#s and Macs by RI
tow income s OeMes ass.sss man or slum to 80% of fir median tam* income forme neprdornood incomes are adiur:sd to reflect neaaae frOm AO 139i to Apr12G
19
Submitted Into he
pubic
recor in connection - 0 7
�2 iith
on LZ-_--
item Pris —A. Thompson
City Clerk
Hap 1l. Affordable Housing Cost for Families in Wynwood.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST FOR FAMILIES
Low ncorrr a *Ana! as Ills man or equal to 30% of the median tun* ncome for ms neighborhood Incomes are Whaled to reflect nllatlon fromAprl 1999 to April 2009
Submitted Into the public
recor,d in connection wit
item K2 17 on I Z-
20 Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
a1tl ,, Sin Far
44th
4
m�. .
3rd
y
42nd
n�1d��i�r ha
®, Y.9elrla
1001 Pe�rrh, aOrA4P��'
23rd
17th
of iwar�ml�xvmewnr�viiri .iiia�riu�l00,0ro000o
23ud
22E'vd
M
f Fnd
22nd
21 st.
23th
0 0.2 0.4 Mules 1eth
Block groups colored white have too
few data poitns tor mapping
SDI
iMnIPGW 010
b0
moo
item
42 d
110 9Mrw
23rd
rct;
m r.
ed into
con n
0
RAW
k Groups, '2
4.2rud
�.wm11111101111
AVIV
OULEON. (R..,,,,,,,,,,;,,„<,,;,;,..
214
101 18fih
NI 00
17th
1 Qth ,
A .1
17th
17th
it
22 d
29th
Data Source: Miami -Dade Property Appraiser
w Maps by RISEP-FIU
di
11111111111111111111'
Price
e
1-277.00€yo - o%
o.ol% - 55%
55.01% - 105 50%,
105.51% - 126.10%
126.11% - 154.30%
154,31% - 198.00%
198.01°/0 - 287.30%
287.31% - 455.20%
455.21% - 937.70%
d
000,0,10011
lloolloll00000000001110010001„
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
0000.
110000000000000000001
000,0111110000100001010101010000
0111111111111111111111111
loll looloonol000m0000loollo 1001
0110
'0,0a
1 7th
J-fis 117th
ck Gr
ps, 2
1101101000 Hoop,
Ii0101100101000111
o0000000000o0000000lllso00000000000000001i'0''110Iriml000001110'011!
11011l11
11111111111111111111111111111111 11?1 11111111111111111111111111111
' 4
15th
111 "-
51H
= '
1311 1 ,
. ,1111, , . ,
04,0 _,,_,70_,
, t-71'005 firo 0,,
eighborhood Boundary
,
0 0.2 0.4 as milesoe
, 1 eili4AI 1,
I 1 1 1 1
Block groups colored white have too , Data SourcaWiami-badei3roperty Apraiser
few data poltns tor mapping SUbMitted Into thz, putt) ic Maps by RISEP-FIU
record in co 1 • ction with
4
Ale' 1 :--,11....-0 „1°2-- 1 '' ''
a The)
0
1011111111111111111
lop 10110111111111111111111111110101011111111111111111011
„
1 111111111'1'11111111111111111111111111111111111111I
11111 111111101111,
10101
0moom00000000111,11111111111,111,1,111111111111111111111111111
1111111 1
11111111
„„„„ „.„„„ 111111111111111111111111 11
all J11111111111 „II 1,11,111,111,111,111 11111111111111 1,m1,1vAr,,H,
"illi000000000000000000'100 00000 10000000 00m00000011
11111111111"-IY1'1'1'1'111111
1111111111111111111111,1,1,1,1,1, 1 111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111
11111111111111
11 111 1111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111 11111111111 1
1111111111111111
,,,,,,,,,,,,11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111VVVVVV111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
000001 0100000001111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110„
111010110001010110100000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111
,,,,,,,,I1,1,1„1„11!,!,!,!,!,1,1,1,1,1,00000000000000000000101101'01'01'illlillill1111'100101011l0110l
2„1„1„1„1„1„1„1„1„loononnooll;„1„:„:„1„1„1„1„1„1„1„jjjjjjjjj„„„IIIIIIIII„„„1„110111111111111111
JJJ
2Thi• —
24:trf
ard "23"1-22(iwd r
2nd -
1, at
, 4 r-
L2_1„. sk„
213tf)
Zitti
1111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111000011,,
1111111111111
III n11111111111111111111
111111 1111111 11111111,1,1,0111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101
011jj11,J'I'l ''??1
101011111111111111111000110110111,111000000000001
tfl
11111111111111111111111111111111110 1114111111v
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,111
Ch
2
UL A RD,
CH
tte
Subsi y Decisior
1
w Fr m I etter
ormatio
Fir E
.L I CI FE 9A m,,,1 O Li E. m tN IY n
e public policy response to the spike in
housing prices from 2002-2005 , especially
in already high housing cost parts of the
state, was to create the Community Workforce
Ilousing Innovation Pilot Program where income
limits go as high I>40 percent, or, in certain high
cost areas, 1.50 percent of area median income.
`Hie trend toward using public funds to serve the
needs of households that earn well above aver-
age incomes was evident at a recent Florida Housing
Finance Corporation board meeting, when a 1 III "C Board
member proposed increasing the maximum income limit
for the SHIP program statewide, from its current 120
percent cent of median to rninr-or the 140 percent, and 150
percent limits used in the t'wX HIP program.
Even with the downturn in the housing market, housing
prices in Florida are still well above what is affordable to
Florida's workforce. many high cost co'mmunitie, the
median sale price for a home is out of reach for families
earning well over the median income for their respective
community. With median sales prices being higher than
what a familyearning t30 or even 1.40 percent of median
can afford, increasing die income limits appears to be a
reasonable response Hut before public policy changes
the way scarce subsidies are allocated in Florida's
housing programs„ a more careful assessment of median
sales price is in osier,.
k I ,r
C.
u'Itwt.a0 t F'RIC1Ii4
ID I ES 't' R t 13 IL LE ll L1 't N D F .3 AIt._ t,.. IFE R. II EL t.,:. 5
The median is only a measure of central tendency. It is
the sales price at which one-half of the sales in a
community are equal to or higher than, and one half are
equal to or less than. It does not show Us the distribu-
1 At
EL lo,,. 1 �a,t I1 t t Ni
Sub
'recol
'item
s
att d to the pc
Wl coo hectic)
7 on IL
A. ha I ti n
City
tion of sales prices. While median prices may
be high, we need to assess whether there is
adequate unsubsidized housing stock afford-
able to families earning above 120 percent of
median in a given community. With this
information in hand, public policy makers
can make better decisions about financing
affordable housing.
AIFP'I AI
l HEL RIn SIOIJE
Since the median sales price is just the price in the middle,
how do we obtain data on the distribution of sales prices in
a community? In many counties, property appraiser Web
sites have developed search tools that allow the user to
search for all homes sold below a certain price point, during
a specific time frame. By calculating the mortgage amount
for which a family earning a certain income can qualify,
these Web sites can he used to determine the number of
home sales affordable to that family, over a given time. It is
this data that should he used when determining whether
the private market is failing to meet the housing needs of
families in a given income category.
c3 t'M t t ilww. , EEt tE IL E. "'°
Table 1 shows the number and percentage of the single
family sales affordable to families earning 150 percent of
median, in six Horida counties January 1, 2007-June 30'''
2007. The same data can also he pulled for condominium
sales. The Palm Beach County property appraiser's site did
not appear to have a countywide search feature for sates, so
this data is from 2006 property appraiser records via the
Shinrherg Center.
(continued)
ATTACHMENT F
111111111111
1111111100
111,11
i iIVIUUIIIIIIii � "° plllli,
'bd�lllllllllll
11111111111111 11111
111111111111
°° °IIIII�I„1 Illilll 11111111111
111ilpiilRl
1111111111111 $54,20
1))1111117111 jipj
581,300
$91,800
$76,950
57'9',200
gad �ry t�3e'a���.a4tw (.r)e�nlrity wr'& troar 1�G
$250,683
5243,000
$249',326
5282,375
$237,500
$244,345
2 )06 toe
lllluuuum iIIINIININIII
W,I I u it uiulm l liii IVIW uuupi�i�
2,574
6,344
1111,470
re r
item
'te' ' into the 1I
6U cannecti
G N n.j4
lla A. T 1�IG 11
City
3450 54%
3547
11039
1613
3V, 2006 Ditaw for Pinellas County Through October
31%
57%
66%
' 1,Y0 year term, 7 percent interest rate, 3,3/45 front and buck ratios, 51,000 down payment, 51.30 per month in non -mortgage monthly- debt.
In rmu'ry one of th e counties selected., a•xcept for Palau Reach,
more than hall" of all home sales were affordable„ to a
family earning 1501nercent of median. In Escambia County,
nearly 90 percent of all single family sales were affordable
to a family earning 150 percent
than one-third of single
family sales in I'ahn Ike^tech
(.:ouu.nty were,' affordable to a
family earning 150 percent
of median, Palm ach
County has a cry strong
condominium market. hi
2006, while there were
11,170 single faunily sales
in Palm Beach County.
there were 25,334
condominium sales, Of
these condominium sales,
13.127, or nearly 53
percent were affordable to
fatnilies earning 150
percent of median. This
data shows that in these
counties. families earning
1.50 percent of median
already have a 1LIIg0 per-
centage of the housing
market available to them. ibis raises
of median.
While
less
Table 2 shows the number and percentage of the single
family sales affordable to families earning 130 percent of
median, in the same six Florida counties as above, January
1, 2007-June 30'h, 2007, with the Palm Beach county
numbers again being from 2006.
id
Ito
�IhlhulN°Iltlloltihl',YVNyINN'IINtl
L'Iu "IlllIr Vo1Cu^1t1m114Vh
ul' uINIi�Nyu�iiw��;�lli �a�IlllYlipgllU
2,500
561,200
551,300
$68,250 $211,300
0,070 $216,790
$79,560 5245,432
566,690 $206,600
$68,640 5212,473
'Diu: sr Pain. tihu COUnt ha tot tin h, 2)O6 .. I a 2h.:2 2Ca
yflww Pllaax. County is Through October 2, 2, y yVfl'
'130 year term, 7 percent interest rate, 33/45 front and back ratios, ai+1,000 down payment, ,5150 per month in
non -mortgage monthly debt.
2089
2558
2342
8980
71%
87%
54%
11
57%
the question of the
need for public subsidy to assist these buyers,
Even with the lov er sales price, five of the six counties still
had close to 50 percent of their single family sales affordable
I pw v II
piml
Into the public
�nnection
l pscpUa Thom
City
to families earning 1.30 pu n. Tnt of median. While only 20 per-
cent of single family" home sales in. Palm Beach County
were affordable to a family earning 130 percent of median,
10.657, or 42 percent of all condominium sales were af-
fordable to families el.trning 130 percent of median. With
nearly 50 percent of home stales affordable to families earning
30 percent of median„ this data also brings into question
whether families in this income category in these counties
need public subsidy to purchase housing.
Table 3 shows the number
and percentage of the single
family sales affordable to fam-
ilies earning 70 percent of me-
dian, in the same si:r. Florida
counties as above, January L
2007-June 301h,2007, with
the I'I''alm Beach county num-
bers again being from 2006.
idisborough, Palo' Beach and
ri.rie;•llas Counties all had Less
than i percent of their single
fau oily sales affordable to fam-
ilies earning 70 percent of me-
dian. 'Me condominium
market in Palm bleach County
was aadlso not very friendly to-
ward these families. — only
1,907 units, or 7.5 percent of
all c.''ondo sales were affordable
to a family earning 70 percent
of median. 'l'his data shows a
contimwd need for subsidy for
market.
HOUSING NEWS N E 1. 0
As property appraiser's Web sites have evolved, housing
administrators have more housing market information at
their finger tips than ever before. This information enables
the housing professional to determine whether the private
housing market ismeeting the needs of families at various
incomes. Local and state housing programs should be tar-
geted to income levels at which the private housing market
fails. When the private market is meeting the housing
needs of a certain income level, there is no need for public
subsidy. The monthly payment calculator developed by the
nfltlllitt•
um iUlm lum r !iiidopu
Illlllllllllrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ii rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrulll '
raa �swwi
1l11 1111,
14 III
ulliuiuilllm'
S54,200
S52,e500
$53,900
S6I,200
S51,300
S52,800
TABLE 3
'91R+11�14iP1
$37,940
$36,750
$37,730
S42,840
$35,910
$36,960
$ I12, 065
$I07,168
SIII,200
$I03,700
$108,032
ui u r ',°'� VUuullllllllMiu
1, li.11I(G1.,
MEI
3'rn
'Data for Paltrn Beach County is for Ii,aau t. '2006 - Dec;E1, 2006
'" Data. for Piaarallas. County, is Through 0crr•ber'22, 2007
'130 year term, 7 percent interest rote, 33/45 front and back ratios, $1,000 down payment, ,64.50 per
month in non -mortgage monthly debt.
families at
this end of the
1-7 t_.t t „ ""1.1- m EL It;2 R L t t a��� a N t..a F, [: ,-a c
The number of saa,A.es below a certain price point only tells a
portion of the story:. It doesn't tell us the location, age or size
of the units. Many property prop, rty appraiser WIA sites °allow users
to search by the age. size., and location of the structure. For
example, of the 820 homes. sold for less than $103,700 in
Pinellas County this year, 387 (or 47%) were built prior to
1 r,tlltl. The search also gia-e;,s the location of each home sold,
allowing someone, fatnniliar with the community to determine
the neighborhoods in which these lower priced homes are
located.
Florida Ilousing Coalition can be used to calculate the
mortgage amount a family can afford. The property ap-
praiser data and the methodology outlined above can
be used to determine the percentage of community's housing
market that is affordable to families earning certain in-
comes. This type of analysis should be clone prior to in-
creasing the iucoane limits for a purchase assistance
program. il,uMirirz.
SPA FITTERIYIAIV is a Senior Technical Advisor with the Florida Hous-
ing Coalition_ He is currently the program rnanagerfor delivering technical
assistance under numerous contracts, including the .state al Floridas.AlJord-
able Housing Catal yst program, He is recognized throughout the state as
one of the foremost authorities on Florirlak State Housing Initiatia ' Part-
nership (SHIP) program. Stan holds a masters degree in city planning from.
Georgia Tech. He provided. research Jor the Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper
series The Color of Money, and co-authored a chapter in the boob I'"ro n
Redlining to Reiucrstmenl.
aNh �iary