I think regulating total amount in town lets the mix self-correct, as if making an ADU a STR while the main property converts to LTR is probably a net good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
Printable View
I think regulating total amount in town lets the mix self-correct, as if making an ADU a STR while the main property converts to LTR is probably a net good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
What about the cases where at the time someone qualifies, but then over the course of time they have significant economic progression due to career advancement or inheritance?
If it is a rental they get booted. Some of the employee housing for the resorts here even have a time limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfelot
If it's not a rental AKA Deed Restricted....happily ever after. That is a big part of my opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfelot
How do they know you inherited a bunch of money? That may not even get included in your tax return. I assume it is an "honor" system where people are supposed to self report their new found riches and forgo their subsided crib.Quote:
Originally Posted by Name Redacted
How would an inheritance not show up on your tax return? They probably have periodic financial disclosures. If not maybe it is honor system.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Everything I'm aware off is an Income Based System. Broadly speaking, inheretences are not generally taxable. There is also a gift exception. That's before you even start talking about legal work arounds. Benefit aren't disclosed either. So the $20K benefit package my wife receives wouldn't effect our qualification.
Stereotypically, many of the residents of the affordable housing around here are receiving sometype of family assistance. They've been able to hang around town working a leisure job and now they get the extra bedroom and the granite tops.
But see that, despite the messaging, that doesn't matter. The resident is the product not the consumer. The puffy coat mafia gets to keep on keepin' on and everyone else just looks the other way because we've got affordable housing.
Doesn't matter around here, you stay forever if you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfelot
The most recent deed restricted sale here was cash. Why they didn't spend a bit more, even if it meant taking on a loan if they have cash lying around is beyond me.
thisQuote:
Originally Posted by goldenboy
there was a big blow up cause a county commisioner and her recently not re elected husband for tressurer or something like that sold their deed restricted home for cash??? somewhere under 500k they then charged the new buyer another 30k or 40k for improvements like a shed and stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops and paint and maybe even a used laundry hamper
pretty much bushed under the rug nothing to see here
Because I'm dense...they had lets say half a $mill sitting in the bank and they qualified based on income? Happen to know there employment situation?Quote:
The most recent deed restricted sale here was cash. Why they didn't spend a bit more, even if it meant taking on a loan if they have cash lying around is beyond me.
This is basically what someone was coaching my wife on. We can sell around house, put the money in the bank, rent temporarily, buy the deed restricted and then quit the qualifying job.
This is the disconnect I see. If you understand and observe the rules, it doesn't even make sense on paper. All these hypotheticals are real. For the newest Winter Park project (rentals) you can work from home at 120% AGI which was over 100k and have a non-qualifying room mate. I know of another arrangement where the couple lives in Denver put the wife works parking for the ski area to try and qualify to get a second home.
I know where I draw mine. When businesses that I can live without lobby to have tax payers subsidize the lodging for their private workforce I just stop shopping there. Eventually it will solve the need for employees or their lodging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
As an example do we need something like 100 restaurants/cafe for 8000 residents? Close half of them and lodging will be more available for truely needed workers (healthcare, education…).
I don't. But it makes no sense financially, IMO. It does make sense if someone wanted to work less/retire/work at a low paying job that maybe they love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
The place they bought is a tiny 1 bedroom for $260K, restricted at 3% a year. They could buy a 2 bedroom for twice that, rent the other room so a good chunk of the mortgage is taken care of, and likely sell it in 5 or 10 years or whatever for a whole lot more than the 3% they'll get on the deed restricted place.
Jeff Bezos could quit Amazon today, start washing dishes at the Secret Stash tomorrow, and buy a deed restricted place in a year. That's still a little weird...
If I could buy a tiny deed restricted property for $260k I'd do it in a heartbeat which only highlight everyone has deferent needs and goals. For me it would free up a bunch of capital and ensure I had a place forever while I pursue working less and traveling.
Put is terms of a subsidy it makes no sense to me but it obviously makes sense to someone else we wouldn't keep doing it.
He could tip the kitchen $1000 every night for the rest of eternity.Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboy
Guys, i hate to say it but Summit's argument is correct here RE: who populates ADU's at least concerning expensive mountain towns with minimal developable land left to build on.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
Aspen has been doing this for longer than anybody, and they actually tried to entice property owners to build ADU's to house the local workforce all the way back in 1990.
In what is arguably the dumbest council decision ever made (yes im even thinking about the stupid hydroelectric turbine debacle) The council never required the owners to house local workers in the new ADU (although that was the clear goal of the legislation), and it did not work out as planned, at all.
https://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspe...gation-option/
https://records.aspen.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=5650
Counterpoint: Maybe wrestling control away from the local councils NIMBYNESS and "no growth" mindset might be a good thing while we steamroll our way to the next deep recession.
OR, forcing new ADU's to be built with local worker housing required. But as summit said, billionaires don't like living next to the unwashed ski bums. Apparently rich people were cooler in the 70's. not now.
Housing has always been a problem in this valley. The whole fucked up situation just got 10x worse when THE GREAT COVID MIGRATION happened.
I don't think anyone doubts given the choice, a home owner would STR their ADU over LTR. But, as has been stated over and over, if that's the problem, why not just restrict STRs across the board? Put a cap on the numbers. You can do this, so long as you treat ADUs the same as SFH. The reason the law is set so that local government can't place special rules on ADUs is becuase without that provision, the local government could effectively ban ADUs with onerous restrictions. It's an essential component of the law.
Everyone is the West is facing the same issues here. Some places are accepting it, acknowledging that a shit ton of people are going to be moving to our hood, and building to try to accommodate that growth. Other places want to keep their head in the sand. I'm flabbergasted there are places in the West resistant to ADUs. That is such an accepted thing where I live, and not just in the cities.
That's how you get around appreciation caps...Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
Not necessarily, as mentioned in a post upthread.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
I know a lot of people who choose to rent LT. In many cases it's philosophical, and they want workers to have a place to live.
LT is pretty easy compared to ST- take a couple of photos, put it on Facebook, choose the best tenant.
ST- jump through all the permitting hoops and expenses, buy nice furniture, pay for great photos, write a good description, figure out the perfect pricing, find a reliable cleaner (impossible to find, or do it yourself), etc. Or hire a manager and they get a huge chunk of the $. And unlike LT, the income will be all over the place: you won't make a dime in April, May, or November or other times of the year. Not to mention many locals here live several miles from town and the ski area, making the ST rental much less desirable. The vast majority of ADUs in town (with mostly wealthy 2nd homeowners) have to be LT rented, can't be vacant or rented to your nephew for $1/yr, and it's monitored.
That doesn't fly here. They're super tight and look at every last receipt. A buddy finished the upstairs in his deed restricted home and they gave him like $10K for adding 2 bedrooms, a bathroom, and ~500sf. A big fat $0 for his sweat equity even though he's a builder.Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
The rules for ADUs here in Tacoma (which I assume more or less mirror other states) says if the ADU is in your house (like a basement) it must have a separate electric panel and meter, separate heating, and separate water heater. That way, you can bill utilities separately. And the basement has to be up to code (appropriate water mitigation (sump pump), insulation, minimum heights, egress windows). On old houses, it is a colossal pain in the ass that makes the ADU hardly worth it. Better to build from scratch in the backyard. Tacoma only allows one ADU per parcel where as Seattle allows two if one is inside your house.
At the moment, the appreciation on your house may not even keep up with the ADU building costs. There are not many comparables, so they tend to be undervalued. That may change with time as more comparables SFH with ADUs get built. I wouldn't say building an ADU is a slam dunk investment.
The CA house ADU's I've been in did not have separate utilities. It's been said to me that the premise of allowing ADU's was essential to help extended families survive with a roof over their head vs an investment opportunity. In our capitalistic society often initial intentions spin into unintentional consequences.
Sometimes it is valuable to back up and discuss goals. If you can't agree where you are going, you are probably gonna fight about how to get there.
https://frvhp.com/
I periodically go to the meetings. I email a couple easy questions ahead of time and ask that they address in either new business, have to ask in public comment or provide a written response. Here are the two questions that I have pending.Quote:
The Winter Park Housing Authority is committed to providing safe, attainable housing for its citizens and its local workforce. When our local workforce is given the opportunity to live and recreate in our Town, we all experience significant social, cultural and economic benefits.
"Do you advocate for the qualification process distinquishing between professions. For example, adminstrative staff of a luxury developer and and elementry school teacher"?
"Do you support basing affordability on anything other paycheck income such as savings and other assets owned"
So far those have gone unanswered and not placed on the agenda. So its not so much that I'm opposed to the concept, I'm opposed to the manifestation and process.
The PR campaign sells the electors and general public a false bill of goods and then forwards their agenda at and cost. A obstinate layer relatively high paid civil servants are installed as a shield.
So here we are. This is 'merica. Our "leaders", irrespective of political leanings, location and so on, seem incapable of engaging in discourse with the citizens. And we let it happen by throwing down the smoke screen by bickering.
I wonder if those ADUs were unpermitted? the vast majority of ADUs here are unpermitted and illegal but it is not policed. But the problem is if your ADU hating neighbor rats you out to the city they may send you a cease and desist letter on your rental business, regardless of whether the ADU is STR or LTR.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackstraw
My friend lives in a 100 year old house with a finished basement that came with the house. He's trying to turn the finished basement into a permitted ADU and running into all sorts of issues. The city says the separate utilities law is so low income people can apply for utilities subsidies. He's also got to drill a hole in his dry wall and shove a camera in there to prove that his finished basement has proper space between framing and slab, sufficient insulation, and vapor barrier. His ceilings are over 7 ft everywhere in the basement except one beam that comes down to 6'2". He has to get a structural engineer to approve cutting the 100 year old beam and resuporting it.
I am telling him since he lives in the house, fuck all that and just rent it out as a separate ADU illegally. It has an egress window, which is the one law I wouldn't fuck with. I doubt he will ever get caught and the worst that will happen is they will tell him to stop renting it (no fines, jail, or tearing things out). But it would be nice to have everything permitted and legal for when it is time to sell.
My greater point here is to show how much of a pain of an ass it actually is to build a legal ADU, either inside, or outside, on your property. ADUs are becoming more popular in places like Seattle and San Jose, with high land values and an abundance of not dense, SFH neighborhoods. But it's not like everyone runs out and does this even when they can.
Our city is really pushing back against CA new rules and will not allow an ADU in my yard for my 80 something year old mom to live in. Kind of sucks.
You should sue your city. That's how this will all play out. The states will pass laws forcing the cities to allow more density and things like ADUs. The uppity cities (the Vails, the La Jollas) will try to come up with creative ways to not comply with the state laws. Landowners will sue and then the city will be forced to comply. Find a bunch of others similarly affected to go in with you to spread out the legal costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
Snob, do you ever ask yourself, "what if I'm wrong?" You stack your opinion on top a bunch of dubious assumptions.
Do you really think the smart money is to and try and sue The City of Coronado (I think)? If that 'cause is so just and noble, maybe you'll do it for L2S pro boner?
One of the worse lawyer flex's out there is that you forget that everyone else has to pay big money to play in the legal system. Attorney's like to say "Sue everyone" because that's your world. Maybe we could make a list and you can get to work with some, "Strongly Worded Letters".
Pretty much that ^^^^. I am not paying to fight City Hall.
I meant to ask my planning buddy how he expected this city vs state thing to play out. I wouldn’t volunteer to be the one subsidizing a lawyer, but it does seem likely to be what will need to happen to force the city into compliance
Zoning is this generation's slavery. You have half the country stuck in their ways, and the other half realizing we have to change the entire way we live on this planet. Climate change, crappy winters, forest fires, car-centric culture, lack of public transit. All because of single family zoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
Poor communities are not fighting density. It is the wealthy places like Vail and Coronado that are fighting it. If liv2ski won't sue, someone else will. It's a war out there, just like the civil war. Liv2ski says he won't do it becuase he would be taking on city hall. Well, he would have the support of the state of CA and the majority of it's citizens behind him.
This anti-zoning movement is interesting becuase it was born in CA, OR, and WA, places where zoning has driven up housing costs. For years, old, NIMBY, liberals in these states promoted zoning to keep the status quo (at the expense of the poor and marginalized). But the next generation of liberals are saying fuck that. There are now enough of these next generation liberals that things are changing and single family zoning is getting abolished. The anti-zoning movement is not strictly a liberal cause either because it also has the support of anti-regulation states and developers.
This movement will spread. It's shown itself in CO and that law may not pass this year. But CA had been trying for years to get rid of zoning on the state level and finally was able to break through. Now the flood gates are open.
Mountain towns are interesting becuase unlike metro areas, you can make the argument that the natural environment simply cannot support the growth. But you can't make that argument in major metro areas like San Diego.
This was in the NYTimes this morning:
The 100-Year-Old Reason U.S. Housing Is So Expensive, which discussed a new book from a Yale law prof, “America’s Frozen Neighborhoods: The Abuse of Zoning.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/14/o...by-zoning.html
Umm , water dude. SD has none. That’s a pretty obvious limitation on growth. ADUs may have their place but so does zoning rules as they are now
Water? The amount of water needed for municipal uses is minuscule. Eliminate agriculture, golf courses, and lawns and San Diego has enough water to support 10x its population. There is not a metro area in America who can legitimately claim they can't support more growth. Saying things like "water" is just another coy attempt to keep the status quo. Keeping new comers out of your neighborhood. Keeping things expensive, and driving up the property values for existing home owners at the expense of non-home owners.
You gotta be high if you want to pin zoning reg shit on liberals. Go to any rich conservative community and try to color outside the lines and see how far it gets you. NIMBYS aren't unique to any political lean, it's more generational as the old guards don't want things to change.
Devil’s advocate question, will you promise to eliminate it after she is gone? Or never have a non-immediate family member live there?Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
(Purely hypothetical, not questioning your intentions here, but this is the slippery slope)
Who cares if liv2ski has an ADU and is LTR or STRing (following all the rules)? He lives in a metro of 3.2 million. Embrace the density. He will soon be living in the Paris of the Pacific, walking to cafes, restaurants, grocery stores. Biking to the doctor's office. With occasional jaunts up to the mountains for holiday
Lots of discussion also about prohibiting ADUs from STR but not the primary residence That’s a huge loophole as most homeowners would simply move into the ADU while they rented out the primary and stay within the rule legally but still annoy the fuck out of neighbors
Attachment 455857
Is this your brush bro?
Around here density is certainly increasing at that doesn't seem to get much push back. You know why, because that is the way it's zoned. What does get push back is that the developers (or chose a different word if you want), don't want to pay for the roads, water and sewer taps, gas service and so on. But you label your public/private partnership as "affordable" or "attainable" and suddenly those costs get shifted come out of "the pot of gold".
So it's not about an idea. Its about public policy that is so poorly thought out that the benefits to society evaporate and the externalities exist in perpetuity. So we get a situation where, of the proposed alternatives, the status quo looks like the best option.
If I follow your logic correctly, it is like, "look, I don't like density because our inept local government is powerless to make the new development pay their fair share of infrastructure costs." Well, that's a problem with your inept local government.
I don't particularly like high rises in downtown Frisco, but I just don't see any other reasonable solution. We have to accept that humans want to live in these places. I blame TGR mainly for this.
Maybe Aspen and alpinevibes are right, and that is a sustainable path. The uber rich free market, and the worker bees living in public housing, in perfect equilibrium. Just enough tourists to keep things humming along.
I guess you are just that obtuse...carry on.
I hear a lot of people saying, look, density IS increasing around here. It's all relative. Come to Seattle, Tacoma, or Bellevue. It's crane city here.
You are doing that "thing" again. Its about the execution not the concept. But keep fuckin' that chicken. You are good at it.
Sorry Alta, looks like things don't always work out smarty-pants city folks and outsiders trying impose their wisdom on a different community:
https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/14/color...wn-exemptions/
Quote:
But the amendment changes that, exempting the ski towns from the bill’s biggest effects, including mandatory upzoning.
“We understand that housing in our mountain communities looks different than it does in the metro area. And so because of that, we wanted to make sure that there were special allowances that acknowledged that reality for rural resort communities,” said Senate Majority Leader Dominick Moreno, one of the bill’s sponsors, in an interview.