Good thinking? The guy can barely form a complete sentence. It's a good thing he arrived in town early enough to be able to afford a home because I'm not sure his "education" would provide for him today.
Boatdweller: first you say the Iron Horse is a boodoggle, then you say the city should buy some land. I see the Iron Horse as an example of buying land. The location for such housing couldn't be better due to it being on the bus line and within walking distance to downtown and the core trail. I think the Iron Horse is okay for rental housing in its existing state for the foreseeable future, but that site is underutilized and should eventually be redeveloped with a lot more density.
On your other point, the city has/is using it's powers of annexation to faciliate affordable housing. It's called Steamboat 700. Without the city's facilitation, there would be no free market affordable housing on this property, or anywhere else for that matter.
Hometown: affordable means different things for different people depending on a lot of factors, namely your income and family status. Some also define it as not spending more than 30% of your montly income as mortgage or rent.
Okay, we'll assume a $3/hr. raise. Here's a few questions: Are you going to give it to all city employees or just the one's needing housing? How would you eliminate the fairness issue between employees who get it and those who don't? Does the raise come with an automatic annual increase to keep it on pace with the increase in rents? Does it grandfather or keep going forever?
I would assume that you would have to maintain the raise program, with annual increases, for life to accomplish the same results as the purchase of the Iron Horse. After about 20-25 years of this, I would think that you would result in approximately the same amount as needed to buy the Iron Horse. At that point, the costs for the raise would continue on, while the building and remodel would be paid for. Maybe I'm deluded, but that seems like a better deal.
Your public/private comment, bubba, is part of the solution. I've seen other resort towns that put our RFP's for private construction of affordable housing with public funds. First, they give 3-4 design firms some money to design an AH project, then the appoint a community panel to pick the best one. Then they put out an RFP for contractors to build them. They have to provide the product within an established budget, which requires them to be efficient with public funds to make a decent profit. This is as opposed to the city managing the construction, with all of the attendant change orders and cost overruns. If we had a funding source, this could be an option.
Your point about the other costs of construction are valid and free land may still not be enough. At least if you did do restricted affordable housing, you wouldn't get hit again for the city housing requirement.
This is a good discussion with lots of ideas. I'm still not convinced that simply raising wages across the board would allow people in need to suddenly be able to afford housing. It would have to be one hell of a raise and then what would that do to business costs having to pay the higher wages?
At this point in the game, because of the cost of land, all affordable housing will be a net loss, unless you get the land for free. It's just a reality. If we require such projects to "pencil" to be successful, then they will never happen. If we truly want such housing, we have to accept this fact. And that is why the free market will never ever provide affordable housing again in Steamboat (other than what they are required to do by the city). The only entity that could and would pull it off is the city or, better yet, the Housing Authority with a funding source.
Quinn should've stepped down. The difference between him and an employee of Safeway or Waste Management is that he owns the company. Do you think he could look an applicant with which he does business with, in the eye at a Council meeting and vote no on his multi-million dollar application? It's simply not going to happen. That, is a conflict of interest. He could stand to lose an account.
This is opposed to an employee at Safeway, which incidentally has happened before, who will not lose (nor gain) financially and who will still have his job even if he votes no on that same multi-million dollar application.
I love it when people who got here 30 years ago tell the newbies today that they're not working their tails off enough to afford housing like they did. The curves for increase in housing costs has skyrocketed over that time, while the curve for increase in wages has been fairly flat. It's not even the same ballgame. You try starting off again in 2007 and see how well you do!
After reading some posts, I agree that it would've been cheaper to buy it outright rather than financing. I also agree with bubba that the multi prong approach is the best way to addressing the affordable housing problem (we'll never completely solve it). There is no silver bullet and no one right way for every person. I've attempted in the past to offer my insight into how other resort communities have successfully addressed it (at the risk of being labeled socialist). I'm not here to say it's the best way or the only way, just a way. Ultimately, we'll come up with a uniquely Steamboat approach that considers and blends all methods.
I can't contribute anything to how it was financed, but I think that if we support affordable housing, then we need to get past looking at the purchase as a money making proposition. With land prices being what they are, all affordable housing from here on out will be a money loser and subject to subsidy. If it were a money maker, then somebody other than the city would be doing it. It all comes down to whether the community thinks such housing is important enough to subsidize. If we were to sell the IRon Horse 10 years down the road for a profit, then we've accomplished nothing in terms of affordable housing.
Steve Aigner: Annexation review
Good thinking? The guy can barely form a complete sentence. It's a good thing he arrived in town early enough to be able to afford a home because I'm not sure his "education" would provide for him today.
February 24, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Council sets priorities
Boatdweller: first you say the Iron Horse is a boodoggle, then you say the city should buy some land. I see the Iron Horse as an example of buying land. The location for such housing couldn't be better due to it being on the bus line and within walking distance to downtown and the core trail. I think the Iron Horse is okay for rental housing in its existing state for the foreseeable future, but that site is underutilized and should eventually be redeveloped with a lot more density.
On your other point, the city has/is using it's powers of annexation to faciliate affordable housing. It's called Steamboat 700. Without the city's facilitation, there would be no free market affordable housing on this property, or anywhere else for that matter.
December 3, 2007 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tinker Tiffany: Support housing
Hometown: affordable means different things for different people depending on a lot of factors, namely your income and family status. Some also define it as not spending more than 30% of your montly income as mortgage or rent.
Okay, we'll assume a $3/hr. raise. Here's a few questions: Are you going to give it to all city employees or just the one's needing housing? How would you eliminate the fairness issue between employees who get it and those who don't? Does the raise come with an automatic annual increase to keep it on pace with the increase in rents? Does it grandfather or keep going forever?
I would assume that you would have to maintain the raise program, with annual increases, for life to accomplish the same results as the purchase of the Iron Horse. After about 20-25 years of this, I would think that you would result in approximately the same amount as needed to buy the Iron Horse. At that point, the costs for the raise would continue on, while the building and remodel would be paid for. Maybe I'm deluded, but that seems like a better deal.
November 18, 2007 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tinker Tiffany: Support housing
Your public/private comment, bubba, is part of the solution. I've seen other resort towns that put our RFP's for private construction of affordable housing with public funds. First, they give 3-4 design firms some money to design an AH project, then the appoint a community panel to pick the best one. Then they put out an RFP for contractors to build them. They have to provide the product within an established budget, which requires them to be efficient with public funds to make a decent profit. This is as opposed to the city managing the construction, with all of the attendant change orders and cost overruns. If we had a funding source, this could be an option.
Your point about the other costs of construction are valid and free land may still not be enough. At least if you did do restricted affordable housing, you wouldn't get hit again for the city housing requirement.
This is a good discussion with lots of ideas. I'm still not convinced that simply raising wages across the board would allow people in need to suddenly be able to afford housing. It would have to be one hell of a raise and then what would that do to business costs having to pay the higher wages?
November 17, 2007 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tinker Tiffany: Support housing
At this point in the game, because of the cost of land, all affordable housing will be a net loss, unless you get the land for free. It's just a reality. If we require such projects to "pencil" to be successful, then they will never happen. If we truly want such housing, we have to accept this fact. And that is why the free market will never ever provide affordable housing again in Steamboat (other than what they are required to do by the city). The only entity that could and would pull it off is the city or, better yet, the Housing Authority with a funding source.
November 17, 2007 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tinker Tiffany: Support housing
Quinn should've stepped down. The difference between him and an employee of Safeway or Waste Management is that he owns the company. Do you think he could look an applicant with which he does business with, in the eye at a Council meeting and vote no on his multi-million dollar application? It's simply not going to happen. That, is a conflict of interest. He could stand to lose an account.
This is opposed to an employee at Safeway, which incidentally has happened before, who will not lose (nor gain) financially and who will still have his job even if he votes no on that same multi-million dollar application.
November 17, 2007 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tom Ross: 15 things to do while waiting to ski
Great article Tom. I especially like the realtor bit.
November 17, 2007 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tinker Tiffany: Support housing
I love it when people who got here 30 years ago tell the newbies today that they're not working their tails off enough to afford housing like they did. The curves for increase in housing costs has skyrocketed over that time, while the curve for increase in wages has been fairly flat. It's not even the same ballgame. You try starting off again in 2007 and see how well you do!
November 17, 2007 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Council mulls Iron Horse
After reading some posts, I agree that it would've been cheaper to buy it outright rather than financing. I also agree with bubba that the multi prong approach is the best way to addressing the affordable housing problem (we'll never completely solve it). There is no silver bullet and no one right way for every person. I've attempted in the past to offer my insight into how other resort communities have successfully addressed it (at the risk of being labeled socialist). I'm not here to say it's the best way or the only way, just a way. Ultimately, we'll come up with a uniquely Steamboat approach that considers and blends all methods.
November 11, 2007 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Council mulls Iron Horse
I can't contribute anything to how it was financed, but I think that if we support affordable housing, then we need to get past looking at the purchase as a money making proposition. With land prices being what they are, all affordable housing from here on out will be a money loser and subject to subsidy. If it were a money maker, then somebody other than the city would be doing it. It all comes down to whether the community thinks such housing is important enough to subsidize. If we were to sell the IRon Horse 10 years down the road for a profit, then we've accomplished nothing in terms of affordable housing.
November 11, 2007 at 7:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )