Edited by author 11-05-2006 08:36 AM
In re of message 6294:

Ann: Did I not suggest this before when I compared Junad to a seagull?

In re of message 6296:

Jason: Sadly there is little humor here. This is a public soap box where people mostly just spout. They do not want any sort of dialogue or have to have anyhting to back up what they say. You cannot speak of anything if you do not have first hand knowledge of it.

Just more digital noise!

richie z: yes, you told me so! But I keep having faith in junad. I have no problem with his opinions, ie, "I think the council members are all idiots." However stating lies about city actions is another.
Jason:
It is so stipulated. Having said that, I do not believe that Junad really understands it all.

Regarding the hospitals I can tell you all that we have met with the 2 local institutions and have been very pleased with their response. I am anticipating some very productive work. The hospitals already perform every single task that we are talking to them about.

 Edited by author 11-05-2006 05:44 PM
I need your help. The library director has recommended the closing of the North Branch and the South Branch libraries. I would like to know if you use the south branch library.

Here is a single topic board http://www.quicktopic.com/38/H/Arkr9RGyAt47w

Please go to the above address and tell me if you use the branch and if you think it could be closed.

The 2 branches cost approximately $550,000 per year to maintain.

Please disregard the address that was in message 6301

This is the cutest, most loving dog - has all its shots and has been spayed

This very sweet dog needs a loving home

Meet Debo The Dog - My grandchild's dog and she does love him. Unfortunately, Alicia and her mom Michelle have come to realize they are both allergic. This dog is 100% trained and is great with kids. He loves attention and is wonderful. Very sad that he has to be given to another home.

Debo The Dog is 2 years old from the Anti-Cruilty Society. He is Male, with all his shots. He is a Basset Hound/Beagle.

Please contact Michelle 773-255-9529

Edited by author 11-06-2006 08:29 AM
Here is why I think you should vote for the Real Estate Transfer Tax Referendum.

Smarter people than I have determined that hardworking families earning in the area of 80% of median cannot afford to purchase most homes in Evanston. For your reference, the median income for a family of four in Evanston is $79,000. Further, a family of four at 80% of median is about $59,000.

There has been an effort by people in Evanston to establish a method by which people who at around 80% or less of median income could get a little help and join the forces of homeowners in Evanston. The preferred method of the majority of those involved is to require all developers of residential buildings over 25 units to set aside condos for these families totaling 10% of the total number of units or pay $40,000 per unit (10% of the total number to be built.) into a fund to help build new affordable housing for the eligible applicants. So the developer that opts for the 10% on site option must make 10% of her/is units affordable to families or individuals that make 80% of median. This means that the applicant must not spend more that 33% of their income for all their traditional housing expenses.

Because I have been assured by all the authorities that there is a shortage of housing for lower middle income people in Evanston I’ll accept that reality. Putting people with families on the 10th floor of a new downtown condo sounds thoughtless to me. Making only builders of new condominiums responsible for sustaining affordable housing in Evanston is illogical, shortsighted and unreliable. What if a new development for 25 + units doesn’t come to us for another year? Answer – nothing happens – no units and no payments in lieu. We all sit around and wait. All buildings or projects that you know about but have not been built are exemptfor the above described plan because they are now in the pipeline and this is not a retroactive requirement. While $40,000 is the amount charged for 10% of the total units, it will be a long time before the money can be collected. The money is not due until the building is built and the certificate of occupancy is issued. There are no projects at the current time to which these requirements can be applied.

In my opinion, because affordable housing is such an important element in what makes Evanston the place where everyone wants to be, and then everyone should participate. By approving the referendum on the Transfer tax, ALL property:

 including those selling property that is commercial, industrial, manufacturing, residential, institutional, educational, both tax paying and tax exempt and vacant land will contribute to the affordable housing fund with a $1 increase in the now $5 per thousand real estate transfer tax..

The contribution will be spread across all owners. The funds will be made available on a regular basis. The day the property is transferred and the tax is paid – the money is available. Transfer tax money is a reliable stream of money. Property is bought and sold in Evanston on a regular basis. If property continues to sell in our town, about $800,000 per year will go to the affordable fund.

The money will be spent to aid people who need help buying their home. The down payment is usually the stumbling block. All the money will be used to support working families with low/mod incomes (80% of median) who have decent credit, but are short on income. These are the very people that never get help anywhere. We will not be governed by HUD guidelines because this fund is local dollars and not state or federal dollars.

This isn’t low income housing, this isn’t help for the homeless, and this isn’t “section 8.” This is a way to help good, decent, hardworking people in our town buy a home in our neighborhoods. They are people just like us.
    
If on the occasion that you sell your home or apartment building or factory or vacant lot and you feel that the additional $1 RETT per thousand of value (THE AMOUNT IS TAX DEDUCTIBLE) would be wasted helping the working class family with decent credit or the family just starting in a teaching career with basically no credit or someone who works for one of our hospitals or university then you know what to do on Tuesday.

Anne
Debo the dog is cute and would probably make any new owner happy. Hope you find a good owner for him. I wish, I and linda could take him but we have roger paul (our daushy) as you know. we would love to have anthor for him to play with. but a shortage of space here is the problem. we are in process of looking at homes in the area. so in the future we will have more than one dog. knowing linda we will have dogs and cats and many other living creatures both large and small.

Ann, thanks for the information on the referendum. It sounds like it is meant to serve families like mine -- hardworking, professional people who are in careers that are undervalued by society.

I think the city's existing first-time homebuyer program could be expanded with these funds to serve more people. However, the figures need to be looked at and revised frequently. We qualified for the program two years ago but there were no properties in Evanston large enough for a family of four that fell within the 33% guideline, even with the help. (I recall being at the top of the income range to qualify and being told our budget was $170,000.) While 33% is the accepted "right" amount to spend on housing costs, it's just not a reality in higher-priced areas for people of any income.

Also, new properties built specifically as affordable housing should be in neighborhoods families want to live in, not in neighborhoods that already have a preponderance of low-income residents or are high-crime.

Lowell

Debo The Dog /m6304 is such a fun,loving dog. If he were with another dog, he would be happy I am sure. The picture doesn't show this but he is, of course, brown and white.

Ann, your description of the affordable housing initiative has softened me somewhat, but I still have some key questions (some of which are unanswerable at this point, I know).

First, it is my understanding that the City Council has not decided precisely how to spend the money that the new initiative would raise. Was I incorrect -- is the model you described below the method they will adopt?

Second, I (like Rachel) am very concerned about distribution of affordable housing around the city. If "diversity" is what everybody wants, it makes little sense to concentrate affordable housing in one area. If this initiative includes an opt-out program for developers, however, I am concerned that the "not in my back yard" folks in pricey areas (as well as common-sense economic concerns -- that the price of opting out will be lower than the loss incured by building an affordable unit) will prevail. This combination of dynamics -- an organized group of wealthy NIMBY-ers and prohibitively expensive land -- could push affordable housing to the areas that are already quite affordable, thus reinforcing the problematic concentrations of poverty -- or at least lower privilege -- that we already have. It is very clear that some parts of Evanston would benefit from RISING prices; I wish more community activists would focus on THAT.

Third, how would the city handle the resale of "affordable" property? Would those who benefited from the monetary fund have to pay back a portion or all of their loan when they sell? And what about the affordable units by new developers? What makes them affordable (smaller, fewer luxury materials, the same as the rest of the units but priced lower, etc.)? If they appreciate and are sold at market rate, would the beneficiary walk away having bought at $150,000 and sold for $400,000? (In short, what would be done to keep them affordable throughout subsequent transactions?) And is there any guarantee that market-rate buyers -- particularly those in very expensive "luxury" buildings -- would be amenable to living near affordable housing? Again, there could be some NIMBY trouble.

Just some thoughts ...

Ann,

You wrote: "The money will be spent to aid people who need help buying their home. The down payment is usually the stumbling block. All the money will be used to support working families with low/mod incomes (80% of median) who have decent credit, but are short on income. These are the very people that never get help anywhere. We will not be governed by HUD guidelines because this fund is local dollars and not state or federal dollars."

I still don't "get" it. Will these funds be given to qualified home owners as a down payment "grant", "gift" or "loan?" Would it be given before or after a buyer was approved for a mortgage? If the money is given as a grant or gift, what obligation does the new homeowner have to repay upon the resale of the house/condo? If a certain amount of money went back into the pot (say a percentage depending upon the length of time living in the home) then I would feel more favorable. If it were given in the form of a no-interest loan that would replenish the fund, I would also feel more favorable.

Since we purchased our very affordable home: one bathroom, no garage, we have been able to make mortgage payments (including taxes) that were less than the rent on our former two bedroom/third floor apartment. That's really great. BUT, every year we have had to spend thousands of dollars on the upkeep of our 50 year old house: roof, sewer, furnace, AC unit, gutters, tree trimming $$$, concrete steps, carpeting, insulation, roof fans, screen doors, storm windows, and this year tuckpointing. I'm not even counting the new kitchen. Yes, we have a credit line we keep open for these kinds of repairs, and a home equity loan just in case. I don't have to tell you that it's one thing after another, and both the washer and the dryer are sickly these days. Rent is high, but no renter has to buy the new roof or the new washer. That's why renting really works better for some people on low incomes.

There is a townhome across the street from us on Asbury that is very visibly falling to pieces. It's right next to the closed Osco. I wouldn't be surprised if it fell in on itself one day it's in such bad shape. I also would not be surprised to learn that the owner was elderly, on a fixed income, and had no family to help with the upkeep. This owner needs help finding a safer place to live, with fewer upkeep responsibilities. If I knew that the bulk of that fund would go to help seniors make a small condo downpayment that would keep them independent and out of a nursing home, I'd be much more supportive.

But today, I'm unconvinced, and I'm displeased that I didn't begin hearing about this until two weeks before election day. Once again I feel like my Evanston liberalism is being taken advantage of.

Vito, make room on the bench.

In reply to your question re ongoing affordability of a unit in question. This is in the current ordinance recently passed.
(E) CONTROL OF RESALE PRICES: The maximum sales price, with the exception of foreclosure sales, permitted on resale of an Affordable Dwelling Unit shall be based on a formula:

(1) the original purchase price plus:

(a) an inflation adjustment of the original purchase price calculated in accordance with the CPI, using the year of the prior sale as the base year;

(b) allowances for closing costs and sales commissions paid by the seller; and

(c) the fair market value of approved improvements made to the Unit between the date of original sale and the date of resale, up to an average of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per year. “Approved improvements” are capital improvements which add value to the home, prolong its useful life or adapt it to new uses. Repairs to maintain the home in good condition are not allowable capital improvements. A list of general allowable capital improvements shall be included in the affordability documents signed by the purchaser.

 
(F) FIRST SALE AFTER AFFORDABILITY PERIOD ENDS: This Section 5 7 6(F) shall apply in the event an affordability period in perpetuity is unlawful or becomes unlawful. Upon the first sale of an Affordable Dwelling Unit after the Affordability Period ends, the seller shall pay to the City out of the sale proceeds a percentage of the difference between the actual sales price and the current affordable sales price as determined pursuant to Subsection 5-7-6(A)(2). Such sums shall be deposited into the Affordable Housing Tax Fund. The percentage is based upon the number of years the seller owned and occupied the Unit, as follows:

Years of Ownership Share to Affordable Housing Tax Fund
(a) 11 to 15 years 50%
(b) 6 to 10 years 60%
(c) 1 to 5 years 70%

(2) The Director shall determine whether the price and terms of a resale covered by the preceding paragraph meet the requirements of this Chapter. Upon a finding of compliance, the Director shall terminate the affordable housing controls and execute a recordable release of all applicable mortgages and restrictions.

(3) If an Affordable Dwelling Unit is sold through a foreclosure or other court-ordered sale, the Affordable Restrictions are extinguished, but any remaining net proceeds shall be returned to the Department and deposited into the Affordable Housing Tax Fund.

Seniors will be a classic example of who could qualify for affordable housing purchase dollars. Lets not forget we are talking about people like us and seniors using the assistance to buy current homes and condos that are on the market. This money would be a grant for downpayments or other assistance in buying or maintaining current housing. I am a huge advocate of using the RETT for renovations of income eligible families and I know that the council will agree. For renovations we could fashion a 50 50 grant and no interest loan. Currently our affordable housing dollars are regulated by the feds - because they are federal funds. If the referendum passes then we, with the help of all you who are thinking about this, can be as creative and as helpful as possible.

I am not certain where the concern for affordable housing being built in impacted neighborhoods comes from. Who is building it? If the ref passes then the good news will be we will have about 800,000 to $1 million a year. Do you know what you can build in Evanston for $800,000? The not for profits are very inefficient in providing for new construction. It can't really happen with this money. This is the last thing that should worry us. With 800,000 - $1 million you can help a few people realize their dream. I would love to see that happen on my block.

Of course, the credit checking and the approval of an applicant will take place before we hand out money. By the way, the city has provided millions of dollars in first time buyer programs, rental rehabilitation's, 1 and 2 family owner occupied rehabs. This is not a new area of involvement. We have very few foreclosures. The city has been part of the Evanston Mortgage corporation for many years.

The current inclusionary housing ordinance, I believe is useless, it will require a developer to write down the cost of a unit to fit the income of an approved applicant if the developer decides to do on site units which I doubt will happen. If not then the dev must pay in the 40,000 per 10% of the units. This only applies on buildings 25 units and over. This ordinance is something I believe was passed so some could say they did something.

http://www.cityofevanston.org/global/referendum.shtml

FYI here is the latest building info news for the Custer Brummel neighborhood:
Agenda
Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee
November 08, 2006 @ 2:30 p.m.
Room 2404

3:15 p.m. 619-621 Brummel Street
Preliminary and Final
Interior/exterior remodeling for existing multi-family residence (22 du's).