|
Post by Dorinda on Jul 13, 2023 21:08:12 GMT
1. The Rural/Urban split is concerning, especially if the Federal MSA definition is going to be used. That definition excludes many of the small communities that the bill was written for. Specifying a community size limit might align more closely with the intent.
2. I think the developer fee is very needed due to the large gap between build costs and affordable housing. Rather than a % of costs this could be tied to a $/bedroom? Increasing developer fees based on increased costs provides the wrong incentive for a program with the goal of providing affordable housing. The $/Bedroom should be tiered since the 1st bedroom has all of the expense (example 80% of the fee is earned for a 1BDR, the additional bedrooms earn an additional 10%. Fee is capped at $25,000)
3. A point system would be great for this program. I think points should be allotted for community located developers, minority developers, small developers, infill projects, energy efficiency, and accessible housing. This is a great way to encourage some things that could greatly benefit Tulsa. The natural disaster area preference could also be folded into this point system.
|
|
|
Post by Pam on Jul 24, 2023 20:40:07 GMT
Developer Subsidy for Rental Housing-Rehabs should be allowed. Though they don’t create new units, if rehabs aren’t done, those affordable units are lost, especially in rural areas, where new housing may not be justified.
Developer Subsidy for Rental Housing -100 units at a time seems excessive, especially for a limited resource.
Developer Subsidy for Rental Housing -What is the term of affordability, if any, for this part of the program?
|
|