The most significant item of the day wasn’t even on the agenda.
During commissioner comments, Ed Ciampi brought up how much the county needs affordable or attainable or workforce housing. That was precipitated by the comments made by advocates for such housing during public comment which Ciampi probably knew were going to be made. Ciampi wanted to keep the ball rolling from the joint meeting last month.
As usual with such a spur of the moment discussion, there were many ideas floated. Doug Smith would like to see focus groups headed by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Ciampi wants to use staff and existing groups and others to move it along.
Heard made it quite clear that taxpayers don’t want to grant any subsidies for such housing nor have it in their backyards. Then she began saying density is not the solution. Too much traffic on the roads and zoning incompatibility were also bywords.
Hetherington wants the private sector involved and, perhaps, the school board. She has constituent families that have had their rents raised. But she believes too much housing is already being built. And non-profits should collaborate.
Jenkins does want an item to come back. He is working with Banner Lake on a community land trust to foster home ownership. Ciampi made a motion to bring back an agenda item that Jenkins seconded. It passed 5-0
At the present, the members of all these committees who are pushing for an answer to the affordable, attainable, and workforce housing shortage have no real experience with operating, building, or maintaining such housing. I have worked with and managed this type of housing using the Section 8 program and other such federal and state programs, and it is daunting. One thing those programs did do was allow the private sector to make money. Alas most of those programs are now history.
On a national level, that is one of the reasons that fewer and fewer units are available at affordable rents. This isn’t the only reason. But This problem will never ever be solved without an infusion of massive federal money. Even states can’t do it, and it is certainly prohibitive for local government to do so.
Sybil was a book in the early 1970s that dealt with a woman that had 29 multiple personalities. Martin County may have that many or more when it comes to its affordable, attainable or workforce housing goals. It can be seen by the commissioners’ comments.
It is not that they are not serious about the task, but it is beyond county or municipal government capabilities. To encourage private sector response, you will need to encourage building of more housing not less. Real estate is where supply and demand make the market. As a glut happens then prices fall, and this is very true of the rental market. Right now, we have nowhere near the number of units needed.
The county can eliminate impact and other fees for those who will commit to a specific number of apartments with rental rates based on an AMI derived formula. They could give a density bonus in their CRAs if the extra apartments had cheaper rents using an AMI derived formula. The more apartments that came under the formula, the more they would be allowed to build up to 30 units per acre.
Every single-family home, regardless of where it is located even within HOAs, could have an accessible dwelling unit that, if rented, would not be subject to increased real estate taxes. The community land trust idea is a good one, but like Habitat for Humanity, it can only build so many homes.
In fact, all these suggestions would eventually lead to more housing options. However, these are stop gap measures without a commitment by the feds to release billions in housing dollars. And that is not likely.
Heard and Smith and, now to a lesser extent, Hetherington are not interested in more housing being built. The City of Stuart did approve more housing for the last few years but has now gone back into its shell and is not likely to come back out for a decade or more. Politicians cannot blame greedy developers and property owners when the reason existing prices are so high is a lack of product.
Government adds about 25% to the cost to build and that doesn’t consider the increased building prices due to more stringent construction codes. The private sector’s motive is profit. Local government can incentivize to some extent, but it cannot do so unless it gets behind a continuous effort to produce these units. They cannot retreat every time people complain about a new project being built.
So, form any committee you want. I would be glad to lend my expertise. Commissioners, just realize you can’t complain about the lack of housing and then do everything in your power to prevent new housing. And if you think by allowing more single-family homes to be developed you are going to solve the existing problem, you are not. That is what will contribute to sprawl.
