New state law makes it harder or easier to build Sec8 in Frisco?

[pearceg]

Changes coming to how the state doles out money for low-income housing

The rule changes, approved late in 2011, were intended to address two major concerns: that the state housing agency has unfairly funneled housing for the poor into low-income, minority areas, and that the agency’s board was using its power over subsidies too freely and without sufficient transparency.

“We’re going to see projects in exurban areas where they have good schools and where it doesn’t have a high minority population. We will see fewer projects built in cities.”

In the wake of a federal lawsuit challenging the concentration of affordable housing in low-income areas, the state shifted its scoring to reward projects in higher-income or downtown areas. Under the new scoring, developers miss out on four possible points by building in lower-income areas.

Simultaneously, Gov. Rick Perry stripped the authority of the state board to grant subsidies outside the scoring system.

More on this in a bit....

In 2008, a local nonprofit called the Inclusive Communities Project sued the housing agency on grounds that it promoted segregation by pushing low-income developments into minority areas.

There's that name again. Continuing....

The seismic changes for subsidies — the new scoring and the halt to board awards — have widespread implications for where new affordable housing will be built, several developers said.

For one thing, the path for projects in lower-income areas will be much tougher. The agency will reward projects in “high-opportunity areas,” defined as census tracts with higher median incomes and that have good schools or access to transportation.

But don’t expect them to seek out places like Preston Hollow, Frisco or Plano, several developers agreed. First, land costs are too high. Second, projects are still heavily penalized under the points system if neighborhood groups oppose them.

“In Frisco and Plano, you are not going to get neighborhood support,” Greenan said. “No one ever has.”

The board’s power to grant subsidies was one way developers got projects funded in areas where opposition is high. In 2010, the board approved subsidies for a project in Frisco, over major opposition.

Kerrville developer Justin MacDonald believes that finding locations that can win enough points to earn subsidies “will get a lot more difficult.”

So what do y'all think? The board can't use their slush fund to reward favorably connected developers any more. OTOH, they get more points for building in high-income areas but purportedly lose points when there is significant neighborhood opposition. One of the things I didn't excerpt from the much longer article is that competition among developers for these points is extremely fierce and anything that costs any points at all can make the difference between getting a handout of state cash or getting nothing.

Do the new guidelines make it harder or easier for Betsy Julian to finally get her Section 8 slum for Dallas gang bangers built in Frisco?

[Kenda]

I find it interesting that Preston Hollow and Frisco were both specifically mentioned, especially since Mr. Charles Kent Conine, the real estate developer and TDHCA Chairman previously removed from the TDHCA for fraud conviction then reappointed by Perry has lived both places and is the one who pushed Frisco for Sec 8 in the first place.

I still smell a rat on this deal.

[penguin]

Looks to me (based on that article) as though there are three clues to keeping the mess of Section 8 concentration camps out:

1. Keep Frisco residents aware that such concentrations have ALWAYS created a disaster everywhere in the country they've been tried.

2. Keep land values high to discourage such developments.

3. Keep DART-style ripoff public transportation out.

All three of those bullet points should help Frisco remain "undesirable" per the state's scoring system, and spare the city council some sleepless nights worrying about ICP lawsuits.

Did I miss anything?



.

[Kenda]

Originally Posted by penguin

Looks to me (based on that article) as though there are three clues to keeping the mess of Section 8 concentration camps out:

1. Keep Frisco residents aware that such concentrations have ALWAYS created a disaster everywhere in the country they've been tried.

2. Keep land values high to discourage such developments.

3. Keep DART-style ripoff public transportation out.

All three of those bullet points should help Frisco remain "undesirable" per the state's scoring system, and spare the city council some sleepless nights worrying about ICP lawsuits.

Did I miss anything?

Just one that seemingly Frisco has already gotten right (so far)...keep the codes stringent to make it difficult for a cheap investment to build here.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by penguin

Looks to me (based on that article) as though there are three clues to keeping the mess of Section 8 concentration camps out:

1. Keep Frisco residents aware that such concentrations have ALWAYS created a disaster everywhere in the country they've been tried.

2. Keep land values high to discourage such developments.

3. Keep DART-style ripoff public transportation out.

All three of those bullet points should help Frisco remain "undesirable" per the state's scoring system, and spare the city council some sleepless nights worrying about ICP lawsuits.

Did I miss anything?



.

But don’t expect them to seek out places like Preston Hollow, Frisco or Plano, several developers agreed. First, land costs are too high. Second, projects are still heavily penalized under the points system if neighborhood groups oppose them.

Make sure that we speak loudly about opposing them being built here.

[PugLover]

It appears to me that the State of Texas should abandon any effort to put money anywhere.

Get rid of the incentives.

[NewTexan]

I still haven't been able to find out what the expiration of the ICP agreement between ICP and the city of Frisco means. The city's website on the proposed Section 8 development hasn't been updated recently.