housing news volume 23, number 3 · housing news the journal of the florida housing coalition,...

HOUSING NEWSN E T W O R KThe Journal of the Florida Housing Coalition, Inc.

Volume 23, Number 3

FALL 2007

Mobile Home Parksand Florida’s Land

Use Laws3

The Mobile HomeDilemma: Lessons

Learned in the Townof Davie

5

Better SubsidyDecisions Follow

From BetterInformation

9

Planning ForWorkforce Housing

in High CostCounties

12

Local GovernmentsGet Creative to

Support AffordableHousing

13

Florida HometownDemocracy

16

InclusionaryHousing: What’s

HappeningNationally and Right

Here at Home20

The Economics ofHomelessness

23

20th AnnualStatewide

Affordable HousingConference

24

SHIP Clips26

Coalition News28

In This issue

– it was our statewide annual conferencetheme, supported by our state’s Chief FinancialOfficer in her keynote speech, and the Secretaryof the Florida Department of CommunityAffairs in his state of the stateaddress. And at the very time over700 housing professionals weregathered in Orlando for theFlorida Housing Coalition’sstatewide conference, GovernorCrist announced a plan forfueling Florida’s economy byappropriating $75 million fromthe housing trust funds to providemore money to Florida’s SHIPprograms and assist more homebuyersusing the state’s loan programs. There wasand continues to be a great deal of energy aroundthe economics of housing from political leaders,national and statewide experts, and housing pro-fessionals.

National experts showed us that it costs thebusiness community and private tax payers moreto allow homelessness than to provide housingwith services for the homeless population—that

if for no other reason than economics, we shouldbe housing the homeless. See article page 23.

National experts showed us how to usetools such as linkage fees and

inclusionary zoning in ways thatimprove the economy and less

than a month later, the Villageof Islamorada adopted anaffordable housing ordinanceto improve its economy whichput those lessons into law. See

article on page 20.

State experts addressed theeconomic issues that cause mobile

home park closures and what Floridashould be doing to address the loss of mobilehome park housing. Most exciting on this front,was the announcement made at the conferenceby DCA Secretary Tom Pelham that the DCAwould no longer find comprehensive planamendments, which serve to close mobile homeparks without alternative housing available, tobe in compliance with growth management law.See articles on pages 3 - 5.

THE ECONOMICS OF HOUSING

The Honorable AlexSink, Florida’s ChiefFinancial Officer,keynote speaker.

Secretary Tom Pelham,Florida Department ofCommunity Affairs.

Dr. James Nicholas,Professor Emeritus ofUrban and Regional

Planning atUniversity of Florida.

T H E F L O R I D A H O U S I N G C O A L I T I O N

BOARD OFdirectorsexecutive committeeJeff Bagwell, CHAIRPERSONKeystone Challenge Fund, Inc.,LakelandAnnetta Jenkins, VICE CHAIRLocal Initiatives Support Corporation,West Palm Beach/South Florida Jaimie Ross, PRESIDENT1000 Friends of Florida,TallahasseeGregg Schwartz, TREASURERTampa Bay C.D.C.,ClearwaterSophia Sorolis, SECRETARYCity of St. Petersburg,St. PetersburgMelvin Philpot, PAST CHAIRProgress Energy Florida,St. PetersburgMark Hendrickson, AT LARGEThe Hendrickson Company,TallahasseeRobert Von, AT LARGERealvest Appraisal Services,Maitland

board ofdirectorsBob AnsleyOrlando Neighborhood ImprovementCorporation, Orlando

Michelle BraunWachovia, JacksonvilleEd BusanskyFirst Housing DevelopmentCorporation of Florida,TampaHolly DuquetteFlorida Power & Light,Juno BeachJames “Jim” DyalAmerican Realty Development, LLC.,TampaCharles “Chuck” ElsesserFlorida Legal Services,Miami Denise FreedmanBank of America,TampaCora FulmoreMortgage & Credit Center,Winter GardenWight GregerCity of Jacksonville,JacksonvilleDan HorvathCommunity Enterprise Investments, Inc.,PensacolaJack HumburgBoley Centers, Inc.St. PetersburgJeff KissKiss & Company,Winter ParkTei KucharskiFlorida Solar Energy Center,Cocoa

Sandra Martin SealsReliance Housing FoundationFt. LauderdaleWilliam "Bill" O'DellShimberg Center forAffordable Housing, GainesvilleEarl PfeifferFlorida Home Partnership Inc.,RuskinGeorge RomagnoliPasco County CommunityDevelopment,New Port Richey

financial services committeeDana ChestnutWashington MutualAtlanta, GADavid ChristianRegionsTampaPeter McDougalCitibankMiamiRuna Saunders National CityFt. Pierce

advisorycouncilHelen Hough FeinbergRBC Dain Rauscher,St. Petersburg

staffADMINISTRATION

Michael DavisExecutive DirectorPam DavisWorkshop CoordinatorTom FlaggFinancial ManagerDanielle WrightOffice Manager

TECHNICAL ADVISORS

Aida AndujarSouth Florida OfficeLydia BeltránSouth Florida OfficeMichael ChaneyNorth Florida OfficeHana EskraSouth Florida OfficeStan FittermanCentral Florida OfficeEvelyn RusciolelliCentral Florida OfficeGladys SchneiderSouthwest Florida Office

The Florida Housing Coalition is a nonprofit, statewide membership organization whose mission is to act as a catalyst to bring togetherhousing advocates and resources so that Floridians have a safe and affordable home and suitable living environment.The Housing News Network is published by the Florida Housing Coalition as a service to its members and for housing professionals andothers interested in affordable housing issues.

Jaimie Ross, Editor.

Email: [email protected], Web site: www.flhousing.orgFlorida Housing Coalition, Inc., Phone: (850) 878-4219, Fax: (850) 942-6312, 1367 E. Lafayette Street, Suite C, Tallahassee, FL 32301.

The Florida Housing Coalition would like to recognize BANK OF AMERICA, CITIBANK, NATIONAL CITY, WACHOVIA and WASHINGTON MUTUAL,

for their partnership, leadership and support as our PLATINUM SPONSORS. We are deeply appreciative.


H

Mobile Home Parks andFlorida’s Land Use Laws

By Jaimie Ross

Secretary Pelham wowed the crowdof more than seven hundredhousing professionals, with his

strong, positive comments in support ofenforcing the housing element require-ments of Florida’s comprehensive planninglaws. He explained that comprehensiveplan amendments to rezone mobile homeparks when there is no alternative housingwill be found “not in compliance” by theDCA. This is a wholly different courseand position from that taken by theprevious DCA Secretary at a time whenrecord numbers of mobile home parkswere rezoned out of existence.

The currentposition ofthe DCA istruly monu-mental tothe cause ofpreservingm o b i l ehome parksfor the resi-dents wholive there.*What does

this mean to local governments in Florida? If a local gov-ernment makes a determination that there is no alternativehousing within its jurisdiction for its current mobile home

park residents it must not rezoneits existing parks. Only if there isalternative housing available withinthe jurisdiction can a mobile homepark rezoning be in compliance withFlorida’s housing element law, whichrequires both adequate housing for theexisting population and adequate sitesfor mobile homes.

Why is this so important? Because thestatute that ostensibly provides themost protection for mobile home parkresidents, Section 723.083, FloridaStatutes can and is circumventedregularly when mobile home parkowners or the prospective buyers of thepark hire “relocation experts” tocoerce mobile home park residentsinto leaving the park. The relocationexperts offer a small lump sum ofmoney which decreases with eachmonth or week they delay in acceptinga few thousand dollars—money thatcan only keep the residents fromhomelessness for a short period oftime, but which is more than they canreasonably anticipate receiving if theyfail to accept. Once the mobile home

park is empty, the provisions of Section 723.083 becomemoot because there are no residents to be displaced—theyhave already been displaced.

An analysis of manufactured home com-munities that closed due to a change inland use in Florida from July 2001- July2006 reveals that more than 22,000mobile home sites were lost. The datawas compiled from databases kept by theFlorida Mobile Home Owners and theFlorida Manufactured HousingAssociation (although based primarilyon newspaper articles and personalknowledge, so likely undercounted).Twenty nine of the mobile home parkshad more than 200 homesites; 179 of thehome sites were less than 200 units.Some of the largest losses were in:Broward County- lost 2,194 mobile homesites; Dade County- lost 1,862 homesites; Lee County- lost 902 home sites;Palm Beach County- lost 1,424 homesites; Pinellas- lost 4,864 home sites;Sarasota- lost 1,561 home sites.

The Economics of Preserving MobileHome Parks conference workshop.Panelists, James Ayotte, FloridaManufactured Housing AssociationExecutive Director (at podium); moderator,Florida Housing Coalition President,Jaimie Ross; panelist Janet Riley,Attorney at Law, Broward County LegalAid. To the left of podium (not pictured)was panelist Dr. James Carras, Carras &Associates, consultant for Town of Davie.


HOUSING NEWS NETWORK

The Land UseIssue.

The Housing Elementrequirements of the 1985Growth Management Actinclude that every local gov-ernment have adequate sitesfor affordable housing andprovide for housing all itscurrent residents. Floridaprovides broad local homerule powers. When facedwith a request for a rezoning,the local government mustbalance the property rights ofthe land owner with thehealth, safety and welfare ofthe community.

Rezoning is a land develop-ment regulation that is grant-ed by local government afterengaging in this balancing ofprivate property rights andthe health, safety, and wel-fare of the community.Rezoning is not an unfetteredright, even when consistentwith the comprehensive plan.Rezoning is a quasi- judicialdecision that can not be arbi-trary or capricious—it is adecision that must be madein accordance with sound

land use principles and in compliance with land use laws—one of those land use laws is the requirement that localgovernment ensure the provision of adequate sites for afford-able housing and for mobile homes.

If the local government is to comply with the requirementsof the 1985 Growth Management Act, and most specificallywith the housing element requirement to ensure adequatesites for mobile homes, and to ensure that its residents arenot made homeless from government action, it becomesclear (albeit unconventional or perhaps even startling) thatmobile home parks cannot be rezoned when there are no

alternative sites for the popu-lation currently housed in themobile home park.

What if the mobile homepark owner empties the parkby failing to renew leases? Inthis way, the owner canargue that no one is beingdisplaced, that no alternativehousing need to be foundprior to rezoning. This mightget the owner and the localgovernment around therequirements of 723.083,Florida Statutes, but it doesnot change the compre-hensive planning law thatrequires adequate sites forvery low income householdsand for mobile homes. Solong as there is a populationin need of mobile homepark land to have safe andadequate housing, the parkshould not be rezoned.

*Although this is a new positionfor the DCA, it is completely con-sistent with the two AttorneyGeneral Opinions issued on thissubject by Attorney General, JimSmith in 1986 and AttorneyGeneral Charlie Crist in 2005.

723.083 Governmental action affectingremoval of mobile home owners.

No agency of municipal, local, county, or state government shallapprove any application for rezoning, or take any other officialaction, which would result in the removal or relocation of mobilehome owners residing in a mobile home park without firstdetermining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitablefacilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE DEPARTMENT’SPOSITION:

Local comprehensive plans are required to make provision for"adequate sites for future housing, including housing for low-income,very low-income, and moderate-income families, mobile homes, andgroup home facilities and foster care facilities, with supportinginfrastructure and public facilities” and "provision for relocationhousing." Section 163.3177(6) (f) 1.d. and e., Florida Statutes. Thisstatutory requirement is reflected in Chapter 9J-5, FloridaAdministrative Code. See Rule 9J-5.010, F.A.C.

Therefore, if a local government amends its local comprehensive planto provide for the conversion of existing mobile home parks to otheruses, the local government must submit to the Department data andanalysis which demonstrates that after the conversion there will stillbe adequate sites for mobile homes which will be available to personsdisplaced by the conversion. Further, if a mobile home park is goingto be converted to nonresidential use or to housing for high incomepersons, the local government must demonstrate that there will stillbe an adequate supply of housing for low-income, very low-income,and moderate income families in the local jurisdiction. If the localgovernment does not make this demonstration, the Department willfind the plan amendment not in compliance.

Department of Community Affairs Secretary, Tom Pelham


HImagine a lovely 80 year-old widow on afixed-social security income, who has livedin the same mobile home park for 25 years,

and now faces homelessness due to the closureof her park. Imagine her friend and neighbor, a71 year-old gentleman on social security, stillworking as a security guard to make ends meet,who also faces homelessness after 35 years offaithfully paying his lot-rent on time. Why?There is simply no comparably priced replacementhousing that is affordable to them; and, since theyoccupy older-model mobiles which can not be relocated,they will lose their asset (the mobile home). I have hadmany sleepless nights thinking about how to rescuethese Davie seniors who have contributed so richly toour community.

When the Stirling Road Mobile Home Park in Davie wassold for redevelopment, 65 families lost their homes.Since there was no comparable housing affordable tothem, many families ended up living in sub-standardand/or over-crowded conditions, were forced to leave theSouth Florida area, or became homeless. Many are stillpaying mortgages on units they can no longer occupy,and are now “upside-down” economically. A couple intheir late 60’s, who lived there for 17 years, had to“abandon” their home for $1 since it was an oldermobile which could not be moved. The statutory reloca-tion benefit of $1,375 (for a single-wide mobile) wasmatched by the new owner, so their total compensationwas $2,750. So, what happened to the elderly couple?

When we found them they were living in agarage using a 5-gallon bucket for their restroom,and showering with a garden hose. After ourdiligent and time-consuming intervention, theyare now rehoused. I am still haunted by thefaces of the distraught women and childrenbeing forced from their homes, as the bulldozerswere demolishing the units around them. Theywere frightened, worried, and literally devastated.

As I drove back to my office from visiting the site, Iwept, because the system had failed to protect them.

Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, is clearly antiquated anddoes not protect the rights of mobile home lot renters,especially those who own pre-1994 units which are notwind-storm rated. When the statutes were written, theydid not contemplate:

• the fact that mobile homes would age-in-place andsubsequently may no longer be moveable due to theirdeteriorating condition

• the new State-wide Building Code post HurricaneWilma, which makes it nearly impossible for mobilesto be relocated

• if the mobile home must be abandoned, the asset islost; and there is no compensation to the owner – thusno ability to replace it

• escalating land and housing costs unmatched byincreases in wages and income

• the statutory compensation of $3,000 for a single-wide or $6,000 for a double-wide mobile

The Mobile Home Dilemma: LessonsLearned in the Town of Davie

by: Shirley Taylor-Prakelt

(continued)



is clearly insufficient to permit the displaced familyto be successfully rehoused in sustainable housing

• even if a pre-1994 model can physically be moved,the reality is no park will accept them, as they do notwant the liability of non-windstorm rated units whichcould cause damage to their residents homes in astorm

• many owners of pre-1994 mobiles are still payingmortgages on the asset, and there isno requirement to make the displacedresident “whole” financially.

This is the plight of mobile home resi-dents who are being torn from their com-munities, their churches, and their sup-port group of friends and neighbors, whoassist with life’s activities, such as gro-cery shopping and trips to the doctor.This problem is not unique to Davie, butit is of great importance to the Town,since 24% of Davie’s housing units aremobile homes, i.e., 7,400+ units in 31parks, housing an estimated 23,000 res-idents. Located southwest of FortLauderdale in Broward County, Davielies midway between Miami and PalmBeach, with an estimated population of 92,431 in 2006.As one elected official describes the town, “Davie is adiverse community ranging from mobiles to mansions.”

Mobile home living in Davie falls into two categories: 1)“housing of choice”, occupied primarily by seniors onfixed-incomes or middle-income families who enjoy thesimple lifestyle; and, 2) “housing of last resort,” typically

occupied by Davie’s lower-income, working families,who can find no more economical type of housing.Regrettably, many families have poor credit historiesmaking it difficult for them to obtain rental housing,since landlords now require a credit check and proof ofa bank account; and, their income levels are insufficientto purchase site-built units.

As an affordable housing advocate for over 30 years,it was my goal to help lower-income mobile homeoccupants (especially those living in sub-standardunits) to transition into affordable rental housing, thensegue into the rental housing market, and finallybecome first-time homebuyers. We were having amodicum of success until Hurricane Wilma blewthrough town and 832 mobile homes were blown-to-bits,

and 568 site-built units were rendered uninhabit-able. My staff and I, working with FEMA, SERT,Broward County, and others, are still housingdisplaced families and individuals.

After the storm, a new disaster threatened to causefurther displacement of Davie residents. As a resultof increasing land values, mobile home parksbecome the “low-hanging fruit” for developers seek-ing to rezone their property for a higher use and ahigher profit. Mobile home communities state-wide,are closing down and being rezoned causing the per-manent and involuntary displacement of thousandsof lower-income and at-risk residents, including theelderly. Since Davie has more mobile home parks

Mobile Home Lot

Efficiency

One Bedroom

Two Bedroom

Three Bedroom

Four Bedroom

$457

$730

$855

$949

$1,566

$2,605

HOUSING MARKETDavie Median Market Rent Values

Source: Town of Davie, Department of Housing and Community Development

HOUSING MARKETDavie Housing Inventory by Type

Over 7,216 MobileHomes exist inDavie

Mobile Homesaccount for 21% ofDavie’s housing

Source: US Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey



per capita than any other jurisdiction in South Florida,the pressures of redevelopment are far more acute.

In response to this growing crisis, on December 20, 2006the Town declared an “affordable housing crisis” whichwas exacerbated by the closure of mobile home parks.On February 21, 2007, the Town of Davie adopted aOne-Year Moratorium on the Redevelopment of MobileHome Parks, and established a Mobile Home Task Force(MHTF) comprised equally of mobile home park owners,and mobile home occupants; A housing consultant washired to develop solutions and take the MHTF throughthe process of achieving consensus. The Town Councilrecognized that: 1) Mobile Home Parks serve a criticalrole in providing affordable housing for those personswho live in and are employed in the Town; 2) the existingsupply of attainable, affordable and workforce housing isinsufficient to meet the current demand for affordableand workforce housing; 3) the Town was facing increas-ing pressure concerning the possible redevelopment ofMobile Home Parks which could result in the loss ofcritical workforce and affordable housing units in theTown; 4) the loss of affordable housing provided by theTown’s Mobile Home Parks has a detrimental impact onthe existing inventory of affordable housing and itsavailability for those who work and live in the Town; 5)the Town recognized the need to develop comprehensiveplans, policies, land development regulations andprograms to preserve the existing stock of affordablehousing and increase the availability of affordable hous-ing for those who live in and are employed in the Town.

Those municipalities who look-the-other-way whiletheir mobile home parks are being emptied out, andsubsequently come in for rezoning as “vacant sites”,should carefully examine Section 723.083, FloridaStatutes, which stipulates that:

“No agency of municipal, local, county, or state govern-ment shall approve any application for rezoning, or takeany other official action, which would result in theremoval or relocation of mobile home owners residing ina mobile home park, without first determining thatadequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilitiesexist for the relocation of the mobile home owners”.

The Florida Attorney General has opined that thecomparable replacement housing must be “affordable”to those displaced residents. Further, the HousingElement requirements of the 1985 Growth ManagementAct requires local governments to have adequate sitesfor affordable housing and provide for housing all itscurrent residents. DCA Secretary Pelham recentlystated that comprehensive plan amendments to rezonemobile home parks, when there is no alternativehousing, will be found not in compliance by DCA. Thiswill protect those parks over 10 acres, but what aboutthe smaller parks? This is where the local counties andmunicipalities must step in with aggressive policies andlocal legislative action to protect their residents frombecoming homeless.

Even if the mobile home dilemma is not viewed from asocial humanitarian viewpoint, i.e., your residentsbecoming homeless, it must be viewed from an econom-ic development standpoint. The growing housing afford-ability crisis, exacerbated by the closure of mobile homeparks, and the subsequent permanent and involuntarilydisplacement of residents has serious consequences.First, the local economy is “at-risk,” as out of controlhousing costs make it difficult to fill jobs. You are notonly losing your workforce, but, this discourages busi-nesses from locating or expanding in your area. Further,


young college graduates will be forced to pursue jobs inother areas of the country, where the cost of living islower. In addition, the affordable housing crisis appearsto be causing a mass exodus of residents which is con-tributing to the unstable housing market and tax base.

Davie’s moratorium has provided a much neededredevelopment respite for better planning. We arenearing completion of the affordable housing study, andare preparing the “tools for the toolbox” to be presentedto the Town Council in the near future. The items beingcontemplated include:

• establishing an affordable housing trust fund; • linkage ordinances and employer-assisted housing

programs• inclusionary zoning • assistance with mobile home park conversion to

tenant-owned cooperatives • assisting CDFI’s and not-for-profits for the purchase

and rehabilitation of mobile home parks• partnerships with community land trusts • low interest loans to park owners to keep park values

from depreciating • working with the property appraiser to ensure that

mobile home parks are taxed at current use or taxedbased on rental income produced

• more flexible land uses and density bonuses• requirements for longer notice for eviction; and

mandatory exit plan which make the displaceeswhole economically, including satisfaction ofmortgages if the unit is non-relocatable and must beabandoned

I did not start out to become the “mobile home maven”of South Florida; but, when I saw the inequities and theinjustice associated with the involuntarily displacementof our residents, and the subsequent homelessness, Ihad no choice but to take up the cause. So, I challenge

my fellow colleagues across the state to “do the rightthing” for your residents, and ensure that mobile homepark owners and/or developers in your community donot cast them aside in their quest for the almighty dollar.Remember, zoning is a privilege not a right. Like Davie,you can have mobiles to mansions, and celebrate thediversity of your housing stock and the residents theyaccommodate. All people deserve to live with dignityand respect in housing they can afford.

SHIRLEY TAYLOR-PRAKELT, is the Housing and CommunityDevelopment Director for the Town of Davie. Ms. Taylor-Prakelt hasover 31 years experience at the local government level, implementingneighborhood revitalization and redevelopment programs in the SouthFlorida area. She has also designed and implemented a myriad ofhousing programs and projects, resulting in the construction and/orrehabilitation of over 2,300 affordable rental-housing units, homeown-ership projects, and the restoration of historic apartments/hotels.

Ms. Taylor-Prakelt is the Past-President of the Florida CommunityDevelopment Association (FCDA), and the first recipient of theirstatewide “James Huger Award” for outstanding service in the housingand community development arena. The Town’s Harmony VillageCommunity Initiative which she conceived was recognized as a state-wide “Best Practice” for collaborative partnerships in the developmentof affordable housing. In 2004, she received the prestigious FBIDirectors national “Outstanding Leadership” Award.

Ms. Taylor-Prakelt serves on the board of the Broward HousingPartnership, Broward County Planning Council’s Affordable HousingCommittee, the Broward Housing Task Force, the United Way’sRegional Advisory Committee, FBI Citizen Alumni Association, andserves on the Board of Directors of several not-for-profit entities involvedin historic preservation, neighborhood revitalization, and communityservice.

She has worked diligently to remove discriminatory housing practicesand further fair housing choices and initiatives. Her “holistic”approach to neighborhood revitalization in Davie, illustrates howmunicipalities can “partner” with all levels of government and the pri-vate sector (both for-profit and not-for profit), to revitalize low-incomeand blighted areas using a grassroots participatory process.



H

H

Better Subsidy DecisionsFollow From Better

Information By Stan Fitterman

Florida Housing Coalition

The public policy response to the spike inhousing prices from 2002-2005 , especiallyin already high housing cost parts of the

state, was to create the Community WorkforceHousing Innovation Pilot Program where incomelimits go as high 140 percent, or, in certain highcost areas, 150 percent of area median income.The trend toward using public funds to serve theneeds of households that earn well above aver-age incomes was evident at a recent Florida HousingFinance Corporation board meeting, when a FHFC Boardmember proposed increasing the maximum income limitfor the SHIP program statewide, from its current 120percent of median to mirror the 140 percent, and 150percent limits used in the CWHIP program.

Even with the downturn in the housing market, housingprices in Florida are still well above what is affordable toFlorida’s workforce. In many high cost communities, themedian sales price for a home is out of reach for familiesearning well over the median income for their respectivecommunity. With median sales prices being higher thanwhat a family earning 130 or even 140 percent of mediancan afford, increasing the income limits appears to be areasonable response. But before public policy changesthe way scarce subsidies are allocated in Florida’shousing programs, a more careful assessment of mediansales price is in order.

Distinguishing Median fromdistribution of sales prices

The median is only a measure of central tendency. It isthe sales price at which one-half of the sales in acommunity are equal to or higher than, and one half areequal to or less than. It does not show us the distribu-

tion of sales prices. While median prices maybe high, we need to assess whether there isadequate unsubsidized housing stock afford-able to families earning above 120 percent ofmedian in a given community. With thisinformation in hand, public policy makerscan make better decisions about financingaffordable housing.

Property Appraiser Web Sitesto the Rescue

Since the median sales price is just the price in the middle,how do we obtain data on the distribution of sales prices ina community? In many counties, property appraiser Websites have developed search tools that allow the user tosearch for all homes sold below a certain price point, duringa specific time frame. By calculating the mortgage amountfor which a family earning a certain income can qualify,these Web sites can be used to determine the number ofhome sales affordable to that family, over a given time. It isthis data that should be used when determining whetherthe private market is failing to meet the housing needs offamilies in a given income category.

Some Examples

Table 1 shows the number and percentage of the singlefamily sales affordable to families earning 150 percent ofmedian, in six Florida counties January 1, 2007-June 30th,2007. The same data can also be pulled for condominiumsales. The Palm Beach County property appraiser’s site didnot appear to have a countywide search feature for sales, sothis data is from 2006 property appraiser records via theShimberg Center.

(continued)



In every one of the counties selected, except for Palm Beach,more than half of all home sales were affordable to afamily earning 150 percent of median. In Escambia County,nearly 90 percent of all single family sales were affordableto a family earning 150 percent of median. While lessthan one-third of singlefamily sales in Palm BeachCounty were affordable to afamily earning 150 percentof median, Palm BeachCounty has a very strongcondominium market. In2006, while there were11,470 single family salesin Palm Beach County,there were 25 ,334condominium sales. Ofthese condominium sales,13,427, or nearly 53percent were affordable tofamilies earning 150percent of median. Thisdata shows that in thesecounties, families earning150 percent of medianalready have a large per-centage of the housingmarket available to them. This raises the question of theneed for public subsidy to assist these buyers.

Table 2 shows the number and percentage of the singlefamily sales affordable to families earning 130 percent ofmedian, in the same six Florida counties as above, January1, 2007-June 30th, 2007, with the Palm Beach countynumbers again being from 2006.

Even with the lower sales price, five of the six counties stillhad close to 50 percent of their single family sales affordable

COUNTY

Alachua

Escambia

Hillsborough

Palm Beach*

Pinellas**

St. Lucie

TABLE 1

MedianIncome

$54,200

$52,500

$53,900

$61,200

$51,300

$52,800

Max mortgagefor family @

150% of median1

$250,683

$243,000

$249,326

$282,375

$237,500

$244,345

Total Number of SFsales 01/01/07-

06/30/07

1,253

2,574

6,344

11,470

19,254

2,452

# of Total SF salesaffordable to HHearning 150% of

median

885

2250

3450

3547

11039

1613

150% ofmedian

$81,300

$78,750

$80,850

$91,800

$76,950

$79,200

*Data for Palm Beach County is for Jan 1, 2006 - Dec 31, 2006 ** Data for Pinellas County is Through October 22, 2007

% of Total SF salesaffordable to HH

earning 150% median

71%

87%

54%

31%

57%

66%

30 year term, 7 percent interest rate, 33/45 front and back ratios, $1,000 down payment, $450 per month in non-mortgage monthly debt.

COUNTY

Alachua

Escambia

Hillsborough

Palm Beach*

Pinellas**

St. Lucie

TABLE 2

MedianIncome

$54,200

$52,500

$53,900

$61,200

$51,300

$52,800


130% of median1

$217,966

$211,300

$216,790

$245,432

$206,600

$212,473

# of Total SF salesaffordable to HHearning 130% of

median

711

2089

2558

2342

8980

1252

130% ofmedian

$70,460

$68,250

$70,070

$79,560

$66,690

$68,640


% of Total SF salesaffordable to HH

earning 130%

57%

81%

40%

20%

47%

51%

30 year term, 7 percent interest rate, 33/45 front and back ratios, $1,000 down payment, $450 per month in non-mortgage monthly debt.



to families earning 130 percent of median. While only 20percent of the single family home sales in Palm BeachCounty were affordable to a family earning 130 percent ofmedian, 10,657, or 42 percent of all condominium saleswere affordable to families earning 130 percent ofmedian. With nearly 50 percent of home sales affordable tofamilies earning 130 percent of median, this data also bringsinto question whether families in this income category inthese counties need public subsidy to purchase housing.

Table 3 shows the numberand percentage of the singlefamily sales affordable tofamilies earning 70 percent ofmedian, in the same sixFlorida counties as above,January 1, 2007-June 30th,2007, with the Palm Beachcounty numbers again beingfrom 2006. Hillsborough,Palm Beach and PinellasCounties all had less than 5percent of their single familysales affordable to familiesearning 70 percent of median.The condominium market inPalm Beach County was alsonot very friendly towardthese families – only 1,907units, or 7.5 percent of allcondo sales were affordable toa family earning 70 percent ofmedian. This data shows a continued need for subsidy forfamilies at this end of the market.

Further Refining the Data

The number of sales below a certain price point only tellsa portion of the story. It doesn’t tell us the location, age orsize of the units. Many property appraiser Web sites allowusers to search by the age, size, and location of the structure.For example, of the 820 homes sold for less than $103,700in Pinellas County this year, 387 (or 47%) were built priorto 1960. The search also gives the location of each homesold, allowing someone familiar with the community todetermine the neighborhoods in which these lower pricedhomes are located.

As property appraiser’s Web sites have evolved, housingadministrators have more housing market information attheir finger tips than ever before. This informationenables the housing professional to determine whether theprivate housing market is meeting the needs of families atvarious incomes. Local and state housing programs shouldbe targeted to income levels at which the private housingmarket fails. When the private market is meeting thehousing needs of a certain income level, there is no needfor public subsidy. The monthly payment calculator

developed by the Florida Housing Coalition can be usedto calculate the mortgage amount a family can afford.The property appraiser data and the methodologyoutlined above can be used to determine the percentageof community’s housing market that is affordable to familiesearning certain incomes. This type of analysis should bedone prior to increasing the income limits for a purchaseassistance program.

STAN FITTERMAN is a Senior Technical Advisor with the FloridaHousing Coalition. He is currently the program manager for deliveringtechnical assistance under numerous contracts, including the state ofFlorida’s Affordable Housing Catalyst program. He is recognized through-out the state as one of the foremost authorities on Florida’s State HousingInitiatives Partnership (SHIP) program. Stan holds a masters degree in cityplanning from Georgia Tech. He provided research for the Pulitzer Prizewinning newspaper series The Color of Money, and co-authored a chapterin the book From Redlining to Reinvestment.

COUNTY

Alachua

Escambia

Hillsborough

Palm Beach*

Pinellas**

St. Lucie

TABLE 3

MedianIncome

$54,200

$52,500

$53,900

$61,200

$51,300

$52,800


70% ofmedian1

$112,065

$107,168

$111,200

$132,232

$103,700

$108,032

# of Total SFsales affordableto HH earning

70%

126

945

172

178

820

319

70% ofmedian

$37,940

$36,750

$37,730

$42,840

$35,910

$36,960


30 year term, 7 percent interest rate, 33/45 front and back ratios, $1,000 down payment, $450 permonth in non-mortgage monthly debt.

% of Total SFsales affordableto HH earning

70%

10%

37%

3%

2%

4%

13%


H

H

The Legislature has a decidedly large appetite for directing local governments to do a better job planning for affordable housing. In 2006,

the legislature directed all local governments to inventory their public lands by July 2007 and make those that are appropriate available for the production

of affordable housing. In the 2007 session, the Florida legislature prescribed additional planning efforts for affordable housing in certain high cost counties.

Richard Gentry, who formerly served for twenty three years as Legislative Counsel for the Florida Home Builders Association, is the lobbyist who was

instrumental in passing this new planning requirement for affordable housing.

Planning For Workforce Housingin High Cost Counties

by Richard Gentry

When the 2007 legislature passed theaffordable housing bill (HB 1375),included therein were two paragraphs that

will likely have a major effect on a limited number ofcounties in relation to their planning (or lackthereof) for the provision of affordable workforcehousing. Workforce housing is defined bysubparagraph 380.0651(3)(j)FS and for thepurposes of this bill is used to identify housingwhich is “... affordable to natural persons or families whosetotal household income does not exceed 140 percent of thearea median income, adjusted for household size.”

Those two paragraphs are aimed at those counties where agap exists between the buying power of a family of four andthe median county home sale price exceeding $170,000, asdetermined by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.When passed, that definition included Miami Dade, PalmBeach, Collier, Martin and Walton counties; by excludingcounties not designated an Area of Critical State Concernunder section 380.05, Florida Statutes, Monroe County wasremoved as it was thought that compliance was unlikelyunder any circumstances, given the limited land available aswell as their Rate Of Growth Ordinance, or ROGO.

Now, the crux of the matter; those counties meeting theabove criteria must identify “adequate sites for suchhousing” in their comprehensive plan, and failing to do so,will be “ineligible to receive any state housing assistancegrants” until the requirement of the provision is met.

So there it is - the state has finally said no more lipservice to the provision of adequate affordablehousing sites, counties - identify SITES, or loseall state housing assistance grants! Now comesthe interesting part - will the Department ofCommunity Affairs be aggressive in its enforcementthrough the comprehensive planning process?What exactly is meant by “state housing assistancegrants?” To have teeth, the provision surely must

mean SHIP dollars, and if so, then more is at stake for thesecounties than a desire to maintain Home Rule.

Each and every stakeholder at the local level, as well aspotential recipients should be weighing in on the issue. Iflocal providers of affordable housing aren't engaged, wouldcounties with such an exhibited deficit to begin withreally take the initiative without the prodding of thosetruly committed to providing affordable housing in theircommunity? Stay tuned - to DCA, and the legislature - for localgovernment to ignore this provision will likely only emboldena legislature not overly happy with local government to beginwith - to “reiterate” that it wanted action!

RICHARD GENTRY is a lawyer and lobbyist in Tallahasseerepresenting largely business clients, several of whom have interestsin affordable housing programs around the state. Prior to establishingGentry and Associates, LLC as a lobbying organization, he servedfor 23 years as the Legislative Counsel for the Florida HomeBuilders Association.

Gentry

EDITOR’S NOTE:


H

H

Local Governments Get Creative toSupport Affordable Housing

The Economics of Local Government Support for Affordable Housing was a workshop at the Florida Housing Coalition’s statewide annual conference.

The panelists were George Romangnoli, (left) Community Development Manager for Pasco County, Wight Greger, (right) Director of the Neighborhood

and Housing Department for the City of Jacksonville, and Joe Gray, (middle) Executive Director of the Delray Beach CLT.

Local governments in Florida have become morecreative in recent years with their affordable housingprograms to meet the changing demands of their

communities. They have reached beyond the traditionalpurchase assistance and rehabilitations programs to bothidentify their residents’ needs and to develop programs tomeet those needs. The following interviews with GeorgeRomagnoli, Joe Gray, and Wight Greger, reflect the varietyof programs that have been implemented in communitiesacross the state.

George RomagnoliCommunity Development ManagerPasco County Community Development

What changes haveyou seen in the past

two decades?

In 2006, Pasco County had to write its new Local HousingAssistance Plan (LHAP) for the SHIP Program. When thefirst plan was written in 1993, we saw the greatest needwas homebuyers who needed help with down payment

assistance. We have had several different programs throughthe years that met that need. In 2006, Pasco County was adifferent place. We had become the sinkhole capital ofFlorida and insurance costs were going through the roof.People needed help to stay in the homes that they were in.Also, the Community Development Division had become thelead agency for the Coalition for the Homeless, so our eyeswere opened up to the need of those at the bottom of theincome scale.

What programs did you createto meet these changing needs?

To meet those challenges, we set up several new programs.We had previously, through the Emergency ServicesGrant, funded our Social Service Division to help witheviction protection, utility payments, and getting very lowincome families into rental units. We gave them about$30,000 a year. Every year, they would run out of moneyin the first few months of the fiscal year, and many peoplewere unassisted, and many became homeless. In the newLHAP, we increased funding for this program six-fold. Wefunded a position in Social Services so the program canbe operated.

Continued on pg 6



To meet the needs of those with insurance problems, wedeveloped a program to pay for taxes and insurance,brilliantly named the Tax and Insurance Payment Program(TIPP). We limited the program to very low-income seniorsand those that were disabled with modest homes. We gavethem 0% loans that are not due for at least ten years. Weassisted about 25 homeowners in the first round of awards,and are now in our second round.

You may ask, “What about next year? If they can’t affordinsurance now, how will they afford it next year?” Well, theanswer is probably yes. And you know, that is not all bad.For less than a few thousand dollars a year, a very low-income homeowner who is a senior or disabled stays in theirhome. That is a good deal.

Foreclosure Prevention is a program we have done for almost10 years, but this is the year it has really kicked up. All theadjustable rate loans, stated income loans, and teaser ratesare now coming back to haunt people that cannot afford thehomes that they are in. We have completed over 124 loansin the last 36 months.

Do you have other programsthat are not traditionally seen

in LHAP’s?

We have committed funding a different rehabilitation projectwith the public housing authority every year. We want to doa project with aged out foster kids, possibly renting out aforeclosed home to a non-profit that works with that group.We will rebuild a group home for developmentally disabledadults. Lots of different programs can come from SHIPfunding. We do not want to fall into the down payment assis-tance only – housing rehab only trap, but aim to meet theneeds of our county.

Joe Gray Executive DirectorDelray Beach CLT

Why was the DelrayBeach CLT established?

The Delray Beach CLT is the result ofthe process begun in the late 1990s to create the City ofDelray Beach's Downtown Master Plan. The Master Planhousing goals emphasize the City's commitment to culturaland economic diversity, diversity of housing stock and costs,

and to providing affordable housing in neighborhoodsthroughout the community. In the many meetings thatoccurred during the master planning process, residentsexpressed increasing concern about the lack of affordablehousing and the need for new strategies to implement theCity's housing goals. In 2000, the City, the Delray BeachCommunity Reinvestment Agency and other key communitystakeholders commissioned the SW/NW NeighborhoodRedevelopment Plan to develop strategies to improvehousing, economic development, and general livabilityconditions in the City's core neighborhoods. Creation of acommunity land trust was a key recommendation of theSW/NW Neighborhood Redevelopment plan adopted by theCity Commission.

How has the CRA and Citysupported the Delray Beach

Community Land Trust (DBCLT)?

The Community Land Trust has received a lot of supportfrom the CRA. Utilizing its TIF funds, the CRA providesoperating support for the DBCLT, loans for the acquisition ofthe land as well as construction loans to build the houses.When a house is sold to a qualified buyer, the constructionloan is repaid to the CRA but the loan to purchase the landis granted to the DBCLT. In addition, the City providespurchase assistance money with its SHIP funds for thebuyers of the houses and both the City and CRA donate landand buildings to the Community Land Trust. For instance,the DBCLT is currently renovating the former France Hotelinto 14 rental units for low-income seniors. This propertywas donated to the DBCLT.

This year was the first full year of operations for DBCLT.So far, we have sold 10 houses, have seven houses thatwill close by the end of November, and 11 units underconstruction.

What are your future goals forthe Delray Beach CLT?

We hope to produce 100 units a year. We are currentlyenhancing our homebuyer counseling program and are usingdeveloper fees to pay for this program. Our plan is to haveenough qualified homebuyers to reach our 100 units peryear goal. We are also trying to cut back on using the TIFfunds for operations and development costs. Within the nexttwo years, we expect to be self-supporting and will no longerneed assistance from the CRA.



Wight GregerDirectorCity of Jacksonville

What has the City ofJacksonville done to promote

affordable housing?

In April 2006, then City Council President Kevin Hydeappointed a City Council Task Force on Affordable andWorkforce Housing. The Task Force consisted of all electedofficials and focused on three specific policy areas:1. Leveraging the availability of City-owned land to spur

affordable housing production 2. Furthering existing and establishing new City partner-

ships with both not-for-profit and for-profit developers tobring affordable housing to the market, and

3. Identifying and making recommendations aboutlegislative and regulatory barriers to the development ofaffordable housing.

The Task Force held public meetings and discussions fromMay until December, inviting housing experts, non-profitand for-profit developers, city staff, and key stakeholders toparticipate and to provide information. Out of this process,the Report of Affordable and Workforce Housing TaskForce was created. This Report outlines 38 policy optionsfor Jacksonville, including suggested improvements tocurrent City programs as well as creative and innovativenew programs.

Can you highlight a programthat you have implemented as a

result of the Task Forcerecommendations?

The City has created the Office of Affordable HousingDevelopment within the Housing and NeighborhoodsDepartment. This Office is responsible for working withaffordable housing developers in the planning and permit-ting of developments targeted for affordable and workforcedevelopments. The Office provides technical assistance tofacilitate the progress of these developments through thenecessary permitting procedures by walking the developerthrough the City’s processes, including identifying availableincentives such as expedited permitting. The office is inclose contact with every City department involved in thedevelopment of affordable and workforce housing to

expedite required approvals. The idea is to streamline andcoordinate the approval and permitting process by creatinga one-stop shop for developers to utilize in the developmentprocess. This office is also tasked with identifying zoningand land use barriers to affordable housing in Jacksonvilleand while the office only started in August, staff is alreadyworking with the zoning department to re-write a specificzoning code that currently discourages the development ofaffordable housing.

As a result of the Task Forcerecommendations, what has theCity of Jacksonville done to

encourage affordable housingdevelopment on City-owned

property?

The City’s Housing Division staff currently reviews thesurplus land list for suitability for use as affordable housing,and actively works with community-based developers todevelop appropriate sites. The City of Jacksonville has anordinance in place that allows parcels on the surplus landlist to be transferred free and clear to a non-profit developerwithout City Council approval. This ordinance provides forthe quick transfer of these properties.

In addition, with the assistance of the Shimberg Center forAffordable Housing at the University of Florida, Housingand Neighborhoods Department staff has identified 607 cityowned parcels out of 37,000 parcels that are suitable foraffordable housing development. Staff determined a set ofcriteria to identify which of the 37,000 parcels can bedeveloped as affordable housing and used the criteria tonarrow the list. This criteria included size of the parcel,proximity to infrastructure and schools, and access to streetsor roads. The City is currently working on a dispositionprocess for these properties which will need approval of theCity Council.

For larger parcels, the City is planning to coordinate the duediligence on these parcels such as the environmental reports,surveys, title work and zoning before the disposition processas an additional incentive for the selected developers. Thisprocedure was implemented for a city owned parcel onMayport Road in Jacksonville which was just awardedthrough and RFP process to a developer. It ensured that theland was ready to build on and will shorten the developmenttime needed for the project, allowing the units to be built andoccupied by low-income families sooner.


H

Florida Hometown Democracy:Should a Comprehensive Plan Amendment

for Affordable Housing be Subject toReferendum?

by Charles Pattison and Matthew Davis

Florida Hometown Democracy wants to make it more difficult for developers to obtain comprehensive plan amendments. Hometown Democracy is

currently circulating a petition to have a proposed constitutional amendment added to the ballot for the 2008 election. If passed the constitutional

amendment would alter the way comprehensive plan amendments are adopted. Proposed comprehensive plan amendments would still be heard by county

or city officials, however, if they are approved by those officials, they are then subject to a vote of the electors of the local government by referendum.

Hometown DemocracyBackground

As the population in Florida continues to grow,many of the State’s citizens are concerned aboutthe manner in which local governments arehandling the growth. Each county and municipalityin Florida uses a comprehensive plan as a way toplan for and manage future growth. The compre-hensive plan’s Future Land Use Map designatesthe allowable land uses and intensities for futuregrowth. When a developer wants to build a projectthat is not allowed by the comprehensive planhe or she must ask the local officials for acomprehensive plan amendment which wouldthen put the proposed project in compliance withthe comprehensive plan.

The Florida Hometown Democracy movementcomes from a concern that these comprehensiveplan amendments are granted too frequently, are notscrutinized enough to ensure the area can handle thegrowth, and are resulting in irresponsible growth across thestate, which leads to a shortage in public facilities,increased traffic, and is an overall aesthetic eyesore. All ofwhich leads to a lower quality of life for Florida’s citizens.

Proponents of Hometown Democracy claim thelocal government officials that approve compre-hensive plan amendments are in the pockets oflarge developers. They rightly state that thegovernment officials are not supposed to grant aland use change unless the public interest isimproved; however they claim that the publicinterest has been redefined to mean keepingthe development machine humming at fullthrottle. Lesley Blackner, the founder ofHometown Democracy, states that commissionersare “handing [comprehensive] plan amendmentsout like candy1.” Essentially, proponents ofHometown Democracy believe that the amend-ment will put citizens back in charge of the placeswhere they live.

Criticism of FloridaHometown Democracy

Hometown Democracy has drawn fierce criticism from localgovernments, chambers of commerce from around the state,and, of course, developers. The Florida Chamber ofCommerce, the group heading the anti-HometownDemocracy campaign, labels Hometown Democracy’sapproach “irresponsible and reckless.” The Florida

Pattison

Davis


Homebuilders Association claims the costs of the HometownDemocracy amendment, if passed, would be “astronomical”and that it “could kill growth in the state of Florida.2” LeeWetherington, a southwest Florida developer, offered aless radical suggestion that Hometown Democracy’samendment would “add to the cost of construction tremen-dously because in order to get a[comprehensive] plan amendment,we’ll have to hold an electionand run a campaign that costsmoney.3” Wetherington went on toadd that many of those costs willbe added to new homes and devel-opments, and thus passed on tobuyers. Secretary Tom Pelham,head of the Department ofCommunity Affairs (the stateagency charged with overseeingthe implementation of theGrowth Management Act) labeledHometown Democracy’s amend-ment as an “extreme, draconianapproach that would create veryreal problems. But we cannotignore what's driving this. Planamendments should be rare, notwilly-nilly.4”

LegalUncertainties

Surrounding theImplementation of

the HometownDemocracyAmendment

A problem frequently raised byopponents of Hometown Democracy is the uncertainty sur-rounding the legal implementation of the amendment. Bylaw, local comprehensive plans are required to include acapital improvements element designed to consider theneed for and the location of public facilities. The cap-ital improvements element outlines the needs for construc-tion, extension, or increase in capacity of public facilitiesas well as any construction necessary to correct existingpublic facility deficiencies. These components must coverat least a five year period. The capital improvements ele-ment must be reviewed on an annual basis, and an amend-ment is required to update the comprehensive plan. These

amendments must be implemented by December 1, 2008and every year thereafter. If a local government has notimplemented the capital improvements amendment by thattime, they can not amend its future land use map until theydo so.

The obvious problem: what happensif the voters reject a capitalimprovements element? This couldeasily happen in the followingmanner. The capital improvementselement could call for a highway tobe widened through an area oftown that does not want theincreased traffic; or it could call fornew roads to be built in an unde-veloped area of the county. Theopponents to these projects couldmount a campaign against theamendment. Another way it couldhappen is if some anti-growthadvocates catch on to this rule, andrealize if the capital improvementsamendment is shot down, then noother amendments can legally bepassed, thereby eliminating theneed for them to mount a cam-paign to every comprehensive planamendment.

How to carry out the referendumprocess is another legal problemthat would arise from theHometown Democracy amend-ment. The actual amendment isvague; stating in essence thatbefore a local government mayamend a comprehensive plan,

the proposed amendment shall be subject to vote by refer-endum, following preparation by the local planning agencyand consideration by the governing body. Currently, localgovernments submit packages of multiple amendments tothe Department of Community Affairs as part of twice yearlyamendment cycles. This raises the question of whether eachamendment would be subject to a separate vote, or whetherthe entire package could be voted on as one. Proponents ofthe amendment claim that each government could choosehow to package the amendments for referendum; howeverthe amendment text literally reads that each comprehensiveplan amendment shall be subject to a vote.

Florida’s population and

developed land are projected

to double over the next 50

years, and the state faces

many uncertainties due to the

impacts of rampant sprawl,

the loss of urban lands, and

climate change. Now, more

than ever, Florida needs a

visionary and workable

planning process. The key to

better growth management is

more active and effective

citizen involvement in the

process. While we appreciate

the sincerity and dedication

of those involved with the

Florida Hometown Democracy

amendment, it will produce

results with many unintended

consequences to the

detriment of a sustainable

quality of life we all seek.

H




Packaging the comprehensive plan amendments togetherraises even more concerns. Section 101.161, is the FloridaStatutes that governs the content of a ballot. According tothe law, each public measure shall be summarized on theballot by an explanatory statement, not more than 75 wordsin length. This would enough a problem trying to explainone complex land use issue in 75 words or less andeven more complicated if many comprehensive planamendments are packaged together and voted on as asingle referendum. Furthermore, it is almost a sure thingthat developers will try to ‘slip’ highly controversialcomprehensive plan amendments by packaging themtogether with more benign comprehensive planamendments. The issue of whether the plan amendmentscan be packaged together will likely be resolved throughcostly litigation.

Another issue that will arise should the constitutionalamendment pass, regardless of whether or not the planamendments are packaged together, is when in thecomprehensive plan amendment process the referendumwill take place. Under current laws, the local governmentsubmits a proposed comprehensive plan amendment to theDepartment of Community Affairs (DCA), which issuesobjections, recommendations and comments. The localgovernment may or may not alter the proposed amendmentin light of the DCA’s suggestions, and it then adopts theplan amendment. The DCA then reviews the adoptedamendment, and determines whether it is “in compliance.”If the DCA finds the amendment to be “in compliance” itmay be challenged by an affected person before the Divisionof Administrative Hearings (DOAH). Alternatively, if theDCA finds the amendment to not be “in compliance” thenthe matter will automatically be heard before anAdministrative Law Judge at DOAH. Regardless of whetherthe DCA finds the plan amendment to be “in compliance” ornot, citizens may intervene in the proceedings at DOAH.

If the Administrative Law Judge finds the amendment tobe “in compliance” then DCA will issue a Final Orderapproving the project, which may be appealed by opponentsto the District Court of Appeal. On the other hand, if theadministrative Law Judge finds that the amendment is not“in compliance” then the DCA forwards the case to theGovernor and Cabinet for a final order. The issue thatarises out of this process is where does the referendum fitin? If the referendum takes place before the DCA reviewsthe plan amendment and is passed; then opponents willhave another shot at defeating the amendment duringthe administrative process. Furthermore, if the DCA

determines that the plan amendment needed to betweaked, it would have to be voted on again. However, ifthe referendum takes place after the DCA review, thenproponents of the amendment will be facing a long andextremely uncertain approval process. If the public votesagainst a plan amendment that has already been approvedby the administrative process, then all of that time andmoney would have been wasted.

1000 Friends of Florida’sConclusion

After careful deliberation, 1000 Friends of Florida can notsupport the proposed Hometown Democracy constitutionalballot amendment. As this state’s growth managementwatchdog, 1000 Friends of Florida has spent considerabletime evaluating the merits of the proposed amendment. Weapplaud the leaders of this sincere effort to bring aboutchange, and recognize the need to improve growthmanagement and development decisions in Florida. Butfor the following reasons, we can not support FloridaHometown Democracy:

High-Priced Media Campaigns— Debates on contro-versial comprehensive plan amendments would likelyturn into high-priced media campaigns, favoring deeppocket large developers over homeowner associations andgrassroots groups.

NIMBYism or “Not In My Back Yard”— Localgovernments would find it much more difficult to adoptamendments related to often controversial but much neededcommunity projects such as affordable housing, schools,transit systems, landfills, and other public facilities, leadinglocal governments to pursue either more costly or lessdesirable alternatives.

Piecemeal Planning— Hometown Democracy wouldremove the “comprehensive” from the comprehensiveplanning approach, resulting in a series of uncoordinated,piecemeal decisions driven by popularity rather thannecessity.

Sprawl— Hometown Democracy could limit responsiblenew development in more populated, urbanized areas,forcing development out into rural areas which have fewerpeople to oppose the proposed plan amendment. It couldalso limit efforts to pass plan amendments intended to lessensprawling patterns of development.


Legal Gridlock— A series of legal challenges will likelybe necessary because of the vague wording of the proposedamendment. Questions include: Will plan amendments bevoted on individually or in a bundled package of manyamendments? Will the amendments be considered atregular elections or will special elections be required?Who will pay for the new and increased costs associatedwith these elections? What happens if voters approve anamendment found “not in compliance” by the FloridaDepartment of Community Affairs? What happens ifchanges required during the mandated 7-year update of thecomprehensive plan are not approved by the voters?

Legislative Backlash— To avoid such legal challenges,the Florida Legislature could change the plan amendmentprocess for the worse, reduce the ability of citizens tochallenge plan amendments, or undertake other similarlydrastic and counter-productive alternatives that wouldrender Florida Hometown Democracy—and Florida’sgrowth management process--moot.

We think a better approach is:

Mandated Citizen Participation Plan— Developersmust prepare a citizen participation plan, including aprocess to notify impacted property owners and neighbor-hood associations, and conduct developer workshops withcitizens to identify all issues of concern prior to any publichearing. The developer must present to the commission alist of all issues raised, and indicate if and how they wereresolved. Unresolved issues then become the focus ofdiscussion, rather than an afterthought discussed in two orthree minutes of public testimony.

Neighborhood Participation— Each local governmentmust compile a list of all neighborhood associations (withcontact person) operating within the jurisdiction, and within10 days of the filing of any applications or proposals filed forplan amendments or land development regulations the localgovernment shall notify potentially impacted neighborhoodassociations.

Seven Day “Cooling Off” Period— Plan amendmentscannot be changed in the seven days prior to the advertisedpublic hearing. This will allow the citizens, commissioners,and others to fairly evaluate the document and not be sub-ject to an endless “shell game” of last minute changes. If theplan amendment is revised within that period, the hearingwill be postponed unless all affected parties agree otherwise.

“Super Majority” Vote— It shall be easier to require a“super majority” vote for many types of plan amendmentsthat directly impact growth and development decisions.

Protection from SLAPP Suits— In order to promotemore active involvement, private citizens and organizationsshall be shielded from any developer-initiated SLAPP suits.

Improved Ability for Citizens to Challenge LocalGovernment Decisions— Current citizen standing andlegal review standards shall be improved to make theprocess more equitable, quicker and less costly.

“No Free Density”— The judicious conversion of ruralland to urban density--in the form of compact, walkable,mixed use communities in appropriate locations--shall onlybe undertaken in fair trade for significant public benefit.This shall include the permanent preservation of natural andagricultural lands and open spaces.

Florida’s population and developed land are projected todouble over the next 50 years, and the state faces manyuncertainties due to the impacts of rampant sprawl, the lossof urban lands, and climate change. Now, more than ever,Florida needs a visionary and workable planning process.The key to better growth management is more active andeffective citizen involvement in the process. While weappreciate the sincerity and dedication of those involvedwith the Florida Hometown Democracy amendment, we donot see it providing this better role we all desire for thepublic at large. In our judgment, it will produce resultswith many unintended consequences to the detriment of asustainable quality of life we all seek.

1. Amendments pit builders against anti-growth activitists. Sara Kam 27 July2007 Palm Beach Post- Captial Bureau

2.Growth showdown bound for ballot? Nicholas Azzara 29 July 2007 BradentonHerald

3. Bradenton Herald4. Developing a middle ground. St. Pete Times Editorial, August 1, 2007

CHARLES PATTISON is the Executive Director of 1000 Friends ofFlorida, a statewide nonprofit growth management advocacy organization.Previously, he was the Director for the Division of Resource Planning andManagement at the Department of Community Affairs. He received hisMasters in Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina. Mr.Pattison was recently appointed to the Century Commission for aSustainable Florida, the Florida Energy Commission’s Climate ChangeSubcommittee, and the Governor’s Climate Action Team.

MATTHEW DAVIS is a Juris Doctorate candidate at Florida StateUniversity College of Law, Class of 2008 and served as an extern for 1000Friends of Florida in 2007.


H

page 20 T H E F L O R I D A H O U S I N G C O A L I T I O N

Inclusionary Housing: What’s HappeningNationally and Right Here at Home

by Jaimie Ross

The National Inclusionary Housing Conference washeld October 30 - November 1, 2007 in San Francisco.I had the privilege of planning and participating in this

conference as a board member of the Innovative HousingInstitute, a national nonprofit that promotes mixed incomecommunities. Housing professionals, planners,lawyers, and advocates gathered from around thecountry, as well as a delegation from South Africa,to share the latest in best practices for creatingeconomically integrated communities.

At the Florida Housing Coalition’s statewideconference held September 5-7, 2007 inOrlando, “The Economics of Housing”included one workshop on linkage fees,featuring Dr. James Nicholas and another oninclusionary housing, featuring Bernie Tretault.

Just weeks after the conference, but more than two years inthe making, the Village of Islamorada in Monroe Countyadopted an ordinance which is both linkage fee and inclu-sionary housing and applies to both residential and nonres-idential development. This is the first of its kind in Floridabut may become more widely used as an increasing numberof communities face the economic consequences from thegap between worker salaries and housing costs, even with adownturn in the housing market.

This article covers the most recent and comprehensiveresearch on inclusionary housing, best practices forcrafting an inclusionary zoning ordinance, and our latestexample of a progressive response to the economic conse-

quences of housing market failure from Islamorada, Florida.

An Ambitious Effort toExamine the Impact ofInclusionary Housing

A recent report from the Nonprofit HousingAssociation of Northern California (NPH)

“Affordable By Choice: Trends in CaliforniaInclusionary Housing Programs,* looked athousing produced though inclusionaryprograms from January 1999 through

June, 2006. The key findings of the study are*:

1. One Hundred Seventy Jurisdictions in Californiahave Inclusionary Housing Programs. This rep-resents nearly one- third of all California jurisdictions.

2. More than 80,000 Californians have HousingThrough Inclusionary Programs. Since 1999inclusionary programs have created an estimated 30,000units statewide.

3. Most Inclusionary Housing is Integrated WithinMarket-Rate Developments. The housing is built

Left to right: Diane Spaulding, Executive Directorof NPH; Judith Bell, President of PolicyLink, DavidRusk, author, founding board member of InnovativeHousing Institute, and consultant to FordFoundation.

Center: Angela Glover Blackwell,Executive Director of PolicyLinkkeynote speaker at 2007 NIHC.Ms. Blackwell was the keynotespeaker for the Florida HousingCoalition's 2003 Conference.

Left to right: NIHC Conference Planners andPresenters, Adam Gross, Business andProfessional People for the Public Interestand Jaimie Ross, 1000 Friends of Florida.


along with and indistinguishable from market rateunits, creating socially and economically integratedcommunities affordable to a wider range of families. Asa result, teachers shop at the same grocery stores as theparents of their students, and the elderly are finding safeapartments close to their children and grandchildren.

4. Inclusionary Housing Provides Shelter for ThoseMost in Need. Nearly three-quarters of the housingproduced through inclusionary program is affordableto people with some of the lowest incomes. Thesefindings shed new light on the popular perception thatinclusionary policies create ownership units mostly formoderate- income families.

5. Lower-Income Households are Best ServedThrough Partnerships. When market-rate developerswork with affordable housing developers to meet theirinclusionary requirement, the units are more likely toserve lower-income households. Joint ventures play aparticularly important role in developing units for house-holds most in need. One- third of all the housing builtthough inclusionary programs resulted from partnershipsbetween market rate and affordable developers.

*To order a copy of the full report, Affordable by Choice: Trends inCalifornia Inclusionary Housing Programs contact NPH atwww.nonprofithousing.org and click on what’s new.

Best Practices for Crafting anInclusionary Housing

Ordinance.

An inclusionary housing ordinance must be tailored at thelocal level to reflect the development patterns, marketconditions, and affordable housing needs in a particularjurisdiction. But all inclusionary zoning ordinances willhave certain common elements. The following are bestpractices for addressing those common elements.

H A threshold number of market rate units thatactivates the inclusionary requirement. The bestway to choose that threshold is to look at the historicaland anticipated development patterns in your jurisdic-tion. If most site plan approvals are for 25 unit devel-opments, a threshold of 35 units would be too low. Inevery jurisdiction in Florida, an inclusionary housingrequirement should apply to large scale developments sothat the creation of planned unit developments or newurbanism towns never excludes affordable housing.Therefore, an ordinance with a high threshold, such as100 or 200 residential units would be appropriate inevery jurisdiction, especially those areas that anticipatesubstantial future growth.

H A requirement that the affordable units arecomparable in quality and aesthetics to the marketrate units. Even if they are smaller or of a differenttype (e.g. town home rather than single family home), theinclusionary housing should blend into the community.Some ordinances require that the inclusionary units bethe same size as the market rate units. There may belegitimate concern that the inclusionary units not besub-standard, but the ordinance must balance the goal ofunit production and the need to keep the developmenteconomically feasible. The key to comparability is theexternal, not the internal, features.

H Timing. The inclusionary units must be builtprior to or concurrently with the market rateunits. This avoids any potential NIMBY problems forthe developer and any potential compliance problems forthe local jurisdiction, should the developer build andsell the market rate units and fail to undertake theaffordable units.

H Benefits or incentives to assist the private sectorin providing the affordable units, such as densitybonuses. An increase in density allows the developer to

David Rusk, author of InsideOutside Game, also keynotespeaker at Florida HousingCoalition's 2001 Conference

Dr. Jim Nicholas, economist,presenter at Florida HousingCoalition’s 2007 Conference

Bernie Tretault, founder and president of Innovative HousingInstitute speaking (above left) at 2007 National InclusionaryHousing Conference and (above right) at Florida HousingCoalition’s 2007 Conference.


produce additional units that could not have been builtbut for the inclusionary housing requirement. Thismakes the density bonus the most valuable governmentincentive- adding substantial economic value throughland use regulation. The density bonus must be “ofright” and not subject the developer to delays from addi-tional approvals.

H Flexibility. Flexible options for meeting theinclusionary requirement should not be seen as aweak ordinance. Providing an array of options for thedeveloper to use in meeting the inclusionary require-ment, such as off-site development and land donation,will create a better partnership between the private andpublic sector and better outcomes when the market ratesite is not appropriate for the development of affordableunits.

H A provision for payment in-lieu. If the purpose ofthe ordinance is to have affordable housing built withinmarket rate developments this provision may not be agood option. It is also not appropriate for large scale res-idential development because its application is when thenature of the development makes it practicably infeasi-ble to include affordable units. If the inclusionary pro-gram is intended to mitigate for housing impacts and issupported by a nexus study, an in lieu fee maybe appro-priately apply in that instance, akin to an impact fee. Theamount of in-lieu fee must be sufficient to support thedevelopment of the affordable units which would havebeen built under the ordinance. If the in-lieu fee is toolow, the market rate developer will likely opt to pay thefee and not build the units. There must be a local hous-ing trust fund as the depository for the payments in-lieuand a mechanism for using those dollars to promoteinclusionary housing.

H An affordability period. One of the most critical ele-ments in an inclusionary housing ordinance is long termaffordability. When an affordable product is included inan otherwise unaffordable area, appreciation inflates at asubstantially greater rate. Once a local government hasadopted and implemented an inclusionary housing ordi-nance, it is imperative that a long term period of afford-ability accompany the development of the unit.

H Program Administration. Policies for administrationof the program. Adopting an inclusionary ordinance isjust the beginning. It is a complicated program to imple-

ment and requires significant staff time. Local jurisdic-tions adopting inclusionary requirements need to budgetfor staff time and or partner with a local nonprofit, suchas a community land trust to manage the resale ofthe units.

Village of Islamorada AdoptsInclusionary/Linkage Fee

Ordinance

The Islamorada ordinance was adopted on September 27,2007. It requires residential and commercial property own-ers to provide workforce housing needed due to expandingexisting buildings or building new market-rate construction.The ordinance is couched in terms of a mitigation planbased on the findings in a nexus study. Generally, itrequires that 30% of the affordable workforce housing beprovided, but the mitigation plan includes substantialflexibility in how that need may be met, including on site,off site, land donation, in lieu fees and a combination ofall the above.

Conclusion

Inclusionary zoning is an effective tool for producing mixedincome communities and for responding to the shortage ofhousing for the local workforce. The need to providehousing that is affordable to a community’s workforce,coupled with Florida’s housing element requirements;make inclusionary programs an obvious choice. But aninclusionary housing ordinance is typically met withsubstantial resistance from the market-rate developmentsector. The housing ordinance


Continued on page 30


Marc Trotz, Director ofHousing & UrbanHealth at the San

Francisco Department of PublicHealth presented on theEconomics of Housing at theFlorida Housing Coalition’s annu-al statewide conference. Heshared his experiences from SanFrancisco, where the healthdepartment and city and countygovernments put millions ofdollars per year into permanenthousing for the homeless. One ofthe examples he showcased wasMission Creek Senior Communitydeveloped by nonprofit MercyHousing California. MissionCreek provides 139 units ofaffordable housing; fifty-oneapartments are designated forformerly homeless and fraildisabled seniors. The rents forthe units are subsidized by theSan Francisco Department ofPublic Health.

Mr. Trotz strongly believes thathousing is a healthcare issue: thepurpose of providing permanent housingfor the homeless is to improve thehealth and well-being of a frail andvulnerable population, end the wide-spread phenomenon of people sleepingon the streets, and reduce costly over-utilization of emergency services.

Most housing advocates want thehomeless housed because they believeit is immoral and inhumane to allow human beings to liveand die on the streets of our communities. But housing thehomeless is the right thing to do irrespective of any issues ofmorality; it is the right thing to do for our local economies.

The chronically homeless need permanent supportivehousing. In Florida, we still find that the limited amount ofsupportive housing being built is restricted to housing those

who are “clean and sober.” Incities like Seattle, Denver, andSan Francisco, the providers andtheir local government partnersrecognize that it is to the public’sbenefit as well as to the benefitof chronic inebriates and drugaddicts that they be permanentlyhoused with supportive services. Unfortunately, too many peopleargue against such programsbecause they believe the home-less with substance abuse prob-lems or mental illness are notdeserving of public assistance.Something worth considering isthat the homeless populationwill continue to grow as moreveterans return from Iraq. Rightnow, veterans are 25 percent ofthe homeless people in theUnited States, though they areonly 11 percent of the generaladult population, according to areport released in November,2007 by the Alliance to EndHomelessness, a national publiceducation nonprofit.

Unfortunate, because keeping the homeless on the streetsis bad for the homeless, and bad for the rest of us, bothmorally and economically.

H

The Economics of Homelessness

Marc Trotz

Mission Creek Senior Community provides 139 units ofaffordable supportive housing to very low income seniors, with 51units for the formerly homeless, frail elders and disabled.According to Tanya Boykin, Regional President for Resident Servicesat Mercy Housing, “these are not the homeless who were living incars or with family members…these were the homeless that weresleeping by the dumpsters.”

All are one-bedroom (500-600 sq ft), units. It is a mixed use proj-ect which includes a 6,000 square foot adult day health center(which is also open to seniors living nearby), an on-site manager, aparking garage, 3,100 square feet of ground floor retail space, and acommunity room. Once a week, a food bank is set up inside the com-munity room. The development also includes a 7,500 square footbranch of the San Francisco public library. It is located in theheart of a redevelopment area, close to public transportation,shopping, medical services, a pharmacy, and recreational space.


This year the Coalition was honored to havethe Honorable Alex Sink, Florida’s ChiefFinancial Officer, serve as our keynote speaker.She mingled with the crowd after her speechand greeted eager listeners.

DCA Secretary Tom Pelham, spoke to a full house at the Opening Plenaryand again at the Public Policy Plenary, on the Economics of Housing.Workshop sessions were filled to capacity.

Dr. James Nicholas, ProfessorEmeritus of Urban andRegional Planning atUniversity of Florida, gave aninformative presentation on theEconomics of LinkageFees/Mitigation Policies.

From left to right: FHC ChairpersonJeff Bagwell (left), Florida ChiefFinancial Officer Alex Sink (middle),FHC President Jaimie Ross (right).

The Developmental Disabilities Council StakeholdersMeeting covered issues such as housing needs for peoplewith developmental disabilities like spina bifida, autism,cerebral palsy, and mental retardation.

The Florida Housing Coalition would like to recognize Bank of America, Citibank, National City, Wachovia and Washington Mutual, for

their partnership, leadership and support as our Platinum Sponsors. We are deeply appreciative.

21st ANNUAL STATEWIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONFERENCE September 15, 16, 17, 2008

Rosen Shingle Creek Resort and Golf Club • 9939 Universal Blvd. • Orlando, FL 32819 • (866) 996-9939 Web: www.shinglecreekresort.com

Mark Your Calendar


This year’s conference broke all previous recordswith over 700 participants!

Affordable Housing Study Commission Director OdettaMacLeish-White (right), shared her thoughts about thecurrent work of the Commission during the Affordable

Housing Study Commission Stakeholders Breakfastsponsored by the FHFC. Helen Hough Feinberg,

(below), Chairperson of the AHSC, led a discussionthat generated ideas for the 2007-2008 Study Topic.

Conference participants enjoyedthe reception to the fullest: greatfood, music, and new friends.

SunTrust hosted the Community Land Trust Institute Networking Caucus. Itallowed participants to discuss issues that relate to CLTs such as homebuyercounseling, assessment, internal operations, ground lease formulas, etc.

With over 20 exhibitors and ample space tosocialize, the Expo Hall was the ideal placeto network, relax with friends, and learnabout the financial services of the variouscompanies that were exhibiting.

Jaimie Ross, FHC President, thanks thePartners for Better Housing during theOpening Plenary.


SHIPCLIPS

Frequently Asked SHIP Questions

By Lydia Beltrán

state housing init iatives partnership program

What is the proper way todispose of files that havebeen retained as required?

HUD Handbook 4350-3Chapter 4-22(f) states thatthe owner must dispose of

applicant and tenant files and recordsin a manner that will prevent any unau-thorized access to personal informa-tion, e.g., burn, pulverize, shred, etc.

What is the change relatedto dependents that are awayat college?

HUD Handbook 4350.3,Paragraph 3-23 E(c) statesthat the owner may count

children who are away at school and

who live at home during recesses.However, children who are away atschool who have established residencyat another address or location asevidenced by a lease agreementshould not be counted. The newaddress or location is considered thestudent’s principle place of residence.

What is the update for pensionfunds related to payment of afederal pension fund paid to

a former spouse?

HUD Handbook 4350.3,Paragraph 5-6 K (4) statesthat Federal government

pension funds paid directly to anapplicant’s/tenant’s former spousepursuant to the terms of a court decree

of divorce, annulment, or legalseparation are not counted as annualincome. The state court has, in thesettlement of the parties’ maritalassets, determined the extent to whicheach party shares in the ownership ofthe pension. That portion of thepension that is ordered by the courtand authorized by the Office ofPersonnel Management (OPM), to bepaid to the applicant’s/tenant’s formerspouse is no longer an “asset” of theapplicant/tenant and therefore is notcounted as income. However, anypension funds authorized by OPMpursuant to a court order to be paid tothe former spouse of a Federalgovernment employee, is counted as“income”. Therefore such amount isonly counted as “income” and theterm “asset” no longer applies.

Q:A:

Q:

A:

Q:A:

Changes to Record Retention Requirements for the SHIP Program

The file/record retention requirements are guided by The General Records Schedule for State and Local GovernmentAgencies. The recent changes are below:

1. Record series consisting of Housing Applications: Non-participating/inactive (Item #273 of the General Records Schedulefor State and Local Government Agencies-GSI-SL) must be retained as follows:

(a) Record copy – 4 fiscal years provided applicable audits have been released and (b) Duplicates – retained until obsolete, superseded or administrative value is lost.

2. Record series consisting of records documenting housing finance assistance to low-to moderate-income households (GeneralRecords Schedule for State and Local Government agencies-GSI-SL - Item #274 must be retained as follows:

(a) Record copy - 5 fiscal years after funds expended and accounted for and/or satisfaction of loans, whichever is later,provided applicable audits have been released.

(b) Duplicates - retained until obsolete, superseded, or administrative value is lost.

Recent Changes to HUD Handbook 4350.3

Several revisions have been made to HUD Handbook 4350.3. Given that the HUD handbook is the SHIP guidance setforth by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation these revisions affect the SHIP program. The changes are outlined inthe HUD transmittal memo for Handbook No.:4350.3 REV-1., Change- 2 “Occupancy Requirements of SubsidizedMultifamily Housing Programs”. The changes became effective on June 29, 2007. Several are highlighted below:


Have you got a question about the SHIP program? Free telephone technical assistance isavailable to help you successfully implement your SHIP funded work. Call the Florida

Housing Coalition’s SHIP telephone line at (800) 677-4548.

Lydia Beltrán

What is an acceptable time-frame in verifying informa-tion when all attempts to

obtain Verification Forms have beenexhausted?

HUD Handbook 4350.3Paragraph 5-13 C (1)(b)states that when third-party

verification is delayed and is notreceived within two weeks of itsrequest, owners may consider originaldocuments submitted by the tenant.However, adherence Paragraph 5-19 Especifies items to be documentedwhen third-party verification is not

available. These items include (1) Awritten note to the file explaining whythird-party verification is not possible;or a copy of the date-stamped originalrequest that was sent to the thirdparty; (2) Written notes or documen-tation indicating follow-up efforts toreach the third party to obtain verifi-cation; and (3) A written note to thefile indicating that the request hasbeen outstanding without a responsefrom the third party.

An applicant has withdrawn$10,000 from his retirementaccount and placed the

money in his checking account. Shouldwe now count the $10,000 as income,or is it still an asset?

You will count the $10,000as an asset. All that hashappened at this point is that

the applicant has moved the moneyfrom the retirement account to hischecking account. However, themoney is still considered an asset--just like all money in a checkingaccount is considered an asset.

Q:

A:

Q:

A:

The participants in the HO250: HousingCounseling Certification: Principles,Practices and Techniques (picturedabove) completed the five day class whichwas jointly provided through the FloridaHousing Coalition and NeighborworksCenter for Homeownership Educationand Counseling. The certification processwill also include completion of aForeclosure course and an on line exam.The training/presenters were provided byCora Fulmore and Michael Chaney andincluded participation from non-profits,jurisdictions, lenders and realtors.

ChaneyFulmore

The class included lecture and group participa-tion related to credit, mortgage financing andinsurance counseling, home purchase processand record keeping to name a few.


COALITIONnewsThe Florida Housing Coalition is excited to announce the addition of Michelle Braun, Sandra Seals, and Earl Pfeiffer to the Board, and

David Christian and Runa Saunders to the Financial Services Committee, Evelyn Rusciolelli and Danielle Wright to our staff.

MICHELLE BRAUN is the newCommunity Relations Executive for Floridaat Wachovia. In this position, Michelledirects Wachovia’s philanthropic andemployee volunteerism programs,community development, CommunityReinvestment Act compliance andstatewide and local community partner-ships. Michelle received a Bachelors degreein Business Administration/Philosophyfrom Notre Dame and a Masters degreein Nonprofit Management from TheWeatherhead School of Management, CaseWestern Reserve University.

EARL PFEIFFER has served asExecutive Director of Homes forHillsborough since 1997. Earl, who is astate-licensed residential homebuilder anda Realtor, has been very active in afford-able housing in the Tampa Bay area since1988. As general manager of PfeifferAffordable Homes, he was a private-sectorpartner with The City of Tampa’s ChallengeFund housing program for nine yearsbefore coming to Homes for Hillsborough.Earl’s vision is to build 100 affordablehomes every year; and further, that eachhome built should not look like affordablehousing, but be indistinguishable frommarket rate homes.

SANDRA SEALS is Vice-President ofCommunity Development at RelianceHousing Foundation, Inc., a non-profitaffordable housing development organiza-tion based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. AtReliance she is responsible for forging rela-

tionships with local and state governmententities to encourage development andfinancing opportunities for affordablehousing development. Ms. Seals has awealth of experience in the affordablehousing industry which encompassesboth the private and public sector. Herpast experience includes working withLennar Homes as a RedevelopmentManager in South Florida, serving asDeputy Director of Housing for the City ofBoston, and working as a Program Officerfor a national funding intermediary calledLISC (Local Initiatives SupportCorporation). Prior to LISC, Ms. Sealsworked with Coalition for a Better Acre, aCommunity Development Corporation inLowell, Massachusetts. Ms. Seals received aBachelor’s Degree in Political Science fromUMASS/Boston and a Master’s Degree inCity Planning from the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT).

DAVID A. CHRISTIAN is currently aSenior Vice President and RegionalManager for Community Affairs at RegionsFinancial Corporation. His responsibilitiesinclude the management of the Bank’scommunity development initiatives,reputation risk and corporate communityaffairs programs for the State of Florida.Previously, David held the position ofSenior Vice President and CommunityDevelopment Lending Manager for Floridaat Bank of America.

Christian serves on the Boards ofNeighborhood Lending Partners, Florida

Community Partners and the Non-ProfitLeadership Center of Tampa Bay. He is apast Chairman of Leadership Tampa andformerly served in leadership positions onthe Tampa Museum of Art, Museum ofScience and Industry and The GreaterTampa Chamber of Commerce.

RUNA SAUNDERS is Vice President,Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)Officer for National City. Headquartered inFt. Pierce, Runa covers the northeast andcentral Florida regions for National City.She began her career in banking in 1980with Harbor Federal Savings Bank, whichrecently merged with Ohio-based NationalCity Bank. Runa’s background includesFinancial Reporting, Retail Banking andCommunity Reinvestment. She is involvedwith many local lending consortiums andnon-profit organizations and works withdown payment assistance programs foraffordable housing.

EVELYN RUSCIOLELLI has over 16years of experience and training in afford-able housing and community developmentin Marion County. Her experience includesthe implementation and administration ofvarious state and federal housing pro-grams including CDBG entitlement andsmall cities, HOME and SHIP. She hasassembled an effective consortium oflenders, builders and realtors to assist withthe execution and activities of the county’sSHIP Program and has worked with localnonprofit organizations to provide specialneeds housing including an emergency

shelter for teens. She has served on manycommunity boards and worked on the CFCCPublic Policy Institute’s Affordable HousingStudy. Evelyn’s background also includesaudit management experience with theIllinois Auditor General. She has aBachelors Degree from the University ofIllinois, Springfield in Accounting.

DANIELLE WRIGHT is the OfficeManager for the Florida Housing Coalition.Her duties include assisting the ExecutiveDirector with day-to-day operations in theTallahassee office, conference planning,recruiting members and partners forbetter housing, assisting with the HousingNews Network Journal and acting as aliaison with the Coalition’s Board ofDirectors. Danielle joined the staff in June2007 after earning her Master of Arts inArts Administration from Florida StateUniversity. As part of her GubernatorialFellowship, she previously served asVolunteer and Public Outreach Coordinatorfor Mission San Luis, a national historiclandmark in Tallahassee. She has alsoserved as Assistant Conference Coordinatorfor Florida Learn and Serve, an OfficeManager at Florida A&M University, MediaCoordinator and Graphic Designer for theIrene C. Edmonds Youth Theatre and Editorin Chief for The Famuan newspaper.

Braun Pfeiffer Seals Christian Saunders Rusciolelli Wright


Jeff Bagwell,Chairperson, isthe President ofKeystoneChallenge FundInc. in Lakeland.

AnnettaJenkins, ViceChairperson, isExecutive Directorof South FloridaLISC in West PalmBeach.

GreggSchwartz,Treasurer, is thePresident of theTampa Bay CDCin Clearwater.

SophiaSorolis,Secretary, is theEconomicDevelopmentManager for theCity of St.Petersburg.

Jaimie Ross,President, is theAffordableHousing Directorof 1000 Friendsof Florida inTallahassee.

MelvinPhilpot, PastChair, is theProgramDevelopmentCoordinator forProgress EnergyFlorida in St.Petersburg.

MarkHendrickson,At Large, is thePresident of TheHendricksonCompany inTallahassee.

Robert Von,At Large, is theVice President ofRealvestAppraisalServices inMaitland.

The new Executive Committee of the Board of Directors was approved at the 20th Annual Statewide Affordable HousingConference in Orlando. Our new Executive Committee is as follows:

Jeff Bagwell was inductedas Chairperson at the 20th

Annual Statewide AffordableHousing Conference. He

replaced Melvin Philpot whocontinues to serve on

our Board.

OUR NEW CHAIRPERSONUpcoming Coalition Workshops

The Catalyst workshop series is sponsored by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.There is no cost for attending these workshops, but space is limited. To register go to

www.flhousing.org and click on “Workshops, Training and Technical Assistance – ONLINEREGISTRATION” on the top menu bar.

Developing Housing for Extremely Low Income Households January 9, 2008 Miami

Planning, Financing and Developing Affordable Housing For Ownership January 15, 2008 Gainesville

Homebuyer Counseling and Training February 5, 2008 Boca Raton

Enhancing Your Housing Strategies February 13, 2008 Miami

Income Compliance and Program Management March 11, 2008 Jacksonville

Development Process March 19, 2008 Orlando

Understanding the Income Qualification Process April 8, 2008 Jacksonville

A Quantitative Analysis of the SHIP Program April 16-17, 2008 Boca Raton

Pre-Development Process April 29-30, 2008 W. Palm Beach

Get SHIP Shape for Your Monitoring Visit May 6, 2008 Orlando

Planning, Financing and Developing Affordable Housing for Ownership May 14, 2008 Miami

Year 15 May 29, 2008 Boca Raton

Planning, Financing and Developing Affordable Rental Housing June 11-12, 2008 Orlando

Creating and Sustaining Affordable Housing for Long-Term Affordability June 24, 2008 W. Palm Beach


or inclusionary program should therefore be craftedcarefully, incorporating best practices derived from theexperiences of jurisdictions that have tread these waters,and with the assistance of professionals including economistsand lawyers.

JAIMIE ROSS is the Affordable Housing Director at 1000 Friends ofFlorida, a statewide nonprofit growth management organization. Prior toher tenure at 1000 Friends of Florida beginning in 1991, Ms. Ross was aland use and real property lawyer representing for profit and nonprofit

developers and financial institutions. Jaimie initiated and continues tofacilitate the Sadowski/Workforce Housing Coalition. She is the author ofbooks, articles, and other tools for producing and preserving affordablehousing and creating balanced residential communities, including a CDon best practices for inclusionary housing policies, funded by theRockefeller Foundation. Ms. Ross directs the Florida Community LandTrust Institute and chairs the Affordable Housing Committee of the RealProperty Probate & Trust Law Section of the Florida Bar. Nationally, sheserves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Affordable Housing FinanceMagazine and the Board of the Innovative Housing Institute. She is thePresident of the Florida Housing Coalition. Email: [email protected].

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Local Comprehensive Planning and LandDevelopment Regulation Act (the “Growth ManagementAct”) Islamorada, Village of Islands (the “Village”) hasprovided a housing element in its Comprehensive Plan,which includes provisions related to the current and futurehousing needs of residents within the Village; and

WHEREAS, the Village has prepared and adopted The Islamorada,Village of Islands, Workforce Housing Support Study(hereinafter Workforce Housing Study), dated September2007, attached as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein byreference, that identifies there is a housing affordabilityproblem in the Village; and

WHEREAS, as the Workforce Housing Study demonstrates, beginning in2000, a significant second home and tourist marketemerged in the Village for vacationers and other personswith substantially higher incomes than local workers. Thatthe housing demand created by these persons withsubstantially higher incomes have contributed to adramatic increase in land and construction costs, and a risein the price of all housing in the community. That rise inhousing prices has made private housing unaffordable tomost all working residents within the Village, and forced anumber of residents to move elsewhere, including outside ofMonroe County; and

WHEREAS, the Workforce Housing Study demonstrates the jobs thatare expected to be created by much of the new developmentand redevelopment in the Village is expected to pay wagesthat make market rate housing in the Village unaffordable;and

WHEREAS, the Workforce Housing Study also demonstrates that thedevelopment and redevelopment of both residential andnonresidential development creates additional need foraffordable housing in the Village; and

WHEREAS, if these present trends continue, an essential component ofthe Village’s community character will be damaged since

most of the workforce and their families will no longerreside in the community, attend schools in the community,participate in local civic organizations, worship in thecommunity, act as emergency services volunteers, orexpress their ideas at the ballot box; and

WHEREAS, to address this serious community problem and to maintainthe long-term sustainability of the Village’s economy andthe character of the community, the Village Council hasestablished the goal of providing housing in the Village toserve 30% of the generated local workforce and theirfamilies, at prices they can afford; and

WHEREAS, in part to accomplish these objectives, the Village Counciladopts these Affordable Housing Standards containedwithin this Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Workforce Housing Study supports the AffordableHousing Standards adopted in this Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 166.04151, Florida Statutes, the Villagemay set forth any law, ordinance, rule, or any othermeasure adopted for the purpose of increasing the supplyof affordable housing, including land use mechanisms suchas affordable housing mitigation requirements; and

WHEREAS, the “Principles for Guiding Development” set forth inSection 380.0552 (7), Florida Statutes, requires the Villageto undertake programs which make adequate affordablehousing available for all sectors of its population; and

WHEREAS, Objective 3-1.1 of the Housing Goals, Objectives, andPolicies of the Future Land Use Element of the VillageComprehensive Plan provides for the establishment ofregulatory mechanisms and incentives to encourage theconstruction of affordable housing; and

WHEREAS, there is a reasonable relationship and rational nexusbetween the development and redevelopment of bothresidential units and nonresidential development and theneed for affordable housing; and …..

THE PREAMBLE TO THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES OPTIMUM INSIGHT INTO THE FOUNDATION FOR ALOCAL INCLUSIONARY POLICY:

Inclusionary Housing Continued from page 22


PARTNERS FOR BETTER HOUSING MEMBERSHIPPartners for Better Housing Membership is for those who wish to support the work of the Florida Housing Coalition bymaking a tax deductible donation of $500 or more. Partners for Better Housing members receive subscriptions to HousingNews Network, free job vacancy posting service on the Coalition’s web page and unlimited membership rates for registrationat the conference. Partners at the Patron Level or higher receive one or more complimentary conference registrations (comp,indicated below). Partners also receive recognition at the conference, in all conference-related publications, the Coalition’sWeb page and in each quarterly issue of Housing News Network.

c $20,000 Platinum Sponsor (20 comps) c $2,500 Co-Sponsor (3 comps)c $10,000 Gold Sponsor (10 comps) c $1,000 Patron (1 comps)c $5,000 Sponsor (6 comps) c $500 Contributor

BASIC MEMBERSHIPBasic membership is for those who wish to subscribe to Housing News Network, post job vacancy announcements free of chargeon the Coalition’s Web page and receive membership rate registrations at the annual conference. An individual member receivesone subscription and one member rate registration. Organizational members receive up to five subscriptions and five memberrate registrations. All memberships are on a unified membership cycle and are due on August 1st, and expire on July 31st of eachyear. (Please indicate additional names, addresses and phone numbers on an attached sheet.) Each membership is entitled tobe represented by one voting member at the annual meeting as designated below.

Student c $25Individual c $75 (payment by personal check only)Nonprofit Organizations c $150Government Agencies c $200Private Organizations c $250

Authorized Representative (please print or type):_____________________________________________________________________________Title: ____________________________________Signature: ____________________________Organization___________________________________________________________________Mailing Address: _______________________________________________________________City: _____________________State:________Zip: _____________County:_________________Phone: (___)_______________Fax: (___)_______________Email:________________________

Make check payable to:

Florida Housing Coalition 1367 E. Lafayette St., Suite C, Tallahassee, FL 32301 • Phone: (850) 878-4219 Fax: (850) 942-6312The Florida Housing Coalition, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) organization. One hundred percent of your tax deductible contribution goes to theFlorida Housing Coalition, Inc. No portion is retained by a solicitor. Registration number SC09899 Federal ID#59-2235835

A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING TOLL-FREE1-800-435-7352 WITHIN THE STATE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.

MEMBERSHIP application

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDTALLAHASSEE, FLPERMIT NO. 502

Florida Housing Coalition1367 East Lafayette Street, Suite CTallahassee, FL 32301

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

The Florida Housing Coalition thanks the following organizations and individuals fortheir commitment to improving housing conditions in the state of Florida.

PLATINUM SPONSOR

SPONSOR

PARTNERS FOR BETTER HOUSING

PATRON

CONTRIBUTOR

CO-SPONSOR

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS FOR FLORIDA, INC.AMERINATIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC.BANK UNITED, FSBCENTERLINE CAPITAL GROUP

CHARTERMAC

CITY OF TAMARAC

COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE INVESTMENTS, INC.CORNERSTONE GROUP DEV. CORP.FLORIDA COMMUNITY LOAN FUND, INC.HENDRICKSON COMPANY

JAIMIE ROSS

JPMORGAN CHASE

KEYSTONE CHALLENGE FUND

MERCANTILE BANK

MERIDIAN COMMUNITY SERVICES GROUP, INC.

PNC MULTIFAMILY CAPITAL

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL

RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.REALVEST APPRAISAL SERVICES, INC.SELTZER MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.

BROAD AND CASSEL

CYGNET PRIVATE BANK

HANDS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC.HOMES IN PARTNERSHIP, INC.

KISS AND COMPANY, INC.MORTGAGE & CREDIT CENTER, INC.NATIONAL HOME BUILDING & REMODELING IIPACKARD CONSULTING

SEACOAST NATIONAL BANK

SHIMBERG CENTER FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING -UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

SQUIRE, SANDERS, DEMPSEY

TRANSATLANTIC BANK

VESTCOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC.WILSON MANAGEMENT COMPANY

ATLANTIC HOUSING PARTNERS, LLCCAPITAL CITY BANK

CARLISLE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLCCOALITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS

COMERICA BANK

ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS

FINLAY DEVELOPMENT, LLCGATEHOUSE GROUP, INC.

GREYSTONE & COMPANY, INC.PINNACLE HOUSING GROUP

RBC DAIN RAUSCHER

REZNICK GROUP, P.C.

RICHMAN GROUP OF FLORIDA, INC

STEARNS, WEAVER, MILLER, WEISSLER, ALHADEFF, & SITTERSON, P.A.

GOLD SPONSOR

housing news volume 23, number 3 · housing news the journal of the florida housing coalition,...

Documents