Item 3C - Housing Dispersal - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Doppelt expressed discomfort at eliminating the policy altogether. He thought the Board should discuss how to make the policy easier to work with as there were serious risks and it was more difficult to back up and do things again. Ms. Katie believed that some of the "unsuitable block groups" were eligible for the increased funds in the 9 percent tax credit because they are in the "difficult to develop" block groups. She explained that the dispersal policy prevented housing in the very block groups where a bonus was available. Mr. Weinman recommended that the concept of a Housing Dispersal Policy be folded into the Consolidated Plan rather than as a stand alone policy. He thought it possible to say that the HPB supported the concept but found the policy itself limiting. Mr. Cabell surmised that everyone was opposed to labeling areas unsuitable block groups. He was in favor of dropping the limitation on the number of units but felt less sure about the limits placed on family housing. He noted that family projects, such as the Maplewood project, that grew beyond a certain size had proven to create some problems. Mr. McCoy thought problems with the Maplewood Meadows project, a development of 38 units, were a function of its being comprised of three and four bedroom units. Mr. VanLandingham added that family projects with two bedroom units and less children experienced less problems. Ms. Cuellar supported elimination of the policy. She said, as a bare minimum, any of the projects should be allowed to build to the density that the code allowed. Mr. Cabell asked what the staff proposal regarding the number of units was. Mr. Weinman replied that he was recommending elimination of the entire policy. He supported letting the HPB keep track of projects. Mr. Cabell expressed concern that there should be some language regarding project size. Mr. Weinman responded that there were numerous examples of projects larger than 60 or 80 units of family housing all over the country that were functioning "just fine." Mr. Papd moved to recommend to the City Council the elimination of the Housing Dispersal Policy. Ms. Cuellar provided the second. Mr. Pitts raised the concern that elimination of the policy altogether might create a situation wherein the Board would not have the right to say no to a project. He asked how, as a policy board, the HPB would support its argument. Mr. Weinman replied that, for example, tax exemptions were approved by the City Council on a case by case basis. Mr. Doppelt likened elimination of the policy to "eviscerating the tools we have." He felt the policy should be tweaked and then developers should apply for exemptions when they need to. Mr. VanLandingham responded that it seemed that it was only a tool to stop something and not to make something happen. He stressed that the HPB controlled the requests for proposals (RFPs) and this was a large measure of control. Ms. Cuellar felt it was the role of the HPB to help needed housing get built. She said the philosophical difference was whether the HPB wanted to keep the policy so that projects could be stopped or whether the HPB wanted to remove the limitations and put policies in effect to help projects go forward. Mr. VanLandingham underscored the importance of conveying the message to the council clearly. He opined the HPB should continue to work hard to maintain its reputation for representing its policy recommendations and issues effectively. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S0501103C.doc