| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri, Mar 5 2010, 4:14 pm EST Post subject: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
 |
|
So there are currently two 3-bedroom houses for sale in Cranbury for $200K and $220K, both of which presumably could had for less. And there are two others for sale for less than $300K. And presumably if there are four for sale, there are others that are of similar value without the Township market.
So why do none of these count as affordable housing? What is the fair market value of the new affordable housing units the Township taxpayers pay for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Mar 5 2010, 4:22 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
| I think that's a good point. There are homes for sale in Cranbury that are affordable. The town can easily compute the percentage of homes in Cranbury that are affordable based on the assessed value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Mar 5 2010, 8:17 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
To answer your question, there are no income restrictions on those potential buyers. In other words, a millionaire could buy a small "affordable" house.
The township can buy up "affordable" houses and rent them with income restrictions in order to qualify as "affordable housing" as defined by COAH. This strategy helps current residents to sell their houses and reduces overall population growth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Mar 5 2010, 11:55 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
My original point went to what the purpose and spirit of the law is. If the purpose is to assure that a reasonable percentage of a communities housing is affordable, then why shouldn't a community be able to demonstrate what percentage of its current free market housing already is affordable before determining how many shiny brand new housing units its taxpayers need to build? It makes no sense.
And as for the idea that it doesn't count because its not income restricted, that makes no sense either. If millionaires were buying up these affordable homes then they would start selling for a lot more than $200K – that’s the very definition of a fair market price.
It’s a good example of government regulation twisting something completely out of its original context. What started as a rule to protect existing citizens of a Township and their grown children from being “priced out” of their Township has become a “a community must constantly build brand new homes for people from outside the community to move into regardless of how many free market affordable homes it already has.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Mar 5 2010, 11:57 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
How much does a single family affordable housing unit cost Cranbury to build? If more than $200-220K, why not buy these homes toward that commitment?
Oh wait, let me guess. I bet COAH has a tune of codes that have to be met which older homes wouldn't meet. In other words, its fine for taxpayers to have to live without central air conditioning, etc., but let's make sure all the subsidized homes have to be built to a highr standard than most of the rest of us manage to get by with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Mar 6 2010, 7:52 am EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | My original point went to what the purpose and spirit of the law is. If the purpose is to assure that a reasonable percentage of a communities housing is affordable, then why shouldn't a community be able to demonstrate what percentage of its current free market housing already is affordable before determining how many shiny brand new housing units its taxpayers need to build? It makes no sense.
And as for the idea that it doesn't count because its not income restricted, that makes no sense either. If millionaires were buying up these affordable homes then they would start selling for a lot more than $200K – that’s the very definition of a fair market price.
It’s a good example of government regulation twisting something completely out of its original context. What started as a rule to protect existing citizens of a Township and their grown children from being “priced out” of their Township has become a “a community must constantly build brand new homes for people from outside the community to move into regardless of how many free market affordable homes it already has.” |
This is a good point. I live in a home that I am constantly working on, that needs major work done and that I have a 10 year plan to do and that is fixing not renovation which is now a nice to have and need to do, but a 20 or 25 yr plan ala my retirement.
Yesterday, I had dinner with a long time resident who complained his kids could not afford to live in Cranbury. I said that is not true and highlighted these homes which I know his kids could afford. Their reply, was the houses were sub standard and that their kids were accustom to and wanted a 4 bedroom home because of 2 kids. The more the talked the more my home itself seemed to be put down and I realized their expectations were too high for most towns.
I told him remember I have a 3 bedroom home and do just fine. I think there is a set of expectations that people should be able to come in and afford a Shadow Oaks, Cranbury Greene type home. I could and cannot do that so I bought what I could and love my home, recognize no difference in attitude of people because of where I live or my home, and I can afford my mortgage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Mar 6 2010, 9:15 am EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
| Wouldn't it still make sense to purchase and update the existing homes and make them meet COAH requirements? As they are existing houses we don't use open/unbuilt space, and would eliminate most of the NMBY resistance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Mar 6 2010, 9:16 am EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
| Interesting. So what we're saying is that the purpose of COAH is to assure that taxpayers pay for the ever greater expectations of of younger people to be entitled to the level of home, at best, that their parents achieved after decades of work as their starter home? So its not about affordable housing, its about subsidizing the dream of shiny new housing as established by all the big builders in NJ who are really the ultimate beneficiaries of this policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Mar 6 2010, 9:18 am EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
| I grew up in an apartment, then a 2 bedroom duplex and finally a really old 3 bedroom home with no AC or central heat, no dishwaster, no fancy features or rooms for everyone to be on their own. Somehow I managed to survive this ordeal. I didn't realize I apparently had some NJ constitutional right to be entitled to forcing everyone to pay for a higher standard of living for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Mar 6 2010, 12:24 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Interesting. So what we're saying is that the purpose of COAH is to assure that taxpayers pay for the ever greater expectations of of younger people to be entitled to the level of home, at best, that their parents achieved after decades of work as their starter home? So its not about affordable housing, its about subsidizing the dream of shiny new housing as established by all the big builders in NJ who are really the ultimate beneficiaries of this policy. |
Go read the Mt Laurel decisions
http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20100306/NEWS01/3060352/-1/newsfront2/Affordable-housing-advocates-bash-proposal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Mar 6 2010, 12:44 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
excellent suggestion. I personally don't have a problem with the Mt. Laurel decision. My problem has been with the implementation. Which has been strange, nonsensical, and arbitrary. The result of which is we don't build very much low income housing, we just continually sue each other.
I don't have an answer. But I do think after 30 years COAH has proved to be a failure. I think it is time to try again. Come up with new methodologies to acieve affordable housing. While new construction should have a affordable housing component, builders remedy needs to be abolished. Maybe state vouchers for rent, or subsidized mortgages would allow moderate and low income families to move into high real estate areas.
This is not a simple problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 9 2010, 12:34 am EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
Cranbury???????
Affordable housing??????
Theres an oxymoron in there somewhere.
Perhaps, someone suffers from irony deficiency?
The average house in town is how much?
600k?
700k?
The average salary around here is about 50-60k?
Do the math Einstein! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 9 2010, 12:38 am EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
How shall I explain this?..........................
Lawyers make laws so that the lawyers can get rich!
You can hardly do anything anymore without using a lawyer.
Do you know why?
C'mon.....................guess......................
The more complex our society becomes, the more that we need lawyers. But, first we need lawyers to make things MORE complex.
I agree with Shakespeare.
..........well....................maybe just the rotten ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 9 2010, 11:51 am EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
| publius wrote: | Cranbury???????
Affordable housing??????
Theres an oxymoron in there somewhere.
Perhaps, someone suffers from irony deficiency?
The average house in town is how much?
600k?
700k?
The average salary around here is about 50-60k?
Do the math Einstein! |
Wait, let me get this straight. The new definition of a Township having affordable housing is that the AVERAGE market value of all its PURCHASED single family housing must net out to a low number that most people can afford? When did that become the definition? Isn't it supposed to be that a reasonable percentage of all available housing units, including rentals, apartments, etc. are affordable?
Your new definition seems to make a few fundamental new assumptions about the American housing market:
1. That effectively all housing should be affordable and every community and Township should net out to the same average economic demographic. Otherwise your math doesn’t work. You can’t have well-off homes, even if they represent a minority of total housing in a community, without skewing your AVERAGE of total housing costs, which apparently matters more than the percentage or total units of affordable housing.
2. That all housing should be measured on the basis of owned single family homes. This is a radical shift in national expectations and, as far as I can tell, unprecedented in the world actually. I’m not aware of any country that defines a right of every citizen to be entitled to own their own home. Even the NJ affordable housing rules don’t assume that all affordable housing must be ownership-based. Yet that is exactly what you are saying when you base Cranbury’s average single family home sale price as the entire basis for judging affordability in a community.
3. That everyone should own. Now you’re drinking the marketing Kool-Aid of developers, banks, mortgage lenders, title companies, etc. that tried to change our historic perception about housing. Historically most people don’t own. Historically it was something a subset of people strived for as a long term economic and family goal. It wasn’t a given, no one was “entitled” to it, it usually took years to achieve and many didn’t. Yet by your definition all housing units should be affordable for-purchase single family homes. Do you work for the lending industry or a builder?
Also, it will be interesting to see what the upcoming census reveals but your assumption about the average income of a Cranbury resident is probably lower than actual.
I hate to raise the S-word since I am most certainly not a “tea party” member and I think the word is misused 99% of the time in this country, but what you are describing is actually textbook socialism, more so than is even practiced in Europe. Under your theory, based on averages of purchased homes rather than percentages of total housing, everyone is guaranteed the ability to buy a home, pretty much every unit of housing should cost around the same and every community should be equal. Every community should be the same. When exactly did this become an American goal or something to be proud of? For that matter, when did it become a bad thing for a community to strive to be better? Your theory suggests that’s a bad thing, that we should all strive to be exactly the same, in the middle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 9 2010, 2:35 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
| I agree with the above post, but it could have been said it about 1/10th as many words... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 9 2010, 3:30 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why doesn't our existing affordable housing count? |
|
|
| publius just stated he/she is taking a sociology course which means they are a college student. Therefore, they don't own a home in town, don't understand the mortgage process and have not gone through the issues most residents have to live in town. So ignore the posts and treat them as what they are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
