In the beginning, Floyd Memorial Hospital was permitted to continue expanding in a fashion not unlike the cancer cells it has sworn to eradicate, spelling doom for another street bearing the ill fortune to be located nearby.
Then it was resolved to create a subdivision aimed at first time homebuyers of low to moderate income by moving the condemned houses from East Cottom Street to … well, uh ... to somewhere else.
One can almost visualize New Albany’s officials scratching their heads over city maps, searching for a vacant lot or three.
Eventually it was determined to deposit the vagabond homes on the grounds formerly known as Howard McLean Park, where an ill fated attempt to re-launch adult baseball was made decades ago, and to create yet another euphemistically styled development: Linden Meadows, the latter word intended as always to remind onlookers of the landscape feature obliterated to make room for the homes and their future Wal-Mart shopper occupants.
To no one’s surprise, the plan has since descended into the bottomless legal abyss of lawsuit and counter-lawsuit, with neighbors united to oppose Linden Meadows, the Community Housing Development Corporation accusing the neighbors of pre-emptive discrimination based on the likely demographic of future residents, and efforts underway to track the deed transfers and contact the original donor by Ouija Board to determine original intent.
Here at NA Confidential, we dare not hazard a guess as to the strengths and weaknesses of these arguments.
However, we can’t help noticing that from the perspective of Interstate 64, westbound travelers glancing north can see a couple of dozen houses on blocks, scattered around a field that very well may once have been a meadow, and following quite naturally that New Albany now has its very first Used House Lot.
Unfortunately, New Albany cannot lay claim to inventing the idea. We have found several Internet references to proposed “used house lots” in America, as well as to sites in Australia and New Zealand where the practice is established and thriving.
Tribune coverage:
CHDO files complaint against group opposing subdivision by Amany Ali, Tribune City Editor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
In what universe does $50,000 per annum constitute a low income? I understand that to qualify to purchase these homes in what appears to be an innovative high-density housing park, nearby to downtown, the household income must exceed $50,000.
Recalling NA Confidential's early query: "Where do the homeless people keep all the stuff they (supposedly) steal?"
How much crime is committed by folks with household incomes over $50,000.
I think that CHDO is doing its job and the BZA and Plan Commission are doing theirs. Both of the latter have deferred approvals until the courts decide whether restrictive covenants of long-standing have merit. On its face, it appears that the covenant has been superseded by time, but, of course, that's for a judge to decide.
Maybe BWS can refresh us on the rule against perpetuities and its analogue to this situation.
Much like with the pending settlement negotiations with New Albany DVD, I know many people who will be looking to see if precedents are set or upset. Family donations of land to public use are to be encouraged, but as a matter of public policy, the legislature long ago decided that restrictions on use can't go on forever. We await a ruling on the constitutionality of the general assembly's actions.
Apologies for the garbled text at the end of this entry. It has been amended. For the second day, I've had a problem with links disappearing along with blocks of text - idiosyncracies that I suppose we must endure to use a "free" blogging service.
Just to clear up some misconceptions regarding the CHDO project, firstly you should know that the city did not file the discrimination suit…the CHDO did. Sorry, but no politics here folks. Indeed the city has no part of this project other than to perform its duties in respect to approving or disapproving a subdivision as they would with any other private developer. The houses were donated to the CHDO, a non-profit organization, and that’s who owns them, not the city.
Secondly, I don’t know where you got the $50,000 minimum income requirement, although it does make me wonder if the “Wizard of Westside” has been peering at his clouded crystal ball again. The facts are there is no bottom end income limits. It’s only on the top side…they cannot earn more than 80% of AMI to be eligible for the program.
It’s a shame that this project has been so muddled up with misconceptions and misunderstandings that all the good it entails has been completely obliterated from view. So let me shed some light if I may:
With the successful completion of this endeavor all of New Albany stands to benefit from federal match funds to repair/replace the daunting number of substandard housing that plague our city. Unfortunately this has obviously raised the ire of one street of folks who think this is a bad thing because they are “losing their park”. The truth of the matter is they are afraid of the “element” of the future homeowners as you alluded to in your headline. The “park”, after all, has been nothing short of an overgrown field for some time now. And, as All4Word said, there are time limits on constraints of use with respect to donated land.
The 23 families who will own these homes put in a lot of time and hard work, dedication and fortitude because of their desire to become homeowners and invest in New Albany rather than perpetuate the swelling (unchecked) rental market in this town. Isn’t that a good thing? Don’t we want to reduce rentals?
Furthermore, the argument that New Albany already has a lot of low priced homes is in itself a testament to the high number of dilapidated homes that are here. What does $70-$80K buy these days? Only $20K worth of needed repairs. The CHDO program provides safe, decent, truly affordable and livable housing. Up to code and move in condition for a $70-$80K mortgage. As a bonus, by saving these homes we’ve saved a little bit of the character of New Albany in its better times. There’s something to be said for that as well.
This is a chance to do a good thing, the right thing. Please, seek out the truth that’s been buried under a lot of garbage. I believe the people who read and write in this forum have good sense and are capable of looking past the naysayers and into the future where New Albany once again becomes a nice place to call home, and where neighbors welcome neighbors.
Thanks, EE, for the clarification. My info on incomes came from the horse's mouth, but I clearly misunderstood. The reason I remembered the $50K figure is that I found it to be remarkable. Turns out it was incredible.
CHDO is doing its job. Yes, that is their job, to make this development happen.
KWZ is off base. What you get when you plant low-income housing is fewer rentals. I'd love to see the research supporting a claim that affordable housing diminishes a city and creates more absentee homeowners.
There's been an ad in the Evening News/Tribune classifieds lately with an 800 number touting a real estate investor selling all their homes. I called thinking it might be an opportunity to help myself by finding a home and to help the neighborhood by getting at least one house off the absentee landlord list.
After a couple of calls and a few days, I spoke with the investor who explained that she was supposed to have purchased 40 homes in the original deal and, since she only got twenty-something, the investment wasn't what she wanted. I asked about the availability of homes near downtown NA and was told I'd have to check myself as the investor wasn't familiar with the area.
She emailed a spreadsheet with the list of addresses and prices for homes and apartment complexes spread throughout NA, Jeff, and Clarksville. Questions about particular properties were generally answered with "I don't know. I've only seen them a couple of times."
When I enquired about purchasing a single home, I was told that wouldn't be possible because the cost of travel from New Orleans for a closing would be too much for the investor to bare. If I wanted to purchase several, we could discuss it.
Needless to say, our conversation ended there. I trust that Kevin will turn my disappointment to happiness, though, when he explains how the situation described above is good for New Albany.
Thanks All4Word, I too would like to see what KWZ has been reading to reach the conclusions he has. Something is askew with that logic.
As for Downtown loft apts. I say, as I have for years, GOOD IDEA!!! The only way downtown is going to be revived is to put a population living there. Then, and only then, will retail shops survive downtown.
And, I agree that not all rentals are bad. Nor do I believe we must wipe them out completely. However, until our illustrious leaders can muster up enough brain power to figure out how to enforce codes and ordinances to keep rentals safe and in good condition, New Albany will continue to be a slumlords haven.
One more thing, unfortunately it's not milk and bread that are in demand here, it's meth and drugs. And unchecked, cheap rental housing with absentee landlords are allowing the demand to be filled. And now that our police dept. has no drug task force, well, I guess we're on our own.
How 'bout them apples?
Being a businessman in the downtown you would expect that I would be against loft apartments. However, I agree in part that having folks living over the retail stores seems like a very good idea, you also have to look at the perceived parking problem the downtown suffers from.
And at this time a local attorney is renovating several new apartments on Pearl Street, and when done they will provide wonderful places to live. But one thing that few people that live downtown knows is that the city has an ordnance, for every apartment downtown, off street parking must be provided by the landlord.
Of course we also have ordinances forbidding warehousing in street level shops, but nothing seems to be enforced with that one too!
….My one thought about the new subdivision is, how can a family give a piece of land to the community to use as a park, then a few years later, a civil servant of the people make a statement that the time limit on that request has expired! I am sure if the family making the original gift knew that a time limit existed they would not have made such a gift!
I would think that this matter really does need to be settled in the courts, by people who know and understand the law, not by an individual that has knowledge of the law, but does or can not practice it!
And, why do they call it practice, will they ever get good enough to get into the real game?
Rick Carmickle
Rick,
Would you please explain your opening statement, "Being a businessman in the downtown you would expect that I would be against loft apartments."
My assumption would be that downtown business owners would welcome lofts. What am I missing?
Thanks.
Bluegill, I believe Rick is pointing to the lack of street parking. Recall at the forum, Rick mentioned parking for employees of downtown businesses, i.e., employees shouldn't be using the street space intended for customers. If ordinance stipulates street parking for apartments/lofts, than it's another strain on available spaces.
It deals the perception that downtown has a parking problem, and the reason I say perception, is that there is plenty of parking available in the downtown area. It may not be in front of the store the customer wants to visit, but then again, with the parking garage and other surface lots, there is more than ample parking to accommodate shoppers and clients.
Several years ago, I had my studio in a building that housed two apartments above it, that meant there were always two cars trying to park directly in front of the business. One of the tenants drove a very large van with ladders stacked on top; he was a house painter, sometimes for days his van did not move! This blocked the front of the studio, and thus wanting people to see our work from the street, it became very discouraging to have this huge van in front of my store. Finally, I talked with the owner; his concern was he wanted his van close so he could hear if anyone was attempting to break in to it during the night. He did not realize he was blocking my windows, he agreed to move the van during the day, and returning it at night!
My point of this story is there are many residents downtown, and like any other homeowner wants to park his or her car in front of the residence, I like parking my car in front of my house too! But in the commercial area, this may be come a problem during normal business hours. You have only 15 to 18 parking places on Pear Street available at any one time. Having cars there that do not move every two hours will only add to this perceived problem of parking!
Why I say perceived? Folks will go to the Mall, park at one end, and walk to the other, which is about three city blocks, but when coming to downtown, they will not park in the next block over and walk a half a block.
I am not opposed to people living downtown, I just want the land lords made aware that they must provide off street parking to tenants, and the tenants to utilize the off street parking provided and be aware of it, thus during the business hours allowing customers and clients to come and go as needed.
Thanks for your reply hope this helps.
Rick Carmickle
Thanks Rick and NA. That makes sense.
It would be nice if loft developers could provide a permanently leased space in one of the current or future garages, included in the monthly rent.
I had a loft-living friend in downtown Denver who paid $500 a month for a tiny efficiency and $350 a month to park her car in the garage down the block.
Do current downtown parking restrictions ( 2hrs, etc) hurt or help the situation? If there are restrictions, are they enforced?
Of course, I guess we need lofts and a parking problem before it matters.
Once again...the city does not own the CHDO project!!! No money is being spent by the city for ANYTHING! The project itself will be paying for roads, sewer hookups, electric, etc. All the infrastructure will be done by the CHDO. No money is being drawn from the city.
Also, to Rick...it is true there are parking issues downtown, but since no one seems too upset about tearing down buildings, I would imagine that could be solved rather easily. Let alone the fact that a little creative flow of ideas may just turn that parking garage money sucker into a viable asset that will actually pay for itself rather than drain the city's budget.
As for the sunset clause stipulations on donated land, I think 30 years is a little more than a "few years" for land use requirements or wishes. Progress usually requires growth. But you're right, I'm not an attorney. Let's wait for them to tell us.
As for downtown living, we should think about young people (ie:IUS Students) and the convenience of walk-to store fronts and perhaps encouraged bicycling. For the 1000's of cars that blow by our little town on their way to that boat, seeing folks milling around the streets of downtown may just entice them to stop and speand a little of their winnings on unique, one of a kind, special service types of arts, retaurants and businesses that are worth every bit of a few more dollars.
To KWZ, as a sociologist I just can't seem to wrap my mind around your way of thinking. Downtowns intentionally don't compete with the burbs and the "specialty" CHAIN STORES.
Perhaps downtown revitalization along the lines discussed would offer a platform for some of us poor folks in town to succeed with a small business. Or did I mis-understand when they said ultimately, it's the small business start ups that put drive behind a sluggish economy?
Hey my mom makes less than $5,000 a year at age 80, does she qualify(Wink) to purchase one of these homes? If so we, I mean she will take two. Yikes
Post a Comment