Affordable Housing Strategy

[livingdeb]

Today at a party I ended up asking someone if he had a plan for if his property taxes got too expensive. He had a very interesting idea on how to find a new place.

He said he'd read that our city is becoming too expensive for musicians to be able to afford to live here. So a lot of them are moving to Lockhart. New cafes and other places are being built there, so it's becoming a nice place to live, but you can still get back here for gigs.

Interesting philosophy: pay attention to where the musicians are living.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Well actually... In Denver we have an interesting phenomenon going on. The artists & musicians all move into low rent districts because they are affordable. But then, the fact that the artists & musicians are there makes those areas hip and cool, so they become super popular... which in turn causes the rent to skyrocket, so the artists and musicians can no longer afford to live there.

There's actually a movement now to provide affordable housing for artists - apartments where you have to be an artist of some sort in order to live there.

http://www.denverpost.com/2015/10/02/colorados-affordable-artist-housing-efforts-catching-on-quickly/

It's all very interesting...
:)
Cat

[livingdeb.livejournal.com]

Oh, thanks for sharing that article!

My first question was how they are defining artist. Someone with a portfolio who doesn't just do art on the side, okay, that's decent.

Unfortunately, they are using the term "affordable" to refer to "subsidized" housing, so that means that market forces aren't working properly.

So, "To be eligible, an individual must make 60 percent or less of the area’s average income. For a single person, that’s a range of $16,350 to $43,600 annually; for a family of four, $24,250 to $62,250." I wonder how they prove their incomes, which probably change wildly from week to week. Maybe it's based on last year's income. (Unlike Obamacare which is based on this year's income and thus highly problematic.)

And what if they become successful? Then they have to move out, away from their awesome community. That's not ideal. And what if they just got lucky one year--do they have to move out, and then the next year get on a multi-year waiting list?

And then, there's the whole rich-getting-richer problem. '“Even just announcing the project in Trinidad, we’ve had investors calling and asking where it is going to be,” Hunt said.'

I am intrigued by this sentence: "But tenants need to contribute in other ways, promising to take part in building governance. That can mean serving on committees that set rules, put on exhibitions or select tenants." Interesting.

And I really like this: "But what if ... government could deploy artists into areas it wants to spark or use their aura to pump up places in transition?" That would be really cool.

[(Anonymous)]

It does raise a lot of questions, doesn't it? I don't know anyone who's actually applied for one of these things, so I don't have any first hand reports on how the concept is actually working. But I do think that it's interesting that there is at least some recognition that artists are making a contribution, and some desire to support them.

[(Anonymous)]

I just wrote you a comment about this... but apparently it decided I was spam since I included a link. Anyhow, rather than re-type it, I'll just direct you to go look in your spam folder.
:-)
Cat

[livingdeb.livejournal.com]

Thank-you!

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh, our property taxes have been going up 10% a year (at the cap) for the past 2 years with no end in sight.