|
|
Questions
1. Most every city leader and citizen favors more affordable housing in
Boulder. However, recently Boulder residents voted down proposition 201
52% to 48%. How do you propose to make affordable housing work in Boulder?
2. Mapleton Mobile Home Park will become a part of of the affordable housing plan in Boulder by 2004. Do you support more mobile home parks becoming part of Boulder's affordable housing stock? How would you make this happen?
3. Organizations such as Thistle Community Housing are key players in making affordable housing available in Boulder. In what way should City Council support these organizations and help expand their programs and foster the population they serve?
Responses, in alphabetical order: (as of 10/23/01)
Ron Bain
1) Boulder should first of all get rid of the three-person overoccupancy
rule. A lot of housing space is being wasted in Boulder, and this is driving
up rents for apartments and mobile home lots. Second of all, more mobile
home spaces are needed in Boulder; this can be solved through zoning
(although property values in Boulder are making it difficult). Thirdly,
Boulder should quit collecting taxes to subsidize housing -- this just
increases everybody's cost of living in Boulder, and the "affordable"
housing that gets built is not affordable. It simply allows the city to pick
and choose who they want living here.
2) This is very difficult. Property values in Boulder are much higher than the price of land that most mobile home parks are built upon. However, manufactured, mobile and pre-fab housing is the least expensive, and surely there is a way through tax breaks and other positive incentives for the city to encourage private interests into developing additional parks. I don't favor the city buying all of the mobile home spaces and rent controlling them; I would not want the city to be my landlord.
3) Non-profit organizations like Habitat for Humanity, Thistle and the Solstice Institute are great and will be key to reforming the housing situation in Boulder. But these organizations should not expect to receive tax subsidies from the City of Boulder. Our tax laws are set up to allow non-profits to receive donations without asking for hand-outs from government.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
One of the reasons I think this tax lost was because under the current affordable housing program most people are being given a cheaper place to live simply because their income level. I think this is a slap in the face to the rest of us that have to pay for this subsidy. If society were to get a fair exchange for this gift of a subsidized housing unit then many of us might support the program a lot more. There should always be a fair exchange of value when society is asked to pick up the tab. In this case most residents of affordable housing cannot afford money but they certainly could afford time. Every dime I spend of affordable housing is a dime I can't spend somewhere else (schools, teacher's salaries, health care, etc.) so I want something in return. I think everyone receiving the benefit of affordable housing should be required to give something back to society. That's how you will get more support from me.
2) Yes. I have no problem with mobile home parks becoming part of our affordable housing plan, provided they are not exempt from property taxes. We all use the streets, sidewalks, parks, etc. We should all pay a fair share based on the value of our property. No one, except for the completely disabled, should be exempt from paying any property taxes. Income based or property based proportionality is fine but we should all have to pay something.
3) Here again I support the cause but I do not support the end result of removing these properties from our property tax roles. This is a closet or hidden tax increase forced upon other property owners without their consent. If we, as a population, vote to impose this property tax increase on the rest of us then I have no problem with the issue. I also would prefer to see Thistle start addressing the needs of the handicapped population more aggressively by using its money to retrofit more of its units to make them more accessible. If there is money left over in the City budget after taking care of fundamentals (streets, fire, police and other basics) then Thistle is certainly a organization I could support giving extra funds to. But not at the cost of raising our current tax burden. It must be within the means we already have.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
2) The city has contacted all mobile home park owners and indicated interest when they desire to sell. I believe that similar solutions like the Mapleton ownership plan could be very useful.
3) All of the organizations such as Thistle are critical parts of the city's affordable housing programs. I support assisting them in any way that is necessary.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
I am the only candidate this year to propose reforming our affordable housing program. Housing vouchers allow people to choose where they live, help people in retirement communities (or mobile home parks), are more cost effective then the current system, and are eligible for millions of dollars in federal funding.
Voters rejected proposition 201 because the current affodable housing system is not the kind that they want:
The current affordable housing program costs Boulder taxpayers millions of dollars a year and benefits fewer people than the more efficient and cost effective housing assistance program that I am proposing. Under the current system, the city's Housing and Human Services Department will spend approximately 13 million dollars in 2002. More than 3 million will be spent on personnel, and almost nine million will go towards operating costs. Of this nine million, six are to be used for the building of new affordable housing units. Most of this money is coming directly out of the pockets of taxpayers in the form of general funds and special revenue generated through the CHAP program which is "funded through a property tax and a tax on new development in the city." If all this money was getting good results, there would be less need for reform. Unfortunately, "assigned housing" and "affordable housing projects" are not the kinds of housing assistance Boulder residents are looking for. The people here don't want to be told where to live, many of them simply need help with high rent. I submit that we don't need a big expensive government agency to assign us to affordable housing units, we need housing vouchers. I support truly affordable housing through a housing vouchers system. It allows current residents who need housing assistance to stay where they are. It will require less government so it will be cheaper. More money wiil then be left over to assist people with the high costs of housing so it will be more effective. Plus we can eliminate the property taxes and anti-growth taxes that devastated Crossroads Mall because, under a voucher program, we will be eligible for special federal funding. A Housing Assistance program that offers people a choice, that's cheaper, more effective, and eligible for federal funding, that's the kind of program Boulder needs.
2) I think we should abandon this system entirely in favor of housing vouchers. The vouchers system is proven and tested and endorsed by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. We should switch to vouchers so our tax dollars can go further towards helping people with high rents and morgages. Vouchers are more cost effective than the current system.
3) We should stop funding Thistle and wasting dollars that could be helping people on the purchase of property and on high administrative costs.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
3) The City Council should do the following to help T.C.H.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
2) As you know, I was a strong supporter of the City's purchase of Mapleton Mobile Home Park to protect it for affordable housing. And I continue to support its transition to resident ownership. Council has also taken action to designate a new zoning classification that specifically applies to mobile home parks throughout the city, to better convey the importance we place on preserving this form of affordable housing. I would support the City helping to facilitate the transition of other mobile home parks into resident-owned facilities.
3) In light of the defeat of proposition 201, I believe the city needs to strongly support our non-profits like Thistle Community Housing, Habitat for Humanity, and the Affordable Housing Alliance in the creation of additional affordable housing. The Poplar Project is a wonderful example of the type of high-quality affordable housing development that the city needs to encourage. The City can do this through direct grants or through the CDBG and CHAP programs.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
Other independant groups, such as Habitat for Humanity, or Thistle Housing will be a part of the site plan for the Drive-in. In addition, the University of Colorado Board of Regents has just approved the New housing complex for the Students at Williams Village, which hopefully will support some of the need for "A BED FOR EACH HEAD" regarding the overflow of CU students into the Boulder housing rental market.
There has been talk over the years with the City and Housing Dept. about looking into the idea of the use of City land to creat a Mobile Home park that would be owner/owned. Meaning a long term rental for the land, which the home sits on. There by establishing a relationship of the homeowner of ownership, somewhat to the land, with a fixed dollar amount for the lease of that land for said period of time, ie; 25 years.
2) Any home owner at Mapleton knows how long this process takes, and the need for a strong relationship between the City and the Residents for the ongoing planning and problem resolving.
The Mapleton Mobile home project has been a good one, but instead of seeing the City of Boulder Housing Dept. buy into another project such as Mapelton, I would rather create another view of how to establish a new way of the use of Mobile homes in small parks/independent of Cooperation owership. Once again giveing back the owership to the homeowner.
3) I strongely Support Thistle/Habitat and other programs that use different means of financial resourses to allow home buying for thoes who fall into the less than $20,000 a year income limits. I would also be interested in learning of other Federal money programs to support housing assistance programs, and looking into what other Cities have been able to create for their housings needs.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
2) Mobile homes are an important part of Boulder's affordable housing stock, and I support adding additional mobile parks where appropriate.
3) By establishing cooperative programs between the City and Thistle Community Housing and appointing a representative from Council to work on joint projects.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
2) Yes, as mentioned above I am in favor of increasing the number of mobile homes in Boulder's affordable housing stock. This can be done by purchasing land for additional parks through land trusts to keep the land rent component of the parks' cost structure permanently affordable. The co-housing ownership model is another good option. Additional mobile parks in Boulder will have to be relatively small due to scarcity of available land. Mobile home "pocket parks" of 5 to 15 homes without internal streets would make attractive additions to our affordable housing options.
3) In 2001, the city of Boulder Division of Housing provided Thistle with over $800,000 in funding or about 25% of the Division's grants. In coming years this level of support must be maintained so that Thistle can continue to acquire and manage affordable rental units. Other organizations such as Habitat for Humanity must also continue to receive funding for their important work in support of Boulder's affordable housing goals.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
To that end, Boulder's affordable housing programs need to be focused on providing housing for those on the very low end of the income bracket. I strongly support the direction in which the housing division is currently heading; they have great leadership. To increase the city's supply of affordable housing and meet our goal of having ten percent of the city's housing stock as permanently affordable, the city needs to convert our commercial zones (including Crossroads Mall) to a mixed use model that incorporates housing with retail and office spaces; develop an incentive-based approach for converting industrial properties to residential; and do what it can to ensure that as much of our existing affordable housing stock remains affordable.
2) While I am not all that familiar with the specifics of the resident buy-out of the Mapleton Mobile Home Park, I do support using this model and applying it to other mobile home parks in Boulder to ensure that these affordable units remain affordable. As a member of the city's planning board, through the most recent update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan we have taken steps to preserve our existing mobile home parks. I also support the inclusion of mobile home parks in the city's Comprehensive Housing Strategy, and feel that the city should look for opportunities to site additional mobile home parks within Boulder.
3) The city should work proactively with Thistle, the Affordable Housing Alliance, Boulder Housing Partners, Habitat for Humanity and others to enlist their help in meeting our community's affordable housing goals. By providing assistance in locating and developing projects and, most importantly, providing financial assistance, the city should be doing all it can to leverage the expertise and community-building dynamic that these groups bring to Boulder and apply it directly to our affordable housing needs.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
2) Yes! Propose directing City funds towards purchase of Boulder Meadows. Use the funds from the interest gains described above for more such acquisitions. Support transit-oriented development and densification urban reconfiguration projects by rezoning districts for the common good. Use the realized transportation gains as a funding source. Purchase municipal utilities and use the long-term savings as funds. Require developers to implement renewable energy innovations to their projects and they will have less energy costs and be less resistant to higher DETs. Pass the living wage ordinance, freeing up more money for people in need to partner with the City in purchases. Regional and local head tax to cut (sic) on incommuters impact costs to be another funding source. Servicing these people costs our city. (I'm speaking about the incommuters)
3) Donate City dollars towards land trusts dedicated towards affordable housing projects. Instigate an energy use code regulating energy costs on large houses with few inhabitants and make them pay a huge cost per megawatt hour over a certain threshold of excessive use. Put this into a fund for renewable energy (solar, PV, heat pump, water conservation features) in Thistle-backed affordable projects. The Boulder Energy conservation Center chair, Mona, told me about Basalt where something like this has been in effect very effectively and without opposition from the wealthy landholders it affects. Also, a luxury tax for expensive homes might be entertained. Something like that might be more palatable than the affordable housing tax affecting across the board small and large homes. These large homes have a deleterious effect of Boulder in their consumption of land and materials, depleting un-renewable resources and raising surrounding property taxes, thereby affecting one of the four City goals: affordable housing. People have less disposable income as their property taxes rise and this adversely impacts sales tax revenue. Passing the living wage ordinance for the City of Boulder will also increase disposable income; and even more so as living wages are implemented in the greater Boulder population, the county state, nation and globe. This cash infusion jump starts the economy and encourages small local business entrepreneurs and greater competition for corporate domination of the market place. This should decrease prices for building materials more than the increased costs of labor because PEOPLE, CONSUMERS ARE THE DRIVER OF THE ECONOMY! All these ideas have a positive feedback loop; because as they drain from the top, they build from the bottom, as more energy is more equitably distributed, the dollars can go tawards affecting greater conservation of energy with retrofits for pre-existing construction (blow-in insulation, crawl-space vapor locks, window improvements and seals, decreasing energy dependencies, decreasing needs for middle East interventions with the dependence on resources there decreasing cost of war that go with such "protection of interest," while stimulating creative research in renewable innovations markets. This all puts more dollars into City budgets to help out Thistle. Also Boulder should put forth a resolution to end the drug war, legalize recreational drugs; end mandatory minimum sentencing; and promote restorative justice and community policing into all aspects of the criminal justice system. Also, the privatization of prisons should be outlawed. These can be precedent-setting messages to higher government of what the citizens need in their local communities. Less police and criminal justice costs benefits Boulder's City budget. Also, Attention Homes grant of $180,00 from the City should be forgiven because of the benefit Attention Homes provides in keeping juveniles out of the criminal detention system and helping them to become productive citizens. The money spent the right way can be directed toward transportation and urban planning: transit oriented developments, decrease in sprawl within the City, smaller stores in sub-communities with public services and groceries close so people need less automated mechanical transport with larger but less numerous nodes of retail for needs outside the sub-communities. This will create better innovations and market for small quiet hydrogen fuel cell non-polluting buses with elongated sliders for easy entrance, bike hooks, storage bins and frequency of service that will hugely impact a voracious transportation budget freeing up even more money for THISTLE!
Just say wealth equalization. With social justice our society won't need charity.
For resources on how to do many things I've suggested, refer to the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, CO, with Amory Lovins, CEO, at 1739 Snowmass Creek Rd. Phone: 970-927-3128, fax: 970-927-4178, ablovins@rmi.org and http://www.rmi.org and Picture Tel videoconferencing.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
2) I certainly support this as a viable plan for affordable housing. We need to make a similar effort to that made on Mapleton for Boulder Meadows. The options are different - and will make Boulder Meadows a much more expensive purchase - but I think the principle and the opportunity to provide affordable housing are the same.
3) The city should support Thistle and similar organizations with both logistical / planning support of city staff and direct funds for operation. The cities goals are directly furthered by these organizations and this type of private / public alliance is our best bet for moving forward.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
Housing Diversity
3) I have strongly supported efforts to increase funding for affordable housing, including funding for nonprofits such as Thistle. I co-chaired last year's affordable housing campaign. I also spearheaded the successful effort to shift about $475,000 per year out of our existing budget into affordable housing on an ongoing basis.
BACK TO LIST OF RESPONSES
BACK TO QUESTIONS
Copyright © 2001 Mapleton Home Association. All rights reserved.