.MjQwMw.MjQwMw

HOUSING RESOUR CES COMMITTEE February 7, 1968 An Analysi e of Atlanta ' s Low-income Hous ine Program and Proposed Procedures for Its Improvement Although the most recent report (copy attached) of the Housing Resources Committee on t he status of the Low-income Housing Program shows good progress t o dat e , the cream has already been skimmed· from the initial potential and prospects f or the future of the program look extremely dim. This analysis is lengthy but is justified by the gravity of the current s ituation and the necessity for adequately explaining each of the features proposed herein. There is no need to dwell here on the major problem areas involved such as neighborhood objections, zoning, Federal policy, funding, etc., as we all are quite familiar with them. The resulting effect however is very disturbing. Substantial land promoters, developers, and builders on _whom we must rely for actual developments are losing interest in the proeram and are directing their major efforts elsewhere. and in other fields not involved with the difficulties encountered locally in attempted production of low-income housing. Without their continued active participation it will be extremely difficult to meet the alre ady established goals for the program (and it 'now appears that even t hese goals may not be adequate ). Our policy to date has been to follow prevailing established procedures by depending on the land promoters and developers to select the sites, take options on the land, attempt to get it rezoned if require~ and then develop the site. This procedure places t he entire initiative on private enterprise and l eaves in their hands primary responsibility for overcoming neighborhood objections and pol itical resistan ce. work. This is good, if it works, but f r equently i t does not This also habitually places the City in a vulnerable defensive and embar- rassing position, if the efforts of ·private enterprise do 'not succeed, and discourases other developers. if This is happenin~ entirely too of ten for continuation of a healthy progressive program which is sorely needed in Atlanta. �2 Instance after instance can be cited where the above has occurred. Some of the more prominent specific cases which have suffered or failed under this policy are: Browntown, Butler Street YMCA, Sewell Road, Browns Mill Road, Empire Drive., Golfview, Wilson Mill Road, East Lake #2 and Wellswood Apartments sites. (The last one was considered under the leasing progTam.) In fact, most of the 8,266 units proposed, which did not materialize (see Note A of Low-income Housing Invento:::-y Report of January 15) can be attribu:ted to strong objections from one or more groups under our current private enterprise sponsored, hit or miss, development procedure. The availability of land, one of the critical elements, which can be obtained at prices developers can afford to pay and still make a profit from their venture, is rapidly becoming a vital issue within the City limits of Atlanta. This factor a],one is primarily responsible for the lack of current development in single family sales housing for •low and moderate income families, although there is a great demand and substantial market for this category of housing in Atlanta. The rapid growth of the City and phenomenal rate of new construction is fast limiting the desirable sites on which low-income housing can be located in Atlanta, from both an economic and public relations standpoint. It is evident that in the past the procedure of letting nature take its course by depending entirely on private enterprise to initiate propos ed locations for lowincome housing and then carry the ball on obtaining the necessary approvals and zoning changes, is not adequate to insure success of the Low-income Housing Program • .. This is particularly true of Turnkey sites for Public Housing. A few specific examples clearly illustrate this: (a) Attempted rezoning of the Browntown site for 450 units under the Turnkey program has been delayed until July 1, 1968 for further consideration at that time as to positive provisions for the timely construction of essential community facilities, one of which is an Elementary School to be built on the project to serve i t and another anticipated low-income housing proj eC} in the same general area . In anticipation of the rezoning it was understood that the School Department would place this school in top priority on its proposed bond issue for the Spring of 1968. However, since the r ezoning last fall did not go throueh when expected and has been definitely delayed until at least July 1968, the School Department has now changed its priorities so as to accommodate those projects which are already' definitely approved, under cons truction or where plans for early �3 development are actually pro6Tessine satisfactorily. Department's position is justified and understandable. This chanee in the School However, as far as this' particular school is concerned, it does not bring the Browntown site any nearer to fruition. It is also likely that plans for improved sewer facilities for this area will not have a~ high priority as would have been the case, if the proposed zoning had already been approved. (b) A similar situation also applies to the Butler Street YMCA site on Hollywood Road in the same general area and which is equally dependent on the proposed Elementary School discussed above and improved sewer faciliti es. (c) The Sewell Road project is a typical example of an excellently planned and designed Turnkey project for Public Housing which was well located and adequately isolated and screened, but which went "by the board" as a result of pressure of public opinion from the neighborhood. (d) Another instance is the requested rezoning for a proposed 221 d (3) project on an excellent site on Wilson Mill Road,. immediately across from a developed City park, and where other adequate community fac~lities exist. It received an adverse recommendation from the Planning Board, supported by a recommendation of the Planning staff, because of anticipated objection from residents of the neighborhood. (e) One well known out of town developer, highly recommended by FHA, after having to give up three proposed developments in DeKalb County because of DeKalb's lapse of its Workable Program, subsequently filed applications with FHA for three substantial projects -in Atlanta under the 221 d (3) program. applications were later withdrawn. All three It is understood that two were withdrawn because of neighborhood resentment, which he experienced early, and anticipated rezoning difficulties. The third proposed project, for which the site was already zo~ed appropriately, was given up primarily because of high land costs and partially _because of anti cipated neighborhood resentment, plus economic problems encountered in trying to design and develop a creditable proj e ct which would overcome the other difficulties. The foregoing are typical illustrations why previous us ed and long established procedure is not working adequately for the Low-income Housing Program. The success of this program is as important to the future well being of Atlanta as the School, Sewer, Traffic, or Parks programs and should be approached with the same considerate deliberation and coordinated planning as has been found necess ary and which is currently being pursued in other City programs. �4 After careful consideration of the foregoing factors and based on experience with low- income housinp, i n Atlanta f or s everal years, i t appear3 that some new pr ocedures are practical and would be helpful. However, dilligent effort will continue t o be made under the current procedure, until it is changed. Recommend that the followinc additional procedures be adopted as soon as pos sible: 1. Written recommendation from the Mayor to the local Director of F1iA that t he maximum limits for FHA mortgage insurance under the 221 d (2) program in the Atlanta area be increased from the current $12,500 to $15,000; to compensate for .increased cost of land and construction since the present ceiling was established several years ago. (This should provide additional flexibility and incentive to builders to construct and market single family sales housing in Atlanta under the 221 d (2) program. Acti vi t:r in this field has been quite dormant since the Low-income Housine Program started. It is one of the most needed categories, for which there is a strong demand and adequate market. Home o,mership should be encouraged when- ever possible, as it is one of the most stabilizing factors for low and moderate income families). 2. To supplement the above, adopt an additional Single Family Dwelling Zoning District in Atlanta, to permit erection of dwellings havine a minimum of 720 square feet floor area, on minimum size lots of S,000 square feet and with minimum f rontgage of so•. Similar proposals have been previously made to the Administrative Assistant and to the Director of Planningw (This would permit an increase of 50%in house f or which the currently applicable R-5 current density of the 221 vari ety zoning district requires ·7, 500 square feet of lot area, 810 square feet minimum floor area and a minimum frontgage of 60 1 • This additional zoning• district would provide ample land area for houses in this category and i n the price range of the 221 d (2) program). J. Request HUD to modify its current FHA policy by per mitting mort gage i nsurance under its FHA 221 insured mortga ge proerarn in areas which do not now have certi fied Workable Programs, when Sl.lch developments will serve to alleviate unsatisfactory and overcrowded housing condi t i ons in areas such a s Atlant a which do have certi fied Workable Programs in ef fect. (Although t he purpose of the current restrictive Federal policy in those areas was well intenti oned and expected to s erve as an _.incentive to t hose areas t o es t ablish �5 Workable Programs, the actual r esul ts have boomer anged by excluding cons truction under this type financi ng fr om nei ghbor ing areas (which inci dentally are apparently desirous of having it excluded) and thereby placing incr eased low-income housing burdens on comrrrunities , such as Atlanta, which do have Workable ProGrams). 4. Modi fy the current Zonin g Ordinance to permit structural changes in non-conforming residential dwellings in other zoning districts, when ne ce::,sary in order to meet requi r ements of the Housing Code. 'lj·, (This is no't permi tted now and serves to perpetuate unsatis f actory and substandard hous ing conditions in many areas of the City, which :i.n the past have been premat urely zoned for uses other than residential and which will probably continue to be so used f or the foreseeable future. In many of these areas improvement i s stagnating because of the f act that existing residential buildings cannot be s tructurally altered and if demolished another can not be built in its place , plus the past difficul y of obtaining financing in these areas for housing improvements, due partially to the zoning restrictions, and of the problem of private enterprise in assembling tracts in thes~ areas of sufficient size and price to justify substantial development). 5. As a companion measure to the above, eliminate from the Housing Code Enforcement Map and Policy and Procedur e Guide all so called 11 Clearance - Code Enforcement 11 Area classification and place all of these areas in top priority for strict Housing Code Enf'orcement on a house-by-house basis, except where formal application has been submitted for a Federal assisted project for th e area or other planned development is eminent.( Although some modification was made during 1967 in Housing Code Enforcement policy, t he current policy in these areas of which there are many in the City, for pract ical purposes is still essentially one of containment, in that Code .Enforcement in t hese areas consists of: (a) Pl a card where warranted and seek demolition (b) Cor r ect hazzards (c) Reduce overcrowding (d ) Vacate unfit units (e) Clean up premises . Under existing policy, there is _no specif ic requir ement or priori ty i n t hese areas , which contai n much of the wors t housing i n t he City, for bri neing all dwelling units into strict compliance with the Housine Code .) �6 (Furthermore, the theory of clearing such areas throueh Housing Code Enforcement is a fallacy and is a long drawn out, impracticable as well as unprofitable procedure, in that the Housing Code is not, and never was intended to be, a punitive or clearance weapon, but rather a tool to encourage, improvement and with which to maintain good standard housing conditions throughout the entire City. . The so called \ "Clearance-Code Enforcement" areas are extremely difficult to operate in and have been generally neglected in interest of obtaining more compliances in less difficult areas where violations are less serious and compliance is much easier to obtain. Early improvement of substandard conditions in existing housing in these worst areas would materially relieve the long range burden on the Housing Resources Committee of providing adequate new standard units for many low-income families, for which the existing housing in many instances in these areas could be made adequate.) (The financial burden or even hardship, on the owners ' of these properties for bringing them in ' to compliance with the Hou~ing Code would be no greater than it is now and has been in other areas of the City, where the Code is being strictly enforced on a house-by-house basis.) 6. Modify existing local building codes to permit erection of prefab residential construction, to incluae preassembled plumbing, electrical, and heat facilities, when it has been-determined that the materials and workmanship are satisfactory and can be inspected during assembly at the factory. (The application of assembly line procedures and techniques to mass production of low-income housing is as essential today as the assembly line procedure has been - to the automobile, major elect.;rical appliances, prefabricated kitchen cabinets and other similar products, if we are going to meet the current day.' s needs in low-income housing.) 7. Encourage prompt formation of a Non-profit Housing Development Corporation, I having a city-wide scope of operation, to assist development of low-income housing. Such a corporation could provide much needed seed money on a loan basis to local neighborhood non-profi t sponsors; bank land f or future low-income housing projects; and lend technical and other assistance in promotion of low-income housing developments. (The formation of such a corporation ·i s well under way through the efforts of the Finance and Non-profit Funds Panel of the Housins Resources Committee . Thia corporation ia much needed in Atlanta now. A revolvins fund in the nei ghborhood �7 of 1-1½ million dollars could probably be procured through loans of perhaps ten year durat ion from Private Enterpris e at low interest rates, with principal re-' payable as available. This money would serve to finance activities of the Corporation on a r evolvi ng basis, in a manner similar to procedure which is being success.fully used in Hartford, Connecticut and several other cities.) 8. And almost l ast but not least, recorrrrnend that suitable sites be carefully selected j ointly by the Housing Resources Committee and the Planning Department, in all f our geographical quadrants of the City (not necessarily· equal dist ribution) sufficient in number and size to bring the current Low-income Housing Program up to 20,000 units; that each of these sites be earmarked for Public Housing under t he Turnkey or conventional program, housing under the FHA 221 insured mortgage program or conventionally financed similar priced construction; and that special effort be made to rezone these sites simultaneously in one package; with the help of wide-spread, well placed and care.fully selected public support and on the conditi on that low-income housing will eventually be constructed on these sites when adequate community facilities will be available. The plan should include several areas f or a reasonable number of single family sales houses. ( It is believed t hat this approach can be successful, if careful a t t ention is given to selecting sites which will serve the intended purpose, but which are most l i kely to be the least controversial (omitting those which are obviously likely to arouse strong community resentment). This procedure has recent ly been r esorted to in New Orleans f or Public Housing , after s i te s electi on by private enterprise f ailed. This would spread the locations- and not concentrate the bulk of such housing on two or three sites which are likely to be particularly controversial, and on which it would not be wise to concentrate l arge numbers of low-income f amilies , even {f appropriate zoning could be obtained.) (There are suff ic1ent sites in the former category. Many of these sites , if appropriat ely developed, would excell ently serve the needs of low-income .famil ies and at the same time would 'materially improve the areas involved. In sever al instances t hese are areas in which l ow-income famil~es already r eside and will probably continue t o do so for a l ong time , but i n which current densities can be increased and the environment improved .) (Still, other areas to be consi dered should be those located where nice well planned low-income housing devel opments would improve the area, shoul d pr omote a mininrum of cri ticism from the res idents of the communit y and l ocat ions that are not l ikely to be developed in the near future for bet ter or higher use . �8 In some instances however , this will require modification of current policies and thinking of some planners as to zoning classifications for such locations, by permitting a mixture of uses in the general areas involved rather than continuation of all single family Residential or all Industrial or Cornmerciai as the case may be.) 9. When the proposed reZPning of suggested sites is accomplished, then concentrate on coordination of all Departments and Agencies involved in planning for the proposed developments to provide necessary Community facilities ~imultaneously with scheduled development of the low-income housing. This is possible and offers the best opportunity for getting what is needed in the nature of Community Facilities at the time it is needed to serve the proposed developments. Two good examples of where such coordination efforts have recently worked successfully are: (a) The arrangements made for extension of Cleveland Avenue to serve the proposed Golfview development project; and (b) The compromise recently worked out satisfactorily between the developers and the Water Pollution Control Division for sewer service at an extremely early date for the proposed Bankhead Highway Turnkey project. 10. In order to speed up development on land in Urban Renewal projects sold to developers, recommend that the period allowed between award on bids and beginning of actual construction be reduced from the current permissive time of one year. · It appears that 6-9 months should be ample. (Examples of disturbing delay are the Ebenezer Baptist Church project and, to a somewhat lesser degree, the Rockdale project; whereas planning for the Friendship Baptist Church pr0ject is much further along, which illustrates that others could do likewise.) All of the above explained procedures are believed to be feasible and if adopted should insure completion of the established goals in the Low-income Housing Program within the time alloted and with a minimum of difficulty and disagreement between I those involved in accomplishing the Program. Encl: Report - Status of Accelerated Low-income Housing Program, dated Jan. 15, 1968 �