Socializing Loss: NCC Style
Developers are almost transparent. They don’t give a crap about the communities they create or destroy. Then only care about profit.
So what is a developer to do if the real estate market tanks and they are left holding a bunch of land that can only have high-quality, low density single family homes built on it?
Simple, write a law (or 3) and hand it to New Castle County Council. Make the law say that you can convert your plans for beautiful, low density single family homes into a plan for poorly constructed, multi-family dwellings with no review by any state or county planning agency. County Council will certainly approve it, since the only people that show up to discuss the law are the lawyers paid by the developers to attend.
In no time, you can have your apartments built, bought by landlords and you can retire to a small, undeveloped island and spend your days not thinking about the scrambling of school districts, county services, DNREC, DelDOT, etc.
I’m in the wrong business.
Tags: Coons, Land Use, NCC County Exec, Workforce Housing
LG,
For anyone who may not understand the situation clearly, you just spelled it out perfectly in words that even the simple “layman” would understand. “Layman’s terms,” so to speak. Good job! This is something that will affect all of us.
Thanks, Mike. Now call Coons. They claimed that they only got 5 calls. I have personally been informed of 4 of the calls, so I don’t think they’ve gotten the message.
I attended the meeting last night and clearly, the residences from the area are concerned about the impact Ordinance 07-148 and its sister Ordinance 07-150, will have in all their futures.
I will try to comment later, but in the meantime go to : http://www.billdunn2008.com/issues.htm and at how I think communities need a greater voice.
Bill – I appreciated our conversation last night. I hope you can ride this wave on Tuesday, because it is just plain shitty that your opponent is literally. sleeping with developers.
The over growth in lower NCCO has been going for years and the county has pushed these through the entire time. This is why Gordon had such a ‘surplus’ high transfer tax and a good economy. Now they are trying to cover their butts during a bad time.
Lg, you are not in the wrong business. You are too honest to be a builder. Or a lawyer for that matter.
Well if you want to be in the business and have 500k – 1m to spend, Back Creek CC is in sheriffs sale.
EK, if I may, there is a distinction between builder and developer. Builders want to come back for the customers needs; customer service is pretty vital. Developers operate through the deposit accounts: their own and those of officials.
At the risk of ridicule, there is another perspective here that I haven’t seen mentioned.
Housing is too expensive in NCCo. We have way too many McMansions. If the building codes require an acre per dwelling, then we will never be able to put up houses for young workers and young families.
There has to be a middle ground. Lower cost houses do not HAVE to mean low quality buildings.
Are there any actionable suggestions on how to bring more affordable housing to NCCo? I suspect that the county ordinances were passed partially in an effort to make it easier to develop more affordable housing. I’m not arguing (I have no idea) whether the ordinances went way too far. I am arguing that there could be a justification that is not getting airtime.
Paul – don’t get me wrong, please. I am in favor of workforce housing. I am just not willing to allow it to happen without planning. Make these development follow the rules laid out for workforce housing. They are required to be near public transit (waived), they are supposed to be built on already developed locations (waived), they are supposed to be near services like sewer (waived), they are supposed to go through a community review (waived), they should consult with the school districts (outright skipped).
I love the concept. It is just that there are loopholes so large that you can drive an army of bulldozers through them.
PB – major point to the support of the showing last night was the extreme high-density, low/no open-space, and complete and total lack of infrastructure to support the projects now in the pipeline thanks to the ordinance in question. This isn’t NIMBY at all, but it’s who really benefits? No one in the area, not those who need that housing, not the current residents, not the school district, etc. would benefit with the current infrastructure. Those concerns apparently were no factor for the county council when they passed the ordinance.
” Lower cost houses do not HAVE to mean low quality buildings.”
By no means what-so-ever! But it does have to do with quality of life, which would slip to the lower end.
Joe C – I am a firm believer in home ownership being a major factor with your quality-of-life statement. However, what needs to be added to that is keeping cost-of-living within reach and away from the fringes.
While not the case with all landlords and tenants, there are indeed too many landlords out there that have more properties than they can truly manage. For them, it’s more to do with some profit from the rent, but much bigger when the property sells later. Tenants start to get ignored and then the tenants start to lose interest in caring for the property in return. I believe that is the root of the cause that creates the fear that drives most to the NIMBY reaction with this housing.
You can’t prevent landlords from buying in, but there are ways to keep it minimal (or so I think).
So true, rsmitty. An acceptable model is not readily available.
From the sellers POV, the cash comes in and don’t let it out (upkeep)
From the tenants POV, “Whats my incentive?”
Of course thats not 100% either side and then you add the government, their reward at present could next year be their downfall. Doesn’t it really come down to a possibility that if all Americans were responsible to themselves and each other problem solved. In order to get all actors in this scenario to be responsible is to get these problems solved. Chicken and egg, right?
Joe C. I accept your definition of builder vs. developer. There is a difference.
LG is correct about where this kind of housing should go…ONLY where there is already supporting infrastructure for it.
The county government appears clueless because it is allowing the development community to run rampant and the elected people hardly want you to think that they are setting you up to pay for all the infrastructure in the end when the developer and land owner have already skipped off into the sunset down in Boca Grande.