Scott L. Ford: Before it's too late
Sunday, February 4, 2007
I am responding to Mike Lawrence's article titled "Separating housing wants from needs" in the Jan. 31 issue of the Steamboat Today. Mike's article was about a recent Question of the Week poll in which 82 percent of the 318 respondents would not favor a tax dedicated to affordable housing.
The question that was asked was the wrong question. The question I challenge Steamboat Pilot & Today staff to ask is this: "If you were to move here today, could you afford to live here?"
I am sure the overwhelming response will be "No." Many of us can afford to live here on the paychecks we receive simply because we were lucky enough to buy our homes before the cost of housing went into the stratosphere. The scary part is that the cost is likely going to continue to escalate. In fact, it is very likely we have not seen anything yet.
Jonathan Schechter offered a well-attended seminar in Steamboat Springs last December called "The Dynamics of Growth in Resort Communities." He highlighted that based on U.S. Census data, the median cost of a home in Routt County rose faster than 99.7 percent of the rest of the country for the 10-year period 1990 to 2000. Why? We are a great community that just happens to be in a very beautiful place with a lot of things to do. A lot of people dream of living here, and for most it will always be just that - a dream. However, there are folks who are fortunate enough to have the financial means to actually move here, and the law of supply and demand will keep the upward pressure on real estate cost for many years to come.
As a community, we place a great value on open space and our agricultural landscapes. We value it to the point that as a community we have agreed to a property tax to help fund preserving it. As a community, we value our children and have passed property taxes to raise salaries and upgrade facilities on more than one occasion. Twelve years ago we agreed to a half-cent increase in the sales tax that is used to fund smaller class sizes and up-to-date technology. We agreed to the taxes for land preservation and for education because, as a community, we highly value them.
Over the next 10 to 15 years, the most endangered local species will likely be families that actually live, work and raise their children in this community. If we value families both from an economic and social perspective, we are going to have to find ways to create the opportunities that allow them to stay. It will not just happen on its own. Just as we have found dollars to preserve open space and found dollars to provide for a quality education, we need to identify funding sources to acquire land to be used for "affordable" housing.
The issues associated with "affordable" housing are complex. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution. In addition, not everybody who wants to stay is going to be able to. That's life. However, without some funding source to acquire land for "affordable" housing, we will by default preclude the hope of preserving the ability for families to actually live, work and raise their children in this community. I fear that we may realize this too late. That would be very unfortunate for us all.
Scott L. Ford
Steamboat Springs
Comments
another_local 6 years, 4 months ago
Nicely stated. I hope we can convince city government to step OUT of the process of gettting housing built though. They are like elephants at a tea party.
yeahbo 6 years, 4 months ago
I totally agree with Scott Ford.I think most people who voted against the tax misunderstand the concept of affordable housing. Especially as it pertains to Steamboat. Most see it as charity and "why should the "lower class" have the privilege of living in a resort town if they can't afford it. That's not the case at all, in Steamboat, affordable housing seeks to PRESERVE the middle class and affordable housing is a necessary public INVESTMENT in the essential infrastructure, ie hospital employees, teachers. If we don't want gov't to participate, than I CHALLENGE the free market, and the public community to pick up the gauntlet and produce! We cannot be this community that we are today with only one elite class able to afford to live within the city 30 years from now! See you wayyyy down valley while we teachers, therapists, hospital xray techs, computer techs, dental hygenists,firefighters, all commute one and a half hours in a steady stream of traffic ....... just the way it's done in Aspen, Vail and Telluride. Wake up Steamboat, we have a chance to be smarter and take action before it's too late. A small tax is a small price to pay for preserving our way of life! And I don't care if it's from gov't or private enterprise, but I want action, not talk!
id04sp 6 years, 4 months ago
If you moved here, could you afford to live here?
Why would anybody consider moving to a place they cannot afford?
Well, here's a different perpsective on the issue from somebody who came into Routt County with the idea that if you work hard and play fair, you can prosper.
Okay, I only got that far before milk came out my nose . . .
I bought my piece of Routt County almost 20 years after I graduated from college. I was able to do it because I had worked and invested and bought my way "up" in the market elsewhere to the point that I had equity from savings and sales of prior homes.
I discovered that a guy who builds a house with particle board can sell it for the same price as one built wth real plywood. Quality and value mean nothing compared to square footage. The folks who bought my first house were people with low-end jobs -- but with a future -- who got the money from a relative that struck it rich in business. Good for THEM! However, this is how Steamboat has come to be populated with a certain number of trust-funder types who didn't hit a lick at a snake to earn the money to afford it. People didn't have to earn the money to buy the houses available on the local market, so other people were priced out.
You will find that the trust-funders are not rushing over to a place like Brush (where they grow beets) to buy up all the available real estate. We are not going to build anything in Steamboat or Routt County fast enough to prevent people with money earned elsewhere from coming in and buying their piece of the dream.
Work hard somewhere else for 20 years. Buy a first home and build equity as you go. Save and invest. Then, 20 years from now, you'll be able to move to some resort town and afford a tiny little condo.
Envy is the real problem. The cure is to be realistic. Thank the society you were raised in for a set of expectations that doesn't fit reality.
Let's see . . . I'm working 50 hours a week at two jobs to afford propane, snow tires, a 4WD vehicle and health insurance. It's below zero outside. I can't afford to go skiing much anymore. Why was it I thought this was a good place to live?
Learn to love your commute to Steamboat from Walden or wherever. People who work in places like D.C. and Atlanta do that every day because they can't afford a house near their job.
When I began construction on my current house, it was appraised to sell for $168,000.00. A "comparable" with about the same floor space and features, but without the storage and garage space I built in, just sold for almost $400,000.00. At the magic $250 per square foot going price, my place is worth over $480,000.00. I am probably going to hold it until it hits $600,000.00. Then I'll cash it in, move to a place where shoveling snow is not the national sport for people over 60, and enjoy playing golf a couple of times a week during the winter -- even when temperatures plummet into the 50s.
another_local 6 years, 4 months ago
"If we don't want gov't to participate, than I CHALLENGE the free market, and the public community to pick up the gauntlet and produce!" I think this comment is in response to my post above so I thought I would add some clarification of what I meant:
First of all, I said "city govt" not govt in general. Our council has a poor track record of getting things done and a poorer one for using money efficiently. Give the funds to the affordable housing authority.
Second, city govt can do a lot to help the private sector produce and reward them for doing so. They should get moving in that direction. It can be done through public policy allowing land annexation under certain use provisions, (as Scott discusses in the second to last paragraph, except that I would not advocate buying it with public money) It can be done through zoning changes that create conditions where it is profitable for private enterprise to build what we want to see built.
The city sees urban boundary change applications regularly from people who want to develop private property at a higher density than the county allows by getting a parcel added to the city limits. Instead of pretty much fighting them all, what if we allowed the inclusion on the condition that the development was limited to a mix homes under 2000 square feet with a minimum density of four per acre and smaller rental units. Zone the entire thing prohibiting nightly rentals.
Provide waivers on tap fees and other regulation as additional incentives for certain features or conditions. Use affordable housing funds perhaps to put in the roads and thereby lower the development cost. Who knows... there has to be a better way than having the city build homes!
What are the most successful neighborhoods in our town? The ones that locals want to live in? They are the areas where most or all of the homes are occupied year 'round by those of us who live here. Inclusionary zoning is mess. It will not create "community". It will not end up making this a better place to live. Build neighborhoods for locals. Do it on private land with private sector development. Incent and reward with public policy. Annex new land if that is what it takes.
nightbird 6 years, 4 months ago
Scott Ford's editorial is right-on target and close to home (no pun intended). He clearly stated what the issue is. The "affordable" housing issues at its core is a land use issue just like the preservation of open-space. The bricks and mortar of our homes does not create the cost issue. It is the "dirt" they sit on which has become outrageously expensive. Just as we have created a funding source and set aside dollars to pay for open space we need to create a funding source and set aside dollars for the purchase of land ("dirt") for affordable housing.
In the mid 80's I moved into a house in Old Town. It was not new but it was one we could afford. In this house I had two husbands; raised three kids, 6 dogs, two cats, a rabbit and countless goldfish. Over the 20+ years I have lived here it became much more than a house it is my home. There is no way I could afford this house now. My husband and I have very good jobs and if we were to think about buying this house today it would be well beyond our means.
I plan on retiring in a few years and moving to some place warmer. We will need the equity from the home to help fund our retirement. A realtor friend told me that I could get close to $800K for my house. She also told me that the buyer would likely scrape the house off the lot and build a custom home worth a couple of million.
I have been active in the community and I have logged countless volunteer hours at the schools and for various non-profit organizations in town. I like to think that my efforts have made this a better place to live. It is sad to think that a working family even with very good jobs cannot afford to live here and raise their kids.
Who is going to replace me when I leave? Now that is the question we should start asking ourselves before it is too late!
another_local 6 years, 4 months ago
"The bricks and mortar of our homes does not create the cost issue"
That is not exactly the case. Outrageous construction costs are a big part of the issue in this market.
id04sp 6 years, 4 months ago
Yes, construction costs are gouged way out of proportion to the cost of materials. Then again, if you're going to be in the construction business, you've got to be able to make a living that will support you in the local market.
Most people do not realize that construction costs are higher in Routt County because of the need for "engineered" reinforced foundations and high snow loads. The reinforced foundations are required because of "expansive" soil that swells and puts pressure on the foundation walls. Foundation footers must be more than 4 feet deep to get below the frost line (and prevent freezing water under the foundation from causing "frost heave" that will crack the walls). Roof loading is near or over 100 pounds per square foot in most areas (compared to as little as 20 pounds per square foot in a place like Florida). By comparison, interior floor loading is only 40 pounds or so per square foot. You end up with a massively built roof transmitting a load down to a massively built foundation, and all of this probably adds $40,000 or more to the cost of materials used in the project. Triple that cost to pay a builder to put it up, and that's where you get a huge portion of the cost.
So, the "brick and mortar" cost is considerably higher than in most other parts of the country because of the foundation and snow loading issues. Put that on top of a piece of expensive land, and prices skyrocket.
The answer is to suck it up and move where the land is cheaper.
another_local 6 years, 4 months ago
"Triple that cost to pay a builder to put it up, and that's where you get a huge portion of the cost"
There is part of the problem. Builders here are charging double and triple what builders most places charge for the labor portion of the job.
Basic construction costs are up to $100 per foot higher here than they are most places. For a 2000 square foot home that is 200K. Most of that difference is labor not material.
It is scarcity of labor for the building boom that is driving these prices not snowloads. This is compounded by the oil and gas related work in the region where many workers with the same skills are employed. Classic market conditions.
Another reason the "brick and mortar" costs are up is that the suppliers of these commodities are also gouging on prices in order to cover the wages they have to pay which are also double and triple what they would be many places. This does not double the prices, but it does raise them considerably.
id04sp 6 years, 4 months ago
The reason for higher labor costs is that the people putting up the homes need to make a living too. Certain things just cannot be done year-round when you have to work outside, and working inside before the place is closed in and you can use heaters is no fun at all. Still, that doesn't mean the guy driving the nails is getting the higher pay, just that the builder is charging more for labor. Generally, you can take the cost of materials, add that much again for labor, and add that much again for profit. A builder who swings a hammer gets paid for his labor twice -- but what's wrong with that? He's the guy taking the financial risk, too, and anybody who has been in business and taken the risk knows that's worth a lot. Try sitting on a house for a month or two while you're waiting for the thing to sell, or for escrow to close. You're still waiting to get paid during all that time, so you'd better have a nice little chunk of working capital in the bank to cover the gaps.
The season for starting construction is short. If you don't get started when the ground thaws, you're stuck going into the next winter.
I remember building in north Routt in February, and it was no picnic. 10 F was a nice day. I didn't have to pick up nails out of the box. I could put my hand in the box and the nails would stick to it. Tell me that's not worth a couple of extra bucks.
Requires free registration
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.
Or login with:
OpenID