Rosenberg Takes Lead on Apartment Fight (See FBNow article)-
Rosenberg City Council Toughens The Rules For Apartment Development
by Bob Dunn, Tuesday May 16, 2006
Rosenberg City Council acted to tighten restrictions on apartment development in the city, approving an ordinance Tuesday night that limits multi-family housing by height, density and total number of units per complex.
The city began moving toward more multi-family development restrictions on March 22, a day after residents assailed the council over plans by San Antonio developer Gregory Thorse for a 168-unit low-income apartment project called Providence Estates.
“With the current surge of development, the Planning and Zoning Commission requested that these amendments be revisited,” Rosenberg Planning & Engineering Directory Kimberly Olsen said in a report to the council.
As a result of the new ordinance, Rosenberg apartment buildings can be no more than three stories high, with no more than 7,000 square feet per floor. Multi-family developments won’t be allowed to include more than 250 units, and the maximum allowable density will be 21 units per acre. . . (click on title link for entire story)
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Wednesday, May 17, 2006
20 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
From FBN comments:
1 jls - Mar 22, 10:43 am
Thank you Schwartz! At least some city councils in this area are getting the message. Not like the Mo-City decision (5-2 for apts) for Sienna Developers and their mayor last year, against popular opposition and a petition of over 1100+ homeowners which spun-off a developer SLAPP suit! At least that council/mayor represents its citizens.
Here's one:
An attorney telephoned the governor just after midnight, insisting that he talk to him regarding a matter of utmost urgency. An aide eventually agreed to wake up the governor.
"So, what is it?" grumbled the governor.
"Judge Garber has just died" said the attorney, "and I want to take his place."
Replied the governor "Well, its OK with me if its OK with the undertaker."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ck this out http://www.nolakemontapts.org/News.htm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
More from FBN:
1 Bill Benton - Apr 2, 11:56 pm
I live in the area. We already have a low income apartment complex down the street from this site that is a nuisance, which is out of place and doesn’t fit into the neighborhood. Gunshots and other crime are a common occurrance. That is not to say this will be the case with this development, however, this development is not likely to complement the area. Also, there are many other areas around Rosenberg where property could be acquired cheaper and where this development might be an improvement, if done properly, and would be welcomed. This location is not one of them. Another point is that Rosenberg has a Housing Authority, which already helps place low income families, and Fort Bend Habitat for Humanity (a board which I used to be a member of) is constructing a mini Habitat Village where qualified residents could actually buy their own home, instead of renting at these apartments. This is just another reason why the city should quickly implement ordinances regulating the number of stories and number of units per acre of apartment developments. Lastly, let it be known that we in Rosenberg are not down on or against low income families. We just believe that this development would be out of place and would not blend with the adjacent properties and developments. You would have to drive by there and see the site to fully appreciate our reason for opposing the devopment.
2 consumerwise - Apr 3, 10:31 am
Good point Bill and much of the data supports ownership of the type of homes you advocate above decreases the negatives of apt. development. Interesting enough though high end or low end apartments have the same negative impact on taxing districts if you check the per head, per acre production of tax funds (its much less for apts).
Encouraging projects like the FBHH above is a better way to add value to the community. Maybe that developer should listen to the local citizens/market rather than picking up his data from some detached source.
More comments (FBN):
1 consumerwise - May 17, 07:43 am
I wonder if the county should look at such limits and set up some strict parameters to over-development of projects like this that will hurt the tax base here? Perhaps limiting over-all apt. development (and other high density housing) to less than 15-20% of all housing options.
Kick it around Andy and some of you who monitor this site and live here. Get the EDC and John Wiley to back up statements they made earlier this year (and support you all on such an initiative).
Encourage the ownership movement and offer the plethora of rental homes here as a viable options. These alternatives do not hurt the tax base and are affordable.
2 Mark - May 17, 07:43 pm
Let’s just go ahead and illegalize poor people county-wide. It’s so much less paperwork.
We could bulldoze all of North Richmond in about 3 days. (Although someone is gonna have to give work crews a map, because I don’t think they’ve ever been there before…)
3 consumerwise - May 18, 05:32 am
You miss the point Mark. Forcing people to live in future run down apts that they don’t own isn’t the solution. The answer is affordable housing which gives ownership and produces a tax base that helps the schools. Housing data for decades has reinforced this (lower crime, density, etc.).
Craming affordable apts. into communities for a developer seeking the grants and profits only is the wrong direction. Recent federal housing rules on apts. made this the focus and greed is what is leading it.
Makes me wonder about your real goal. Monthly notes on a affordable home can be less that those apts. and lead to investment and ownership.
Here's an interesting blast from the past (8/05):
"Tempers flare......I predict that the next round of school board, city, and water district races will have few candidates. I’m even willing to put a little money on it. The reason I’m so sure is that everybody in Fort Bend is mad at somebody in elected positions.
" Bev Carter predictions about the '06 races (I guess she owes someone some money -- where can I collect?)
________
"THEN, residents of Sienna Plantation are mad at the developers of Sienna Plantation and the council of Missouri City because of apartments. Mostly they are mad at Sienna uber-developer Larry Johnson and Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen.
Allen Owen doesn’t care because years ago Missouri City signed a development contract with Sienna Plantation promising not to annex Sienna for many years if Sienna would build its houses to Missouri City’s specifications. This also means residents of Sienna Plantation can’t vote for or against Allen Owen.
Larry Johnson doesn’t care because he’s already sold the land to other developers and builders who can mislead homebuyers about future building with impunity because they are on down the road before the homebuyers realize they’ve been had as far as apartments, levees, airports, and commercial development goes.
Other residents of Missouri City are happy because they don’t want those pesky Sienna Plantation rich folks telling them how to run a city because they (Sienna) could if they ever get the vote. The other Missouri City residents are also happy because they don’t have to provide fire and police protection for Sienna, although they did build a fire station out there. What’s up with that?" -Bev Carter (FBStar owner)
5 Mark - May 18, 08:04 pm
I’m going to have to assume that most of you live on the East side of the county, and are unfamilliar with the ugly history of race and real estate in Richmond / Rosenberg.
Someday, take a walk up the top floor of the George Library, and ask a few of the local historians about famous Richmond families like the Wessendorfs, barons of the West side’s poor housing for decades. Take a trip down Calhoun Street and see 150 years of the “ownership movement” (ie – predatory lending) in action. Cross the 90A rail line and look at the housing opportunities available for the residents of (painful sigh) Mud Alley. All of this well within the shadow of the McFarlane house, ground zero of the infamous Jaybird – Woodpecker war. Most people know that the West side is rich in history, but few really know what that history is about.
I welcome change. I for one would love to see Bob Perry sweep into Rosenberg and build tons of affordable quality homes. Maybe I should give him a call sometime…Or maybe I should invent a machine that turns sarcasm into gold.
If anyone takes the time to do a quick tour of available low-income housing in the area, they might recognize that there is indeed a crisis…Right in the middle of the biggest housing bubble in our nation’s history.
I understand that those of the East Side rarely encounter these realities. The poorest place most Sugar Land commuters ever see is the intersection of Highway 59 and Murphy Road. You don’t live day in, day out with the obscene railroad track demarcation of poverty. You don’t have thousands upon thousands of dollars of crack cocaine sold every night within a stone’s throw from your city hall like we do in Richmond.
But it is there… The kind of spirit crushing poverty that should be unthinkable in such an affluent county as Fort Bend. Ignored for a hundred and fifty years, today the ghettoes of Richmond and Rosenberg are teeming with perverse tragedy: hideous outcomes to promising lives, impossibly proud families facing impossibly long odds.
Real estate is part of the prison. Donate or volunteer to these guys if you can:
http://www.fortbendhfh.org/
They do a good job putting band-aids on gaping wounds, which is the best we can hope for until the times really are a-changing.
6 consumerwise - May 19, 05:05 am
Mark,
I understand what you are saying. More than likely the mega-crowd, rather than sweep in and build houses for those in need, would buy the land up cheap and drive them out. Not a pretty picture, but I do not feel pushing them from one project into a future apt. project (i.e. public apt. housing to private apt. housing) is an adequate solution either. A similar effort is going on here along hwy 6. Downtown Houston is going through a “makeover” that is driving out many older single family homes through this displacement movement. These new high rise apts., condos, etc. aren’t giving these homes to those they displaced (just the opposite).
Housing, taxing and land use reform is needed. When apt. owners are taxed equitably and depreciation isn’t so attractive to investors then i’ll support this volatile market development. Until then I will continue to support viable housing options that are privately held and produce a tax base that supports services, schools, etc.
Thanks for sharing the site http://www.fortbendhfh.org/ (we give). They do provide a wonderful private housing alternative!
More:
27 Mark - May 18, 08:19 pm
To WHO IT’S may concern,
Straight. Punk.
Sincerely,
An Infinite Number of Monkeys Attempting to Write Hamlet, All of Which Scored 880 on Their SAT, Which They Took in the 6th Grade
28 Mary McClure - May 18, 09:13 pm
Oops! Meant Cyberchase not Cyberspace. ...& you can buy those old movies for $1 at Target which donates to schools.
29 Mary McClure - May 18, 11:59 pm
voterwise, (I assume Chris, based on you stating in another post your hill country living, etc.), my research is also based on info from a tax attorney and my humble real estate law past as a certified paralegal. Again, apt. bldg. owners pay more on the avg. in property taxes (comparing 30 homes to 30 rental units). I can dig up other sources for you, maybe I will.
Is there anything wrong with being happy with my daughter’s school? If you happen to be the Chris I know who said if anything he would run in school politics, is there a motive? Re: crime, how do apts. cause crime?—people do. If you are Chris, I read you lived in apts. for many years, did you commit any crimes?
30 Mary McClure - May 19, 12:21 am
voterwise (I assume Chris), a Harvard study agrees with what I said. Is Harvard good enough?
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/finance/w05-2.pdf
31 consumerwise - May 19, 05:30 am
Mary,
Try these, none of which support what you are claiming:
LAND VALUES IN A NEWLY ZONED CITY
Daniel P. McMillen and John F. McDonald*
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=Negative+Land+Use%2C+Apartments&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=hsusgo1&x=wrt&u=are.berkeley.edu/%7Eswoboda/urbanpapers/mcmillen02.pdf&w=negative+land+apartments&d=XFzi8kaqMkDt&icp=1&.intl=us
District of Columbia Tax Revision Commission TaxingSimplyTaxingSimply Taxing FairlyTaxing Fairly Full Report District of Columbia Tax Revision Commission 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 550 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 518-7275 Fax: (202) 466-7967 www.dctrc.org
You have seen many others yourself (one meta-analysis too). Also, I was told that you are the resident who helped fight the apartments in Mo-City for 6 months and then turned on your neighbors, filed an affadavit about the anonymous logins (you yourself were using extensively), which started the SLAPP-suit against local homeowners in Sienna. This suit is on-going apparently and has cost one family approx. $40k to date. Did you know the mega-developer you defend, in these posts of yours, is attempting to get names of those who participated, your neighbors, and injunct others for speaking out? Not a pretty tale you are in the middle of! Aren’t you their star witness? Should you as a paralegal be talking about the case in a public forum? Does John Keville, their attorney know?
More of this is available on the archives at: http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com/ and on this site.
Keep posting Mary. It’s nice to see you out. Your 30/30 comparison on the apts. doesn’t hold up when the formula is broken down (i.e. percent of families in this form of landuse to other forms like privately owned options.).
Much more than the “typical 10%” will be in this high density housing (in FB county, as you already know, it is more like 60%+ thus a fairly high loss to taxing districts over time, not to mention that those renting build no equity in the dwelling. Only good information for investors, not tenants).
You might even check comments made earlier this year by John Wiley of the EDC (a group your developer friends are a member of) stating their concern over the alarming pace of apt. development in FB county (in the FB Sun, you know the reliable paper).
Good luck!
More:
6 consumerwise - May 19, 09:03 am
This is the memo the SP developers ran for months on their resident financed developer/HOA controlled website (SiennaNet.com) when this controversy hit this community. Notice the last sentence stating the 10% figure that couldn’t be confirmed by the Sugar Land apts. (or anywhere in FB county) they used as exemplars (this is real data).
-notice much of the data they use is from the ULI (Urban Land Institute) and MHA (Multi-family Housing Association) which are private industry supported associations.
___________________
From: Doug Goff
General Manager, Sienna/Johnson Development, L. P.
Subject: Sienna Planned Development District #8 (PD 8)
Date:February 17, 2005
“….single family homeowners support the tax base, pay property taxes and fund our schools while apartments are a drain on the system”. Again, this is a myth that cannot be supported by facts. The following is a comparison of value created and taxes paid in a typical single family neighborhood vs. a multifamily project. On a 15 acre tract in Sienna, we will typically average 3 lots per acre and our average home sales price will be $210,000 each. This translates into a gross assessed value created by these single family homes of $9,450,000 (15 acres x 3 homes/acre x $210,000/home). On this same 15 acre tract, 300 multifamily units can be built (15 acres x 20 units/acre) and they will typically be valued at $50,000 – $60,000 per unit which equates to a total assessed value of $15,000,000 – $18,000,000. In this comparison, multifamily housing will actually pay 60% – 90% more in taxes than a comparable single family neighborhood. Finally, those same 45 single family homes will have from 3.2 – 3.5 people per household which means that there could be up to 54 – 68 children that have to be serviced by Fort Bend ISD. In the comparable multifamily project, typically only 10% of the units will have a child that will be enrolled in the school system, which, at 30 children, is ~45% LESS of a burden on FBISD. . .
From SiennaNet.com
_____________________
If the formula they use is adjusted for the actual rate of families with children being serviced to the 60%+ reported, using the exemplars and other sources, we see the following:
At a 95% occupancy rate (normal in FB county) in a 300 unit apt. with 60% family/children, at the conservative 3.2 figure mentioned above, will mean approx. 758 residents (cumulative) are living in that 15 acre tract. Divide the number of occupants by the property taxes produced, by the owner (since the residents do not directly pay property taxes), and you see a gross amount of about $19.8k per head for apartments versus the same formula applied to single family houses (144 occupants using the same figures above) yielding $65.6k per head in those households. Since school districts base their primary financial support on property tax the shift in burden is to the single family homeowner (carrying the greatest burden). Plot this out over years and you can see the loss in tax revenue is in the millions of dollars as compared to other low density, privately held use for schools and other taxing authorities that utilize property tax as their primary support. The additional burden to schools is the actual increase in class sizes without the accompanying property tax dollars provided with the single-family or other options mentioned.
Viable affordable alternatives to rental apartments that do not create this taxing disparity include; privately owned (or leased) garden homes, single family homes, privately owned (and leased) condos, townhomes.
Again, this does not address the increase in city services due to increased density, crime, traffic, fire, health, etc for this form of land use (see the Universal Crime Report from the Justice dept./FBI which is based on density increases and crime or the conventional wisdom of decades of criminology research for density arguments). Remember too that in this proposal the developers are approved to build up to 2700 apartment units, so adjust the tax loss figure exponentially (just plot it out).
As always double check these figures through original sources like the Houston Apartment Association, school districts, municipal governments (and the developers who provided it, if you like). Let’s see if they stand behind these statements they made!
I never had any gag order put on me. Re: anonymous logins--I was coerced into using them by a prof and admitted to them and am DEEPLY ashamed--albeit mine were mostly fact based with some sarcasm--it was still very very wrong to create the impression of being more than one person. From what I know, the one man (& only one man) being sued/pursued had many opportunites to avoid the lawsuit, yet brought it upon himself.
You can fling anything I am truly guilty of and I will admit to it and apologize. I am far from perfect and quite the devil sometimes--yet I am truly remorseful. I would be cautious however, because a prof I know has a history going back nine years or so (of hurting many) that there is tangible evidence of.
If you want to embarrass me, go ahead, but keep in mind I could do it much worse and with tangible evidence.
Well, I guess the Harvard study is not good enough.
-you may want to check with JK before continuing to post and remember you are getting only one side of any story they present. As for the many hurt, I for one would be interested in hearing more (could be good gossip foder), after all we have plenty of time before your testimony, so bring it on! I think your smears will be more than answered in front of a jury, who see through yours and the dev. manipulations. You left the families fighting the apts. when you weren't told about the presentation at council and then proceeded to argue with them online (many will testify to this). This was about revenge and nothing else. So bring it on!
As you've been told before there will be no retreat, ever! You may want to reread the post above, because the propaganda you are spinning has no basis in fact. Ok, since you asked here it is again (and tell Mr. Goff we will see him on the 31st at his deposition--just the first of many--I believe he has rescheduled it now 3 times--I wonder why?).
PS--No gag order is in place and no one can make you post anything, but you! Try again!
Just in case it was missed earlier:
More:
6 consumerwise - May 19, 09:03 am
This is the memo the SP developers ran for months on their resident financed developer/HOA controlled website (SiennaNet.com) when this controversy hit this community. Notice the last sentence stating the 10% figure that couldn’t be confirmed by the Sugar Land apts. (or anywhere in FB county) they used as exemplars (this is real data).
-notice much of the data they use is from the ULI (Urban Land Institute) and MHA (Multi-family Housing Association) which are private industry supported associations.
___________________
From: Doug Goff
General Manager, Sienna/Johnson Development, L. P.
Subject: Sienna Planned Development District #8 (PD 8)
Date:February 17, 2005
“….single family homeowners support the tax base, pay property taxes and fund our schools while apartments are a drain on the system”. Again, this is a myth that cannot be supported by facts. The following is a comparison of value created and taxes paid in a typical single family neighborhood vs. a multifamily project. On a 15 acre tract in Sienna, we will typically average 3 lots per acre and our average home sales price will be $210,000 each. This translates into a gross assessed value created by these single family homes of $9,450,000 (15 acres x 3 homes/acre x $210,000/home). On this same 15 acre tract, 300 multifamily units can be built (15 acres x 20 units/acre) and they will typically be valued at $50,000 – $60,000 per unit which equates to a total assessed value of $15,000,000 – $18,000,000. In this comparison, multifamily housing will actually pay 60% – 90% more in taxes than a comparable single family neighborhood. Finally, those same 45 single family homes will have from 3.2 – 3.5 people per household which means that there could be up to 54 – 68 children that have to be serviced by Fort Bend ISD. In the comparable multifamily project, typically only 10% of the units will have a child that will be enrolled in the school system, which, at 30 children, is ~45% LESS of a burden on FBISD. . .
From SiennaNet.com
_____________________
If the formula they use is adjusted for the actual rate of families with children being serviced to the 60%+ reported, using the exemplars and other sources, we see the following:
At a 95% occupancy rate (normal in FB county) in a 300 unit apt. with 60% family/children, at the conservative 3.2 figure mentioned above, will mean approx. 758 residents (cumulative) are living in that 15 acre tract. Divide the number of occupants by the property taxes produced, by the owner (since the residents do not directly pay property taxes), and you see a gross amount of about $19.8k per head for apartments versus the same formula applied to single family houses (144 occupants using the same figures above) yielding $65.6k per head in those households. Since school districts base their primary financial support on property tax the shift in burden is to the single family homeowner (carrying the greatest burden). Plot this out over years and you can see the loss in tax revenue is in the millions of dollars as compared to other low density, privately held use for schools and other taxing authorities that utilize property tax as their primary support. The additional burden to schools is the actual increase in class sizes without the accompanying property tax dollars provided with the single-family or other options mentioned.
Viable affordable alternatives to rental apartments that do not create this taxing disparity include; privately owned (or leased) garden homes, single family homes, privately owned (and leased) condos, townhomes.
Again, this does not address the increase in city services due to increased density, crime, traffic, fire, health, etc for this form of land use (see the Universal Crime Report from the Justice dept./FBI which is based on density increases and crime or the conventional wisdom of decades of criminology research for density arguments). Remember too that in this proposal the developers are approved to build up to 2700 apartment units, so adjust the tax loss figure exponentially (just plot it out).
As always double check these figures through original sources like the Houston Apartment Association, school districts, municipal governments (and the developers who provided it, if you like). Let’s see if they stand behind these statements they made!
"Are you like the Jim Jones cult that takes revenge on people that want to leave them? (one wise man made that analogy)."
This should be fun to explain in front of a jury. Thanks for reposting it since we have a cc e-mail much like this from one of the developers making such comparisons. Smears like this and the harassment is common in SLAPP suits (read chapter 3 if you get a chance). We will prevail and since the families didn't instigate the lawsuit the developer (and their associates) brought the Fraud, Trade Deception, Harassment counter suit on themselves.
Anyone that is hit with a SLAPP suit should counter sue since 25 states (not TX) have outlawed this practice (mostly used by developers -- again read chp. 3 and then comment).
As I said before bring it on because your misinformation makes good documentation for trial!
And in case you missed it:
6 consumerwise - May 19, 09:03 am
This is the memo the SP developers ran for months on their resident financed developer/HOA controlled website (SiennaNet.com) when this controversy hit this community. Notice the last sentence stating the 10% figure that couldn’t be confirmed by the Sugar Land apts. (or anywhere in FB county) they used as exemplars (this is real data).
-notice much of the data they use is from the ULI (Urban Land Institute) and MHA (Multi-family Housing Association) which are private industry supported associations.
___________________
From: Doug Goff
General Manager, Sienna/Johnson Development, L. P.
Subject: Sienna Planned Development District #8 (PD 8)
Date:February 17, 2005
“….single family homeowners support the tax base, pay property taxes and fund our schools while apartments are a drain on the system”. Again, this is a myth that cannot be supported by facts. The following is a comparison of value created and taxes paid in a typical single family neighborhood vs. a multifamily project. On a 15 acre tract in Sienna, we will typically average 3 lots per acre and our average home sales price will be $210,000 each. This translates into a gross assessed value created by these single family homes of $9,450,000 (15 acres x 3 homes/acre x $210,000/home). On this same 15 acre tract, 300 multifamily units can be built (15 acres x 20 units/acre) and they will typically be valued at $50,000 – $60,000 per unit which equates to a total assessed value of $15,000,000 – $18,000,000. In this comparison, multifamily housing will actually pay 60% – 90% more in taxes than a comparable single family neighborhood. Finally, those same 45 single family homes will have from 3.2 – 3.5 people per household which means that there could be up to 54 – 68 children that have to be serviced by Fort Bend ISD. In the comparable multifamily project, typically only 10% of the units will have a child that will be enrolled in the school system, which, at 30 children, is ~45% LESS of a burden on FBISD. . .
From SiennaNet.com
_____________________
If the formula they use is adjusted for the actual rate of families with children being serviced to the 60%+ reported, using the exemplars and other sources, we see the following:
At a 95% occupancy rate (normal in FB county) in a 300 unit apt. with 60% family/children, at the conservative 3.2 figure mentioned above, will mean approx. 758 residents (cumulative) are living in that 15 acre tract. Divide the number of occupants by the property taxes produced, by the owner (since the residents do not directly pay property taxes), and you see a gross amount of about $19.8k per head for apartments versus the same formula applied to single family houses (144 occupants using the same figures above) yielding $65.6k per head in those households. Since school districts base their primary financial support on property tax the shift in burden is to the single family homeowner (carrying the greatest burden). Plot this out over years and you can see the loss in tax revenue is in the millions of dollars as compared to other low density, privately held use for schools and other taxing authorities that utilize property tax as their primary support. The additional burden to schools is the actual increase in class sizes without the accompanying property tax dollars provided with the single-family or other options mentioned.
Viable affordable alternatives to rental apartments that do not create this taxing disparity include; privately owned (or leased) garden homes, single family homes, privately owned (and leased) condos, townhomes.
Again, this does not address the increase in city services due to increased density, crime, traffic, fire, health, etc for this form of land use (see the Universal Crime Report from the Justice dept./FBI which is based on density increases and crime or the conventional wisdom of decades of criminology research for density arguments). Remember too that in this proposal the developers are approved to build up to 2700 apartment units, so adjust the tax loss figure exponentially (just plot it out).
As always double check these figures through original sources like the Houston Apartment Association, school districts, municipal governments (and the developers who provided it, if you like). Let’s see if they stand behind these statements they made!
____________
Whose kool-aid?
Very creative story telling Mary, but it is pretty far from reality. It will be interesting to see who is believed in all this when the jury sees the documentation, posts and maps prior to June 2005 (as well as the time table of events and videos). Good luck to you and yours. We do owe you much since you helped build the contact list that helps keep the community updated on issues that do not get shared outside of the backrooms of council and elsewhere. Remember the fight to stop the airport expansion, it didn't come from SiennaNet.com or the resident funded/developer controlled newsletter, nor the information on the current status of the hospital (or Bev's ad rag).
Your metaphor as well as your baiting are a waste of time. You continue to try, like the developer's attorney, to spin this as no one was involved, but the recent mayoral election along with the petition and the steaming video files don't support your claims. Again read chapter 3 of the SLAPP text and then remember that alienation, marginalizing are part of the template/tactics in these cases by developers (most often use this).
We have networked with many and will continue to do so over other issues that are kept from residents in this community and will remain active. This mayoral race was just the first of many (pist...tell your friends). I have nothing to hide so this case will go all the way!!!
PS- Posting anonymously is well established online and not illegal as you well know. Keep trying!
6 consumerwise - May 19, 09:03 am
This is the memo the SP developers ran for months on their resident financed developer/HOA controlled website (SiennaNet.com) when this controversy hit this community. Notice the last sentence stating the 10% figure that couldn’t be confirmed by the Sugar Land apts. (or anywhere in FB county) they used as exemplars (this is real data).
-notice much of the data they use is from the ULI (Urban Land Institute) and MHA (Multi-family Housing Association) which are private industry supported associations.
___________________
From: Doug Goff
General Manager, Sienna/Johnson Development, L. P.
Subject: Sienna Planned Development District #8 (PD 8)
Date:February 17, 2005
“….single family homeowners support the tax base, pay property taxes and fund our schools while apartments are a drain on the system”. Again, this is a myth that cannot be supported by facts. The following is a comparison of value created and taxes paid in a typical single family neighborhood vs. a multifamily project. On a 15 acre tract in Sienna, we will typically average 3 lots per acre and our average home sales price will be $210,000 each. This translates into a gross assessed value created by these single family homes of $9,450,000 (15 acres x 3 homes/acre x $210,000/home). On this same 15 acre tract, 300 multifamily units can be built (15 acres x 20 units/acre) and they will typically be valued at $50,000 – $60,000 per unit which equates to a total assessed value of $15,000,000 – $18,000,000. In this comparison, multifamily housing will actually pay 60% – 90% more in taxes than a comparable single family neighborhood. Finally, those same 45 single family homes will have from 3.2 – 3.5 people per household which means that there could be up to 54 – 68 children that have to be serviced by Fort Bend ISD. In the comparable multifamily project, typically only 10% of the units will have a child that will be enrolled in the school system, which, at 30 children, is ~45% LESS of a burden on FBISD. . .
From SiennaNet.com
_____________________
If the formula they use is adjusted for the actual rate of families with children being serviced to the 60%+ reported, using the exemplars and other sources, we see the following:
At a 95% occupancy rate (normal in FB county) in a 300 unit apt. with 60% family/children, at the conservative 3.2 figure mentioned above, will mean approx. 758 residents (cumulative) are living in that 15 acre tract. Divide the number of occupants by the property taxes produced, by the owner (since the residents do not directly pay property taxes), and you see a gross amount of about $19.8k per head for apartments versus the same formula applied to single family houses (144 occupants using the same figures above) yielding $65.6k per head in those households. Since school districts base their primary financial support on property tax the shift in burden is to the single family homeowner (carrying the greatest burden). Plot this out over years and you can see the loss in tax revenue is in the millions of dollars as compared to other low density, privately held use for schools and other taxing authorities that utilize property tax as their primary support. The additional burden to schools is the actual increase in class sizes without the accompanying property tax dollars provided with the single-family or other options mentioned.
Viable affordable alternatives to rental apartments that do not create this taxing disparity include; privately owned (or leased) garden homes, single family homes, privately owned (and leased) condos, townhomes.
Again, this does not address the increase in city services due to increased density, crime, traffic, fire, health, etc for this form of land use (see the Universal Crime Report from the Justice dept./FBI which is based on density increases and crime or the conventional wisdom of decades of criminology research for density arguments). Remember too that in this proposal the developers are approved to build up to 2700 apartment units, so adjust the tax loss figure exponentially (just plot it out).
As always double check these figures through original sources like the Houston Apartment Association, school districts, municipal governments (and the developers who provided it, if you like). Let’s see if they stand behind these statements they made!
More FBN comments:
Rosenberg City Council Toughens Rules For Apartment Development
by Bob Dunn, Tuesday May 16, 2006
Rosenberg City Council acted to tighten restrictions on apartment development in the city, approving an ordinance Tuesday night that limits multi-family housing by height, density and total number of units per complex.
The city began moving toward more multi-family development restrictions on March 22, a day after residents assailed the council over plans by San Antonio developer Gregory Thorse for a 168-unit low-income apartment project called Providence Estates.
“With the current surge of development, the Planning and Zoning Commission requested that these amendments be revisited,” Rosenberg Planning & Engineering Directory Kimberly Olsen said in a report to the council.
As a result of the new ordinance, Rosenberg apartment buildings can be no more than three stories high, with no more than 7,000 square feet per floor. Multi-family developments won’t be allowed to include more than 250 units, and the maximum allowable density will be 21 units per acre.
That maximum density only would apply to three-story buildings. Rosenberg resident Bill Benton spoke out against allowing apartment complexes with buildings three stories high, saying, “I don’t think we want our community to be known as the apartment capital.” However, the council left the ordinance’s height limits intact.
Provisions in the ordinance also require green space, minimum set-back and yard sizes and minimum off-street parking requirements, which had not been part of existing city code. Also, multi-family development now will be required to have fire sprinkler systems.
Also, each building in an apartment complex must be at least 30 feet from any other buildings in the complex.
Councilor Tom Suter said the apartment complex ordinance has been “beat back and forth” between council and committees, and now requires action.
“We need to do something…to control in some degree the growth,” Suter said. “I think we need to move forward and get something on the books.”
The rest of the council (minus Mayor Joe Gurecky, who was absent), agreed, and the ordinance passed unanimously.
1 consumerwise - May 17, 07:43 am
I wonder if the county should look at such limits and set up some strict parameters to over-development of projects like this that will hurt the tax base here? Perhaps limiting over-all apt. development (and other high density housing) to less than 15-20% of all housing options.
Kick it around Andy and some of you who monitor this site and live here. Get the EDC and John Wiley to back up statements they made earlier this year (and support you all on such an initiative).
Encourage the ownership movement and offer the plethora of rental homes here as a viable options. These alternatives do not hurt the tax base and are affordable.
2 Mark - May 17, 07:43 pm
Let’s just go ahead and illegalize poor people county-wide. It’s so much less paperwork.
We could bulldoze all of North Richmond in about 3 days. (Although someone is gonna have to give work crews a map, because I don’t think they’ve ever been there before…)
3 consumerwise - May 18, 05:32 am
You miss the point Mark. Forcing people to live in future run down apts that they don’t own isn’t the solution. The answer is affordable housing which gives ownership and produces a tax base that helps the schools. Housing data for decades has reinforced this (lower crime, density, etc.).
Craming affordable apts. into communities for a developer seeking the grants and profits only is the wrong direction. Recent federal housing rules on apts. made this the focus and greed is what is leading it.
Makes me wonder about your real goal. Monthly notes on a affordable home can be less that those apts. and lead to investment and ownership.
4 Mary McClure - May 18, 10:29 am
According to my research, apt. bldg. owners pay higher property tax than homeowners. Since homes can be bought w/zero down, what’s the diff between inexpensive homes & apts.? Also, re: land use, apts. (2-story or higher) take up less land than homes. I was involved in a petition drive against apts. in Sienna which I regret very deeply based on ethics and feel I am probably “undesirable” myself since my home note is app. the same price as luxury apts. to be built in Sienna.
5 Mark - May 18, 08:04 pm
I’m going to have to assume that most of you live on the East side of the county, and are unfamilliar with the ugly history of race and real estate in Richmond / Rosenberg.
Someday, take a walk up the top floor of the George Library, and ask a few of the local historians about famous Richmond families like the Wessendorfs, barons of the West side’s poor housing for decades. Take a trip down Calhoun Street and see 150 years of the “ownership movement” (ie – predatory lending) in action. Cross the 90A rail line and look at the housing opportunities available for the residents of (painful sigh) Mud Alley. All of this well within the shadow of the McFarlane house, ground zero of the infamous Jaybird – Woodpecker war. Most people know that the West side is rich in history, but few really know what that history is about.
I welcome change. I for one would love to see Bob Perry sweep into Rosenberg and build tons of affordable quality homes. Maybe I should give him a call sometime…Or maybe I should invent a machine that turns sarcasm into gold.
If anyone takes the time to do a quick tour of available low-income housing in the area, they might recognize that there is indeed a crisis…Right in the middle of the biggest housing bubble in our nation’s history.
I understand that those of the East Side rarely encounter these realities. The poorest place most Sugar Land commuters ever see is the intersection of Highway 59 and Murphy Road. You don’t live day in, day out with the obscene railroad track demarcation of poverty. You don’t have thousands upon thousands of dollars of crack cocaine sold every night within a stone’s throw from your city hall like we do in Richmond.
But it is there… The kind of spirit crushing poverty that should be unthinkable in such an affluent county as Fort Bend. Ignored for a hundred and fifty years, today the ghettoes of Richmond and Rosenberg are teeming with perverse tragedy: hideous outcomes to promising lives, impossibly proud families facing impossibly long odds.
Real estate is part of the prison. Donate or volunteer to these guys if you can:
http://www.fortbendhfh.org/
They do a good job putting band-aids on gaping wounds, which is the best we can hope for until the times really are a-changing.
6 consumerwise - May 19, 05:06 am
Mark,
I understand what you are saying. More than likely the mega-crowd, rather than sweep in and build houses for those in need, would buy the land up cheap and drive them out. Not a pretty picture, but I do not feel pushing them from one project into a future apt. project (i.e. public apt. housing to private apt. housing) is an adequate solution either. A similar effort is going on here along hwy 6. Downtown Houston is going through a “makeover” that is driving out many older single family homes through this displacement movement. These new high rise apts., condos, etc. aren’t giving these homes to those they displaced (just the opposite).
Housing, taxing and land use reform is needed. When apt. owners are taxed equitably and depreciation isn’t so attractive to investors then i’ll support this volatile market development. Until then I will continue to support viable housing options that are privately held and produce a tax base that supports services, schools, etc.
Thanks for sharing the site http://www.fortbendhfh.org/ (we give). They do provide a wonderful private housing alternative!
7 John Armstrong - May 20, 09:55 pm
“According to my research, apt. bldg. owners pay higher property tax than homeowners. Since homes can be bought w/zero down, what’s the diff between inexpensive homes & apts.? Also, re: land use, apts. (2-story or higher) take up less land than homes. I was involved in a petition drive against apts. in Sienna which I regret very deeply based on ethics and feel I am probably “undesirable” myself since my home note is app. the same price as luxury apts. to be built in Sienna.”
Mary,
The individual apartment complex owners may pay more taxes but, those taxes do not ‘flow’ back into the community as the individual home owner’s taxes do. Apartment complexes ‘over load’ the community services that the ‘home owners’ pay the majority for… sure, some of the apartment taxes that get paid do help pay some of these community services but, not to the level or same percentage the taxes we pay as home owners.
8 Mary McClure - May 20, 11:18 pm
What hard data can you give me?
9 Mary McClure - May 21, 12:29 am
From http://www.djc.com/news/co/11149499.html:
“Stereotype: Apartments increase local infrastructure costs.
Reality: Apartment use municipal infrastructure more efficiently.
The clustering of apartment homes makes them substantially less expensive to service. First, they generally concentrate growth in areas already well served by public facilities so they require fewer new infrastructure expenditures. Second, it costs less, on a per-household basis, to provide public services to apartments. They require fewer miles of roads, sewers and water lines. By contrast, new single-family developments require public services, utilities, and police and fire protection to be spread over a larger geographic area.”
10 consumerwise - May 21, 06:30 am
John,
Here is the formula used by a Houston based firm that misapplied the 10% figure on families as residents. When you reconfigure using the 60%+ normal family rate for this area (and these apts. as quoted by this company) we get a much more accurate picture of the real impact. This, of course, like you stated is minus the other negative taxing impacts on services and quality of life issues that high density brings:
This is the memo from the above mentioned developers. Notice the last sentence stating the 10% figure that couldn’t be confirmed by the Sugar Land apts. (or anywhere in FB county for this market range) they used as exemplars (this is real data).
-notice much of the data used when arguing this land use is from the ULI (Urban Land Institute) and MHA (Multi-family Housing Association) which are private industry supported associations.
___________________
From: (name & corporate affiliation removed)
Subject: Planned Development District #8 (PD 8) Missouri City, TX
Date:February 17, 2005
“….single family homeowners support the tax base, pay property taxes and fund our schools while apartments are a drain on the system”. Again, this is a myth that cannot be supported by facts. The following is a comparison of value created and taxes paid in a typical single family neighborhood vs. a multifamily project. On a 15 acre tract in Sienna, we will typically average 3 lots per acre and our average home sales price will be $210,000 each. This translates into a gross assessed value created by these single family homes of $9,450,000 (15 acres x 3 homes/acre x $210,000/home). On this same 15 acre tract, 300 multifamily units can be built (15 acres x 20 units/acre) and they will typically be valued at $50,000 – $60,000 per unit which equates to a total assessed value of $15,000,000 – $18,000,000. In this comparison, multifamily housing will actually pay 60% – 90% more in taxes than a comparable single family neighborhood. Finally, those same 45 single family homes will have from 3.2 – 3.5 people per household which means that there could be up to 54 – 68 children that have to be serviced by Fort Bend ISD. In the comparable multifamily project, typically only 10% of the units will have a child that will be enrolled in the school system, which, at 30 children, is ~45% LESS of a burden on FBISD. . .
Source MCC & SN website
_____________________
If the formula they use is adjusted for the actual rate of families with children being serviced to the 60%+ reported, using the exemplars and other sources, we see the following:
At a 95% occupancy rate (normal in FB county) in a 300 unit apt. with 60% family/children, at the conservative 3.2 figure mentioned above, will mean approx. 758 residents (cumulative) are living in that 15 acre tract. Divide the number of occupants by the property taxes produced, by the owner (since the residents do not directly pay property taxes), and you see a gross amount of about $19.8k per head for apartments versus the same formula applied to single family houses (144 occupants using the same figures above) yielding $65.6k per head in those households. Since school districts base their primary financial support on property tax the shift in burden is to the single family homeowner (carrying the greatest burden). Plot this out over years and you can see the loss in tax revenue is in the millions of dollars as compared to other low density, privately held use for schools and other taxing authorities that utilize property tax as their primary support. The additional burden to schools is the actual increase in class sizes without the accompanying property tax dollars provided with the single-family or other options mentioned.
Viable affordable alternatives to rental apartments that do not create this taxing disparity include; privately owned (or leased) garden homes, single family homes, privately owned (and leased) condos, townhomes.
Again, this does not address the increase in city services due to increased density, crime, traffic, fire, health, etc for this form of land use (see the Universal Crime Report from the Justice dept./FBI which is based on density increases and crime or the conventional wisdom of decades of criminology research for density arguments). Remember too that in this proposal the developers are approved to build up to 2700 apartment units, so adjust the tax loss figure exponentially (just plot it out). Finally, the wild fluxations in this market and the rate of depreciation uncharacteristic of other forms of housing add to the concerns.
As always double check these figures through original sources like the Houston Apartment Association, school districts, exemplar apts. used, municipal governments (and the developers who provided it, if you like).
______________________
Hopefully this is enough real data for the argument since it is based on an actual case study here in Missouri City.
A few months ago plans for a drive through car wash was nixed for the Sienna Pkwy area near Silver Ridge (thank goodness). See this post from FBN in a thread on one in Richmond:
3 Richmond Resident - May 27, 11:47 am
I prefer not to give my name. I live near the car wash on Jackson. For two years there have been repeated crimes committed there. I know of an unsolved shooting and also a stabbing. People hang there from about nine in the morning drinking and blasting their car subwoofers. They buy beer at the adjacent food mart. After a day of drinking and who knows what else – I have witnessed them urinating on the street.
I have seen teenage girls walk there after school and just hang with middle aged men. I have seen toddlers walking about unsupervised while cars dart in and out. On any weekday or weekend – up to 20 cars just hang out there – people without cars bring lawn chairs and hang there and drink as well. The Richmond police have told me that there is no law against drinking there. The noise alone is driving us to distraction. This goes on all hours of the day and night. As homeowners we fear for our safety as well.
I prefer not to give my name because of repercussions. A good many of those that frequent this car wash carry weapons. The news stories about crimes committed there make that evident. Certainly there is a possibility of drug trafficking at this car wash. I can only imagine what visitors think while driving through Richmond and seeing the litter and public urination on Hwy.90.
ninest123 16.01
tiffany jewelry, nike outlet, burberry, tiffany and co, longchamp outlet, replica watches, ugg boots, prada outlet, tory burch outlet, nike free, louboutin, michael kors outlet, oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, longchamp outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, louboutin shoes, christian louboutin outlet, ugg boots, ugg boots, louis vuitton, polo ralph lauren outlet, longchamp, louis vuitton, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton, burberry outlet online, louis vuitton outlet, ugg boots, oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, louboutin outlet, uggs on sale, michael kors outlet, chanel handbags, cheap oakley sunglasses, jordan shoes, ray ban sunglasses, michael kors, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet, prada handbags, gucci outlet, louis vuitton outlet, replica watches, nike air max, michael kors outlet, michael kors outlet, nike air max
Post a Comment
<< Home