Sarasota Livin'

Joe -

Good to see you again the other day. Sorry it's taken a while, but I did want to get back to you on the Density Bonus issue as you'd asked me to forward you some stuff. (I copy other folks here who may be interested in the issue as well, and encourage you to forward it to folks if you'd like, too.)
Take care, Kelly

Below is the email that was floating around that I wrote after the 2/14 presentation by the City's Consultants, in addition to some points that were brought up during this Saturday's meeting:

Having attended last night's Valentine's Day bash in the Chambers w/the ERA consultant -- I asked staff and consultant to explain how they cite in both their August '05 report on Affordable Housing and then again, extensively in their recommendation now to the Commission the AMI (Avg. Median Income) for City being $35k/household --
but then somewhere inside the bowels of this latest document, they decide that the right number to use is HUD's MFI (Median Family Income) figure for a household of four (why four?? are these households where the kids stay home and aport income to defray the cost of housing?) -- and they'll base this "affordable housing" on that much higher figure, targeting for 100 to 120% of MFI ($55k to $66k incomes).

Indeed, the Consultants reference a Shinburg report, that's pretty clear and says the $35k figure is the 100% median income figure that we need to be using.
We have 8 houses on Novus street right now that range from $220 to $380k in price -- these are houses that have nice lots, 1,000 sq. ft and up -- a number have been on the market for over 2 months. These prices are less or on par with what they're proposing -- and what they're proposing would be roach boxes of 600 to 800 sq. ft -- that the ERA rep says, "We use MFI for a household of four, but of course, this wouldn't be appropriate housing for families of four." In our local economy, dominated by service sector jobs, MFI is not @ $55k to $66k levels.

Curiously, the City Planning Department's own FAQ that they have online regarding the Density Bonus has 100% MFI for household of 2 = $44k, w/120% MFI going only = $53,600 meaning that by the City's standards, ERA's report doesn't meet the criteria for 'affordable housing' (published 1/12/2006 - http://www.sarasotagov.com/Planning/LongRange/Density%20Bonus/Frequently...)

I harp on the MFI numbers b/c I think it's the most important figure in the whole discussion. I'm assuming that there would be a screening process for applicants wanting to buy these units and as such there'd be a verification process to determine household income. If we're aiming to target our workforce, those most in need of housing that justifies the city giving away all of this Density, then we need to be sure we're getting the housing to those that need it. As such, it's hard to understand how all of these numbers floating around on what MFI is and who we're targeting can be so different -- and in spite of that, we're still speeding ahead on a rocket to approve it.

We then need to include the various and obvious issues that were mentioned the other day @ the CCNA meeting on why this is a bad idea at a bad time:

1. Best case scenario for adding a possible 20,000 additional units to downtown, above what's currently accepted, would give us only 400 and change affordable units. Sarasota County's Affordable Housing task force says we have a deficit of close to 3000 units (and they're talking about 3000 units using a baseline AMI of 2 person household, 60% to 120% = $27 k to $53k; perhaps the deficit for the city's households of 4 income earners is only 400)
2. In addition to the Comp Plan Ammendment for the Density Bonus, there's a simultaneous Comp Plan Amend. on the agenda before the Planning Board on 3/22 that throws a net over areas that will become Downtown Urban Mixed Use -- areas that abut SFN'hoods, such as Alta Vista -- see Wood and School St. properties. This Amendment, as advertised in this past Sunday's Sarasota Herald, is distinct and separate from the Density Bonus -- i.e. there are no future comp plan changes for developers who want to build Downtown on these parcels -- it would rezone the land and merely allow them to then opt for the Density Bonus (no quid pro quo). Not only does this fly in the face of the Duany plan and the City's historical fight to keep downtown out of SFN'hoods -- the entire fast-tracked process w/out adequate neighborhood notice and consultation, is anathema to the idea of N'hood participation in the zoning & development of our city -- and as such, something that I think should concern CCNA.
3. We're entering a time of inventory glut -- housing prices in the area are said to potentially drop 20 to 30% in next 18 to 24 months as market continues to go soft and interest rates continue to rise. Ergo, where's the rush now to push this through?

I should be very careful with my choice of terms as I have been offended by some other peoples use of words.

On the other hand I am not attributing that term to anyone in particular. I will say on issues as complex as this there is no real right or wrong just many different opinions.

My position is that we need to find ways to allow more affordable housing options in the downtown (whole county really). So we need to find ways that will help achieve that goal.

Is there any possibility that the entire area in the "map" would be covered with 200 units / acre? I think not. Just as the ability for property owners to build 18 story buildings under the previous downtown zoning did not fill the city with those type buildings (just the bayfront - which at least it is not directly on the water...)

I very much agree that the full details are not understood (especially by me) and certainly should be discussed. But I think the full details really don't yet exist since this is still a "process" not a final deal..