Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

An Innovative Initiative from UVa Shows A Way to Increase Low Cost Housing

—

by

sherlockj
in , ,

Courtesy UVa

by James C. Sherlock

In July I published a series of reports here on the lack of sufficient low-cost housing.

The University of Virginia is addressing that problem head on in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The innovation at the core of the program can be applied by Redevelopment and Housing Agencies (RHAs) across the state.

The idea came from the fact that 30% or more of the cost of developing housing is land cost. If a government, university foundation or any landowner would lease — long-term — underutilized land to a private property developer at a negligible land rent, the developer can make a profit with rents that are 30% below market.

This is how the University is building workforce housing for police, firefighters, nurses, school teachers and university blue collar workers. The idea, introduced by Jim Murray, a member of the Board of Visitors now also on the Affordable Housing Advisory Group at UVa, has been around for at least six years.

The concept will soon be reality.

The University program details can be found here.

Every city and county has an inventory of land, some of it forfeited in lieu of tax payments or seized in civil or criminal proceedings. In combination with zoning actions, it can be used for low-cost housing.

The UVa program is replicable. I hope the RHAs will consider it.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

45 responses to “An Innovative Initiative from UVa Shows A Way to Increase Low Cost Housing”

  1. kls Avatar
    kls

    Ahhhhhh….’company towns’…. back to the future. But will the real estate lobby allow it?

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      That is why it has taken six years to get started. But it is underway.

    2. YellowstoneBound1948 Avatar
      YellowstoneBound1948

      You load 16 tons and what do you get?

  2. Carter Melton Avatar
    Carter Melton

    I look at this from the perspective of The University’s mission.

    Most dynamic organizations, both public and private, often purchase real estate in anticipation of further expansion/growth needs. As long as those potential future land needs exist, they hold the property.

    However, once a determination is made that the anticipated land needs are no longer on the strategic radar screen, a public entity either liquidates the asset and redeploys the capital towards its mission, or it is, de facto, in the land speculation business.

    If it is in the University’s mission to either be a land speculator or low cost housing developer, fine……keep the real estate and donate public property to private developers who will support the mission and make a profit for their efforts.

    Otherwise, this plan is inappropriate mission creep of the first magnitude, funded by Virginia tax payers.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I don’t disagree.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      The university has determined that housing in Charlottesville and Albemarle County is so preposterously expensive, driven in considerable part by the very high wages that the university itself pays to its professional staff, and the number of those staff, that it cannot carry out its mission without more housing for lower wage workers.

      This use of university property is a way to to solve that problem.

      The approach is neither conservative nor progressive.

      It is an innovative version of the very bi-partisan voucher program that shifted government assets from building government projects filled with poor people to providing rent assistance to those same tenants to find housing in the private sector.

      This initiative will provide private sector housing for which existing federal voucher payments can provide a reason for private sector builders to build developments with low income units at a profit.

      And no, the University cannot just pay a minimum wage of $100,000 a year. Which may qualify to pay mortgages or rent in some existing housing in that area.

      Unless the citizens of Virginia want the University to recover those pay raises with tuition increases. Everyone who does raise their hand.

      This solution is better for (relatively) poor people, better for the taxpayers, better for the students and better for the University.

      1. Carter Melton Avatar
        Carter Melton

        Perhaps there is confusion about the “need”. If they need affordable housing to recruit and keep faculty and staff, that is one thing…..and entirely different from trying to use public land to commercially develop affordable housing for the general public.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          answers to these questions in their FAQ: https://prescouncil.president.virginia.edu/affordable-housing/faqs

          ” Are these units to be occupied by community members not associated with UVA?

          Student pressures cause high rents throughout city.

          Our intention is to serve the community broadly, not to limit this to the University community. We are also studying the possibility of housing all second-year students on Grounds, which we hope would alleviate pressure on the rental market in Charlottesville.”

          So UVA is tying this effort directly to it’s impact on housing in general in the city, which, in reality is substantial.

          Mission creep or core issue?

          Sherlock thinks even more widely.

          He sees the UVA approach as one that could be used by government entities outside of Higher Ed. To buy or receive land then dedicate the subsequent development of that land to low-cost/affordable housing.

          Many Conservatives claim it’s govt causing the problem to start with by not allowing the private sector to build low-cost housing because of restrictions on density and regulations.

          Here we have a public institution intervening to (somehow) provide the low cost housing in spite of those govt restrictions and regulations.

          hmmm… interesting…

          yeah.. maybe govt will “relax” those things for low-cost housing?

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            See my lengthy response to Lefty.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Or not, it’s worthless blather, misstatements and failure to understand.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        “The approach is neither conservative nor progressive.”

        It is however profoundly wrong.

        “This solution is better for (relatively) poor people, better for the taxpayers, better for the students and better for the University.”

        It is worse for the taxpayers who have to compete with their own tax dollars used to unfairly reduce prices for subsidized housing rentals/sales.

        “And no, the University cannot just pay a minimum wage of $100,000 a year. Which may qualify to pay mortgages or rent in some existing housing in that area.

        Unless the citizens of Virginia want the University to recover those pay raises with tuition increases. Everyone who does raise their hand.”

        Once again you resort to the old straw man dodge. Phony is the polite term for it.

        “It is an innovative version of the very bi-partisan voucher program that shifted government assets from building government projects filled with poor people to providing rent assistance to those same tenants to find housing in the private sector.”

        Only if innovative means perverted. Vouchers work, they’re not broke. Use them, don’t “fix” them.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          If you think “vouchers work” in Virginia, that is just plain ignorance.

          The evidence has been presented in this space that there are multi-year waits for vouchers all over the state. Then the recipients have to find someone who will accept them. The problem is insufficient supply.

          Understand that, and start over in thinking about it..

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            You can’t even keep your stories straight. Here’s what you wrote earlier:

            “It is an innovative version of the very bi-partisan voucher program
            that shifted government assets from building government projects filled
            with poor people to providing rent assistance to those same tenants to
            find housing in the private sector.”

            You can take either side on vouchers, but you can’t flip sides when it is convenient.

            Sherlock, you are no Holmes.

          2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            I give up. You simply cannot accept – or perhaps understand – the fact that Virginia’s voucher program is broken because of lack of supply, and UVa is trying to provide supply in an innovative way to make vouchers work in Charlottesville and Albemarle County and simultaneously provide housing for its blue collar work force. Too complex an idea, I guess. Done here.

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Nice try Admiral, but no cigar.

            You have never twigged to “unfair competition”. It is the simple idea that it is wrong to use taxpayers taxes against them.

            What you started out arguing was using tax dollars to give land to developers so they could sell at a discount against taxpayers who had to pay full price for their properties.

            When called on that perversion you have tried to morph the discussion to shortcomings involving vouchers in Virginia and descended into ad hominems. To return the favor, how very Jesuit of you.

            “Done here.” What took you so long?

          4. Super Brain Avatar
            Super Brain

            Very correct. PHA’s used to receive a set number of units. Now it is set funding.

      3. kls Avatar
        kls

        Will occupants be allowed to put vulgar statements disparaging the landlord on their doors?

  3. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    I strongly disapprove. I suspect UVA acquired the land because people donated money for the educational mission of UVA. This is part of The Exalted One’s Great and Good plan for UVA (and I still take offense that this implies UVA wasn’t good prior to his arrival and only will be when fulfilling his divisive, illegal vision). It is part of his “good neighbor” fuzzy language, while his DEI director is sent out to make “partnerships” with all the good Leftist entities, so everybody can be unhappy and harbor a racial or sexual or bad behaviour du jour grievance of victimhood. I was too young, but how did all that urban renewal led by our betters work out on 2 Street and Jackson Ward and Vinegar Hill in C-ville?
    Sell the land and drop some of your gentry zoning and let poor people housing be built for people to get on their feet and move out – like what happened before all the road to Hell good intention “help!”

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Walter, “poor people housing” will not be built if UVa sells the land, even with, as you correctly recognize, the city or county changes the zoning to permit it.

      First, unfortunately, city and county zoning boards across the state have not changed zoning sufficiently to support low cost housing – a big issue. They want to increase their tax bases.

      But let’s say the zoning commissions do agree as part of the transaction. UVa puts the land up for sale. Who would buy it for that specific use? What is the market incentive for developers to build low cost housing at voucher reimbursement rates in the vicinity of the University? Market incentives have not resulted in sufficient supply, especially close in to high-end attractions like UVa.

      So UVa, needing the housing for its workforce, has decided to control the outcome of transactions by keeping the land and requiring developers to build low cost housing on it as parts of mixed use developments to reduce the costs by the price of the land and make voucher money a viable reimbursement. The reason there are ten-year waits for vouchers is that no one will take them.

      It is the only way they have been able to figure out how to solve the problem. Same condition – lack of supply of low cost housing – exists across the state.

      That is why I have recommended local jurisdictions use surplus government land the same way.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        And I will always suspect the political/academic (currently no difference) people to manage/develop it ultimately for their own benefit, but with plenty of virtue signaling about how good they are (with other people’s money). I’d think this way even if it was Frank Hereford…but with Jim Ryan? EVERYTHING he does is political.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          I decided not to go there. You have seen my views of how President Ryan is doing his job. But I want you to know that I trust the key people running this particular program.

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            We just have a philosophical, big picture disagreement, and that’s…OK.
            https://youtu.be/rrFO702T7Sg

  4. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    How does this square with the issue of “unfair competition”? Might a local housing provider be unhappy that the university or government uses public funds, some of which are his tax dollars, to subsidize housing that sells below market that he cannot compete with?

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      The problem is defined by not enough contractors willing to invest in low cost housing resulting in not enough supply.

      This initiative lowers the costs of land and secures the zoning. All contractors can bid on the projects to be built on the land.

      Only losing bidders might complain. If they do, they won’t have a leg to stand on. They were not building low cost housing before this initiative.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        I don’t believe you understand. The unfair competition is not with other developers it is with existing owners using their tax dollars to compete with them. That is what makes it unfair.

        Here’s an example. I have a house for rent. UVA or C’ville gives the lot next door to a developer at a reduced price. He builds on the lot and rents for less than I can because I paid full price for my land.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          I believe I do understand. The land in question is already University property. It is not the “lot next door”. Beyond that, see my response to Mr. Melton below. And then circle back to how UVa solves its labor housing problem.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Actually you do not understand. You do not even acknowledge the issue.

            1) Your original post included cities and counties. It was broader than just UVA. Now you slither away from that.

            2) In your response below you incorrectly conflate voucher programs with your proposal to directly reduce cost to developers. Vouchers reduce housing cost to people not by unfairly subsidizing developers but by paying part of the housing cost for tenants.

            It is not an “innovative version” of vouchers as you assert. It is an entirely different and improper use of public resources to benefit some taxpayers and to disadvantage other taxpayers. Nice try to hide behind the dodge of bi-partisan support for something you did not propose, but no dice Sherlock.

            3) Universities/cities/counties could achieve the lower cost housing goal by selling surplus properties at market value and using the proceeds for vouchers that people could then use on the housing of their choice.

            4) It is fundamentally unfair competition to use public assets, at least in part coming from tax dollars, to subsidize some and allow them to undercut prices of other taxpayers.

          2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Utterly astounding end-to-end. Let’s take them one at a time.

            In response to #1, my post is correct as written. My suggestion is to adopt UVa’s innovation in cities and counties, who also have inventories of government-owned land.

            Your #2 unsurprisingly does not address the issue of supply. It also misstates the voucher program. Voucher payments are made directly to landlords. They are designed to “unfairly” (your term) subsidize developers of low cost housing. I have noticed that the left always shy’s away from discussing the supply side of supply/demand, haven’t you?

            You actually propose in #3 to issue yet more vouchers with no takers – no supply of housing to accept them. Another supply side denial. Congratulations. Two in one comment post.

            In #4 you opine to the effect that the social safety net programs should be abolished. All of them “use public assets”, all of them “coming from tax dollars” to create that “fundamentally unfair competition”.

            America subsidizes in many different ways people who are uncompetitive in the marketplace – who do not earn as much as others. One of those ways is to provide housing. Your privilege to want to end that safety net, but a bit harsh.

            Hate to ask, but what is your idea to increase supply?

            Doubling the rates at which vouchers are reimbursed would do it I expect.

            But perhaps that would be a lot more expensive that providing surplus government land for the developers, don’t you think? Or do you think?

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Not only do you not understand, you don’t even know what you don’t understand. Dunning-Kruger syndrome writ large. We can count on you to never let ignorance get in the way of a judgemental opinion and jumping to conclusions.

            For about the 3rd time, “unfair competition” is using public assets to unfairly compete (see there’s those words again) with other taxpayers.

            Vouchers work well several ways, some as you note go to developers who have qualified, others go directly to tenants to subsidize the cost.

            As you yourself phrase it:

            “It is an innovative version of the very bi-partisan voucher program that shifted government assets from building government projects filled with poor people to providing rent assistance to those same tenants to find housing in the private sector.”

            What is amazing is that a good solution, vouchers, that you pervert (“innovate”) is both longstanding and available. You reinvent the wheel as a square and proclaim it “innovative”.

            Once again Sherlock you are no Holmes.

          4. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            “America subsidizes in many different ways people who are uncompetitive
            in the marketplace – who do not earn as much as others. One of those
            ways is to provide housing. Your privilege to want to end that safety
            net, but a bit harsh.”

            You just can’t help yourself can you? Conflating issues and making up things I did not say. If I thought you did it consciously that would make you pathological. But, I don’t think you are even aware of what you are doing.

    2. kls Avatar
      kls

      VT is building a community on its par 3 golf course… competing with B-burg…. hmmmmmm

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        So was the par-3 course.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Oh joy, both using public assets to compete with each other.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    The FAQ has some hard-hitting questions:
    https://prescouncil.president.virginia.edu/affordable-housing/faqs

    This idea walks and talks like a standard “progressive” idea not a conservative one where govt is doing something that the private sector also does and in some folks minds, better than government and this is simple not the mission of a higher ed institution, especially since the FAQ doesn’t limit it to students or UVA personnel only.

    There’s a couple of other things in Va Law that may be related:

    https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title15.2/chapter22/article7.1/#:~:text=%22Transfer%20of%20development%20rights%22%20means,are%20transferred%20or%20are%20transferable.

  6. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    Dear readers:

    You will see in the comments above the current instantiation, more common every day, of progressives objecting to providing assistance to poor people.

    I have tried for years to describe solutions that help poor people while keeping the public fisc in mind while progressives fall further and further into the grasp of their truly strange ideology.

    Progressives are not concerned with anything that cannot be identified with immutable characteristics. Race and gender are two immutable characteristics, but progressives have described them as “social constructs” to align with their dogma.

    Poverty yields to education and effort, the results of personal agency, so it is not immutable, and progressives have dropped the poor from their list of victims unless they also have immutable characteristics.

    You see it here. And you will see it going forward.

    They pour effort and money into ideological objectives like electric vehicles and stopping natural gas pipelines, raising the cost of living for everyone. They dismiss school discipline as so yesterday. Closing schools? It is a safety issue. For a year and a half. No consideration for the kids futures. Making Medicaid more efficient and effective does not interest them.

    The poor are not the focus of many Republican politicians either, but education is, and traditional values and personal agency.

    That is why Hispanics are increasingly describing themselves as Republican and voting that way. It is why the Black and Hispanic parents of charter school kids and the very long list of parents and kids who want to join them in charter schools are abandoning progressive politicians who block them.

    Many of the progressive ankle-biter commenters here tie themselves up in knots trying to disparage solutions to real problems of the poor, especially in education and housing.

    As I said, I find it strange, but it is as inescapable as they are relentless. They will keep at it until they die. God rest their souls.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      talk about misrepresenting an issue… geeze…

      for instance, the issue with housing vouchers is funding not a supply issue :

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/75958af75bba0d547f15845423ffb61bad747137e7dd86e8d15a526bf05037a9.jpg

      Check out who refuses to adequately fund housing vouchers.. not the Dems…..

      I think you got a fairly wide amount of feedback here from both Conservatives and Progressives and opposition from conservatives also.

      And the “hit” on Dems from youse guys has been for as long as I can remember that the Dems give free “goodies” in exchange for votes and now you’re saying that they’re refusing goodies and so the Latinos and Blacks are voting for GOP who will presumably give them goodies?

      Boy is that mixed up!

      The Dems provide Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Pre-K, Title 1 , College loans, free breakfast and lunches, child care, and a wide range of other help.

      Dems want to help the Hispanic Dreamers as well a provide a path to citizenship.

      So what is the GOP actually offering?

      Not increased funding for Housing Vouchers – the program lacks enough funding and the GOP opposes increasing it.

      truth:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4daf2d64fb720bbbf3ecbd6a430f93b49f7a29dbe1389de210df8519c36c8ef7.jpg

      More and more – Conservatives misrepresent issues and actually lie about them.

      They tried that in Kansas and it bit them in the butt like it should have.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Try to understand, Larry.

        A million vouchers won’t put a roof over your head if no one will accept them, the university is trying an approach to increase the supply of housing near the university for which landlords will accept vouchers.

        You have opposed that. Do you even know why?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          How about you try to READ what the facts are and represent them? A simple Google search details it primarily as a lack of funding, not a lack of supply.

          It’s really not a “supply” issue. I see that claim as not proven but instead a claim and a belief without real evidence other than your claims.

          re: ” … the university is trying an approach to increase the supply of housing near the university for which landlords will accept vouchers.

          You have opposed that. Do you even know why?”

          I think what UVA is doing is stepping beyond the mission of higher ed but their justification may have some merit.

          I’m in favor of things that do work but I don’t think UVA’s approach is THE answer to a shortage of “affordable” housing in general. It’s specific to a town with a large college and it’s influence on available housing.

          Increasing the “supply” won’t help if people cannot afford the rent to start with.

          Increasing the “supply” won’t make the rent cheaper. It’s not the classic supply/demand issue at all. It’s like claiming if GM made more small cars, more folks could afford them.

          I costs money to build housing – you won’t make it cheaper and more affordable by building more of it if you don’t have the money to do so to start with.

          Towns and cities DO ALREADY incentivize development. They cut deals all the time with developers for things like TIFs and TDFs and redevelopment of blighted areas.

          Look at Detroit which has taken over thousands of properties and is now selling them for $1. Where does the money come from to actually build the “affordable” housing and how do you assure that it is “affordable” to folks who make far less than the median salary of that urban area?

          https://moneynation.com/can-buy-1-detroit-home/#:~:text=The%20reason%20the%20city%20of,home%20is%20still%20worth%20%2460%2C000.

          I just don’t see any real evidence of the “supply” claim. It’s basically a claim that more “supply” will fix the problem and the real problem IMHO is folks who don’t make enough money to afford the normal/typical cost of housing in many urban areas.

          And how does what UVA is doing really address the claim that government is the cause by zoning restrictions?

          You’re saying take what UVA is doing and apply it to the same cities and towns that you claim don’t want affordable housing but more expensive housing to bolster their tax revenues?

          Totally contradictory, guy.

          If true, do a proper study and show the cities with fewer restrictions generating more affordable housing – not just your personal and political beliefs.

          I give you CREDIT for long and detailed tomes to support your arguments but when I look deeper into them – what they are, often, is a lot of “wrapping” around a core political belief – like claiming a lack of supply caused by govt restrictions is why we don’t have enough “affordable” housing.

          What UVA is doing won’t solve the problem. It MIGHT put a dent in it short term but the idea of increasing “supply” is wrong-headed on it’s face in my view. Show me places that have successfully addressed the “supply” issue. Surely there must be some places that have done that, right? Or are you saying that all cities and towns are “guilty” of essentially opposing affording housing in favor of higher tax revenues?

          1. John Harvie Avatar
            John Harvie

            Correct. I worked as a contractor for 10 years in the housing department of a large city in Virginia and observed first hand the years long wait families had for a Section 8 voucher due to funding limitations from HUD.

            This appeared to be a much larger problem than the supply side. The rentals were generally available.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            That’s what I read also. But Sherlock claims it’s a “supply” issue caused by govt refusing to grant denser rezones and such.

            So John Harvie – having actually worked in that field – do you think the city you worked for suppressed the building of affordable housing like Sherlock is claiming?

          3. John Harvie Avatar
            John Harvie

            Absolutely not at the time but this was 20 odd years ago. Section 8 along with other workforce housing is needed everywhere.

            There is a NIMBY issue, however in many cases I suspect.

    2. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      “You will see in the comments above the current instantiation, more common every day, of progressives objecting to providing assistance to poor people.”

      Certainly hope you are not referring to me. That is not my position, or my political philosophy, nor has it ever been. You tried to fly that falsehood above and I called you on it.

      If you have repeated that after you have been informed it is false that defines your character. Making things up or creating denigrating straw men are some of your favorite ploys. They are neither attractive or effective but you are occasionally able to use them to distract from your own foolishness.

      I tried hard, and began politely, to help you understand that using public assets to compete against taxpayers in general and specifically in the housing market is known as “unfair competition”. It is a simple concept, but apparently beyond your comprehension.

      I even made a suggestion as to how affordable housing could be stimulated, a goal we share, using vouchers which you had cited positively, without stomping on taxpayers. But you would have none of it, either knowledge or logic.

      Now you launch an unhinged screed against progressives, once again setting up phony straw men even though it has nothing to do with your dingbat mission to assault taxpayers with their own tax dollars. Insult to injury, and completely in character with your holier than thou judgemental Jesuitism. Storm troopers of ignorance and intolerance since Galileo. Jesus loves you so you’ll get to heaven, but everyone else knows you’re an….

      Have a nice day Admiral.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        The basic rub is that you refuse to acknowledge that vouchers are worthless without a landlord who will accept them. And there are not enough landlords across the state who will accept them. That is an academic concept to you, to be refuted with a drink in hand at home at a keyboard.

        For the people who cannot find housing that they can afford, it is not an academic concept for them or their kids.

        The University of Virginia is trying to solve their labor problem by providing housing the people who work for them can afford on university land with an innovative approach.

        You, from your porch or living room, find theoretical moral and economist hazard with that which will disadvantage a theoretical Everyman with a house to rent. Here is a bulletin. There are not enough real every men with houses to rent.

        Got your position. Don’t care.

  7. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    I am thinking a somewhat similar property rental model might apply for the Inova Hospital expansion in Fairfax, except instead of low cost housing, the land/buildings are used as a new part of the medical campus.

  8. Super Brain Avatar
    Super Brain

    Very good article. Voucher waiting lists are closed at most PHA’s in Virginia. Real estate development is one of most favored favored business’s in USC Title 26 otherwise known as The Internal Revenue Code.

Leave a Reply

Read More