Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Building Assessment
#1
I was talking to a realtor in Cali last week and she was complaining that on new construction the state assesses $1.10/sf for affordable housing.... unless you build a ohana also. How do you all feel about that? or making Ohana's legal on Ag lots - say if you are Ag-3 you could legally (not a farm dwelling) build a second unit. If you weren't building a second unit, then you pay the assessment.

Come on Punatics.... I want your opinions. I feel a very real need for some affordable housing. And what would you consider affordable housing with the median income last year @ $34K... price? size? type (apt or houses)? and where?

Catherine Dumond
Blue Water Project Management
808 217-7578
http://bluewaterpm.125mb.com/index.html
"We help make building your dream home a reality"


Edited by - kapohocat on 09/20/2006 08:15:26
Reply
#2
Despite being a frequent advocate for affordable housing on this forum and elsewhere, I have to confess that I don't really know what works best in our economic environment. When I first lived in Georgia, the state had a first-time buyers loan buydown program that was very effective and available. They did away with it when interest rates fell to historic lows, but a lot of people got into homes who wouldn't have otherwise. What else works?

Aloha,
Jerry

Reply
#3
Cat, the problem with the Ohana Dwellings is that a vast majority are rented and not housing family members as the "Ohana Law" was originally intended for. I don't think changing the ohana law and agricultural dwelling are the solution to the affordable housing.

Aloha,
John S. Rabi, ABR,CM,CRB,FHS,PB,RB
http://www.JohnRabi.com
Typically Tropical Properties
75-5870 Walua Road, Suite 101
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
(808)327-3185
This is what I think of the Kona Board of Realtors: http://www.nsm88.org/aboutus.html

Reply
#4
Perhaps not letting developers buy out of their low cost housing commitment. You read many articles in the paper, today 3 articles where businesses go back on their commitments and just pay the $150,000.00 fine, that goes into the governments pocket and doesn't solve the problem. Perhaps if developers were responsible for building the low income part of the project first, or even simultaneously and then upon completion doing the high end part this might help.

In regards to the Ohana I like the idea if it is for family but there again who is willing to regulate this and where will those funds come from?

mella l

Edited by - mella l on 09/20/2006 09:04:38
mella l
Art and Science
bytheSEA
Reply
#5
Cat,
If the earnings are that low per person then they probably just could not afford to build the two houses on the one lot. Personally from the cost of the current median selling price I do not know how most qualify anyhow. Especially other islands.

It seems like from what I can tell on MLS that many of them just squeeze into the one house. On Oahu there are just more bedrooms in some of those types of situations, from apprearances and the folks that I have known there.

If what John is saying is correct that they are rented out to non family members then the purpose is defeated.

A extra fee of one grand maybe doesn't seem like such a bad thing when you don't have a way to build a whole extra house. This seems though like laying an extra burden on the ones that you would want to protect from that sort of conseqence. How about reducing it by that total amount of money in taxes over five years if they stay living there with the relatives in the Ohana with them in the house. Make it an incentive rather than a penalty.
I would be for the ohanas on Ag lots with the credit to them.

Is this something that you are working on presenting to the county? Or would like to?

Aloha,
Lucy



Having another Great day in Paradise, Wherever that Maybe!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLanai
Lucy

Having another Great day in Paradise, Wherever that Maybe!
Reply
#6
This is thoughtful and important topic. I think Lucy's "carrot" approach has some merit to it. Tax incentives work on me. I think the California assessment was born of frustration. Developers were simply not building affordable housing. On Kauai, I know they have done a conscious effort to do that, specifically targeting locals. There is a development at Port Allen where you have to down to the local Costco to get on the list, at least initially. The prices are much lower than the rather amazing prices asked elsewhere on Kauai. I am not sure, but I think the developer is doing this out of a sense of civic duty.

You can't count on that sense of civic duty, and thus the assessment in California.

I think we are on the right track as long as we, as a community, are addressing the problem in some way, and are concerned about the effect on Hawaiian culture from losing Hawaiians who can no longer afford to live in Hawaii. Whether it be a carrot, or a stick, something has to be done to enable islanders to live on their island. I am willing to be part of the solution.
Reply
#7
Does it REALLY matter if the renter of an Ohana is the poor son of the owner making $9.76/hr at Walmart with no insurance, or an unrelated single mother with a child making $9.76/hr at Walmart with no insurance?

Washington state encourages the building of what they call Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). Google that term and see what could be done here if the powers that be were more pro-active.

It ain't brain surgery. Nor is it a cure-all. But no way do I have faith that developers alone, government alone, or both 'in partnership' will solve the problem before critical mass is reached.

I might also add that Washington state figured out that if homeowners were permitted to do their own wiring and plumbing, simply applying the same code to their work as to that done by a licensed tradesperson really worked to eliminate shoddy work. And it decreases construction costs too! Amazing how some simple ideas can work.


Edited by - toucano on 09/20/2006 17:53:54

Edited by - toucano on 09/20/2006 18:13:20
Reply
#8
You're right Toucano, I extrapolated this to mean for the Hawaiians to be living in their Ohanas. Maybe it is not at all what she was getting at, but that is the sense that I get from Cat, as it seems her focus usually and somewhat the plight of the Hawaiians that I wish it would help. But also wish it for others who can't afford it either. Maybe she will define it more. Also it is the focus that John mentions of being the current law. and is "not housing family members as the "Ohana Law" was originally intended for."

Aloha,
Lucy

Having another Great day in Paradise, Wherever that Maybe!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLanai

Edited by - Lucy on 09/21/2006 09:57:19
Lucy

Having another Great day in Paradise, Wherever that Maybe!
Reply
#9
Great topic
I recently had a conversation with Dwight Takamine (one of our State Reps) about the sad state of affordable housing - basically it gets almost constant press, but the county and state are perhaps the biggest impediments. Below are my comments to him, reformatted for the forum.

Firstly, I agree with Cat. Someone on a sizeable property, should indeed be allowed to build ohana type dwelling (s) - number limited by property size and/or maybe family size. I would suggest that there be a property restriction whereby the additional unit(s) could never be subdivided.

I disagree with John and a few others. Affordable housing must extend to the rental market. If I have a reasonably priced ohana dwelling and my son chooses not to live in it or move out, then I should be able to put it on the rental market. It's win-win for all, affordable rent, income to me, taxes to county, Get and income tax to State...

County and their code/permit process adds significantly to the high cost of building. Safe, affordable housing can be built (has been built) without the ton of simpson ties the inspectors want to see. Quit being lazy, draw good designs that can be strongly built and even promote alternative materials/design.

This also extends to plumbing/electrical work. We pay for electrical and plumbing inspectors - what a joke (a sad one). Let me do the work and they inspect it. If wrong, tell me so I can correct it. Having to use licensed elect/plumbing contractors AND paying for inspectors is inefficient and expensive. If the inspector knows the contractor, just how much true inspection is done in their 10 minutes on site?

OK, enough for now. Of course, the above is strictly MHO Smile

David

Ninole Resident
Ninole Resident
Reply
#10
I mentioned that Washinton state encourages what they call accessory dwelling units (ADU) to create affordable rental housing by allowing the construction of dwelling units on single family zoned lots.

There is NO logical reason Hawaii could not do something like this. There may be vested political and/or economic interests here that would not want to see it done here and would fight it if it were to be proposed. What a pity that would be. It seems like such a simple proposal to solve what everyone keeps saying is a big problem here.

----------------------------------------

Mercer Island, a small island community of 22,000 in Washington State instituted an aggressive ADU program as one of the city’s primary policies to achieve GMA requirements for accommodating new population. Since Mercer Island is a built-out community with little vacant land, finding space for constructing new residential housing is a challenge. The ADU program therefore encourages small dwellings (maximum 900 square feet) as part of existing or new single-family homes. Since 1995 about 173 new ADUs, both attached and detached, have been permitted in single-family residential zoning districts. This success was a result of streamlining the permitting process for ADUs, a good public education and information program, and low fees for permitting.

FROM: http://www.transcoalition.org/ia/acssdwel/04.html#body

------------------------------------
Here is a small portion of a very comprehensive study about ADUs with from the Washington Municipal Research & Services Center (MRSC). You can go to the link and read the whole text. I did not want to put more here because of the length and this is copyrighted material.

FROM: http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/textadu.aspx

Introduction

Allowing the development of accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, in single-family homes is becoming an increasingly popular technique for creating low- and moderate-income housing for both homeowners and renters. Homeowners benefit from the additional rental income that they can use to pay part of their mortgage payment or to help with the upkeep on their homes. Renters benefit from the availability of moderately priced rental housing in single-family neighborhoods. The community benefits from the addition of affordable housing for little or no public expense.

ADUs are most commonly understood to be a separate additional living unit, including separate kitchen, sleeping, and bathroom facilities, attached or detached from the primary residential unit, on a single-family lot. ADUs are usually subordinate in size, location, and appearance to the primary unit.

Attached units, contained within a single-family home, known variously as "mother-in-law apartments," "accessory apartments," or "second units," are the most common types of accessory dwelling units. Accessory apartments usually involve the renovation of a garage, basement, attached shed, or similar space in a single-family home.

Less common are detached "accessory cottages" or "echo homes" (an acronym for "elder cottage housing opportunities"Wink, which are structurally independent from the primary residence. These units are often constructed or installed to provide housing for elderly parents being cared for by their adult children. Accessory cottages are permanent structures, while echo homes are temporary and movable. [Accessory Units: An Increasing Source of Affordable Housing, p. 5]

To reduce housing costs and meet changing market demands, pressures have increased in recent years to allow higher densities in urban areas, make more efficient use of existing housing stocks, and to eliminate regulatory barriers that unnecessarily limit affordable housing opportunities. Recent state legislation has underscored the need to review local housing needs and to plan for and take action to encourage the development of more affordable housing. Accessory dwelling units have emerged as an important component of the affordable housing strategies being carried out in many Washington cities.

The purpose of this report is to help local officials as they begin to consider proposals to allow ADUs in their communities. It is intended as a primer for city council and planning commission members on the potential of ADUs as a source of affordable housing and on the various regulatory issues and options that are likely to arise as ADUs are discussed. The report begins with a discussion of the reasons for the current interest in ADUs. It also reviews some benefits that ADUs can provide for homeowners, renters, and the community. The remaining sections focus on ADU policy issues and options, including a discussion of common zoning regulations. The report also includes sample ordinance language where applicable.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)