Flags fly above Albany City Hall one day last June.
Two Albany proposals to promote subsidized housing will get another look before they are enacted. And if they get improved as a result, part of the credit goes to Councilwoman Matilda Novak even though she’s no longer on the council.
Novak left office at the end of December after serving one four-year term and not seeking re-election. In her last meeting, on Dec. 11, she was the only member to oppose reading two ordinances for the second time at the same meeting.
The rest of the council was on the verge of approving both measures on that date. But Novak’s opposition meant the measures would have to come up again at the next regular meeting, Jan. 8.
At the council’s work session Monday, City Manager Peter Troedsson proposed to cancel the second reading on Wednesday so that the staff could take another look at the measures in view of input at a public hearing on Dec. 11 and since.
The council agreed to the delay. Both housing proposals will come back in the form of new measures, but no date was set.
One of the measures would impose a city tax on the value of new construction worth more than $50,000. Revenue from the tax would be used to subsidize housing projects where people below a certain income level could afford the rent.
The other proposal would grant an exemption from the city’s portion of the property tax for housing projects that guaranteed their owners would charge rents that people of low to moderate income can afford.
Speakers at the Dec. 11 public hearing all opposed the ordinances for one reason or another.
When I noticed over the weekend that the second readings of both measures were absent from Wednesday’s council agenda and asked Troedsson about it, he told me: “We’d like some time to look into the comments received during that last meeting. We’re not recommending scrapping the whole idea.”
Sometimes it seems that public hearings before decision-making government bodies are an empty gesture. But with these Albany proposals on housing, the speakers apparently were able to make themselves heard. (hh)
These ordinances will not help anyone in need. The term “low to moderate income” will end up being moderate income housing. We have new and older housing already that could be available for low income with tax incentives and subsidizing rents. There are newer housing projects built or being built that pay taxes that could be used for these options. All the jumping through hoops is a waste of time and resources. Nothing needs to be built to address the housing crisis except making what we already have affordable housing like it has been in the past.
Basic Economics-if you want more of something, TAX it. Works every time!
Before anymore housing, Albany needs to improve itself to be able to handle the expansion. Traffic,crime and schools are out of control because we moved to fast.
Be prepared.
This is a good way to chase builders away from Albany and put more housing in Millersburg etc. In the 1980’s we weren’t having many houses built because of high interest and recession. We had to lay off building inspectors and contract with Linn County to do inspections and it could happen again if we make building to expensive to build in Albany. With the price of lumber and fees they already have to pay it is no wonder we don’t see more affordable housing built.
Yeah, Ms. Rouse but the underlying attraction here, is the taxes for building the more expensive housing will be used to fund (subsidized) cheap built (affordable) housing, getting a tax exemption and the city’s surplus land too. Then after the slums are deemed a hazard they will be razed to be recycled for another batch of funding or more expensive housing. That is, if the funding will even be used for affordable housing and not the moderate income level. They may reword the proposals to sound more appealing to the general public but the result will be the same. You have to follow the money and read the fine print.
Alternative approaches:
Mixed-income development:
Integrating affordable housing units within market-rate developments can help to disperse low-income residents across neighborhoods and mitigate the negative impacts of concentrated poverty.
Housing vouchers:
Providing vouchers that allow individuals to choose housing in the private market can offer more choice and flexibility compared to traditional public housing.
Rehabilitation of existing housing stock:
Investing in repairs and upgrades to existing affordable housing can be a more cost-effective strategy than building new public housing projects.