GreenfieldNOW.com
search all things local
     
Blog Home |  Email Author  |        Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

Shorelines


Proposed Shorewood Housing Loan Program Has Serious Flaws

By David Tatarowicz
Sunday, Nov 18 2007, 03:21 PM

According to stories in the Current Issue of  ShorewoodNow (http://www.shorewoodnow.com/) , the Shorewood Village Board is contemplating a new loan program targeting residential housing. 

As reported by Dave Fidlin -- staff writer :

" outlined in a draft document, the village would disburse as much as $360,000 in loans to nearly 40 home owners if the program is enacted. Applicants must own and live in the homes to qualify for improvement loans.

Loans would be offered in one of four categories: down payment assistance for a single family or duplex, a loan for converting a duplex to a home, attic improvements and exterior maintenance.

Trustee Margaret Hickey said at a board meeting this month that a good target population for the loans would be elderly residents on fixed incomes who sometimes find it difficult to obtain bank loans.

"It's going to be a pilot program," Trustee Dawn Anderson said. "We're going to have to have some faith that the eligibility requirements will work."  "

The Loan Program as described above, in my opinion, is seriously flawed, and will result in the loss of a lot of affordable housing in Shorewood, and will adversely affect the enrollment in the Shorewood Schools.

There is no question that Shorewood needs to work on improving its housing.  When I ran for the Village Board in the last election, I made this issue a prominent point in my campaign.  I especially decried that the Village Board was focusing on the "business environment" in Shorewood --- including a Business Loan Program that would provide up to $50,000 in unsecured loans to businesses....

Unfortunately, at the time, my opponents Phinney and Eckman, and other Village Board members such as Anderson and Hickey did not agree, preferring to concentrate on ineffective business programs, and large grandiose expenditures, such as the multi million dollar Streetscaping.

An obviously logical question  would be, if I was proposing housing improvement programs just a few months ago,  why am I criticizing the program that is now being floated out for consideration ?

The program that I proposed would "enhance" the existing housing stock, making it more efficient, up to date, and  appealing for both buyers and renters. 

But I did not propose that we change the character or nature of the housing that currently exists.  Encouraging the transformation of existing duplexes to single family homes, will drastically reduce the population of Shorewood, and make Shorewood more un-affordable for young families - especially the kind that have school age children.

The program I proposed concentrated upon the infrastructure of the existing housing, which is rapidly becoming obsolescent - with outdated electrical, plumbing and heating. 

The program being touted now by the Village Board, concentrates on cosmetics and attics --- not the features, in my experience as a Realtor, that are of the greatest concern of school age families.

Encouraging the transformation of duplexes (which Shorewood has more of per capita than any other community in Wisconsin) into single family homes, will price most families with school age children out of the market !

Over the next week or so, I will be making postings that examine the affordability of housing in Shorewood , and the differences in costs and demographics in relation to renters and buyers of single family homes and duplexes.

 

Comments

William Knox   

Interesting topic.  I am in a neighborhood where a duplex went condo.  The assessment on the new condos was a stiff increase over the original assessment on the duplex.  To me, it seems the village is trying to raise village government revenues long term by stoking the value of Shorewood's business/residential housing stock.  If a duplex has more market/assessment value as a condo, wouldn't this be best for the present owner and the village?  (Of course, the board would be taking a risk that the TIFs and loans don't make an appreciable return on the village's investment.  A decline in values for the TIF or the loans might result in the populace reaching for the pitchforks.)

November 18, 2007 4:19 PM

David Tatarowicz   

William

I am glad you brought up the topic of condos.  Many folks think that condos are apartments that someone owns rather than rents --- where as it is a difference of how the property is deeded --- but does not change its use.  For instance, a builing that has two residences (duples) can be owned under one deed as a duplex, or can be split into two deeds as condos.  But the inherent nature that it is TWO residences does not change.  Whereas, when a duplex is changed to a single family residence, the nature is changed from two residential units to one residential unit.

The jury is still out on whether it is a good idea to condominiumize duplexes and whether they will sustain the value --- these are "small condo associations" with only two members --- vs a large condo association with hundreds of memebers.  

In getting a mortgage, most folks don't know that "small associations" of two units are not "warrantable" and are not underwritten by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac --- and therefore, it is much harder to find a lender who will give a mortgage on them

Dave

November 18, 2007 4:40 PM

Shorewood homeowner   

What I like about the Village proposal and what should always be the priority in any village residential program is to encourage OWNER-OCCUPIED residences as much as possible. Our block is a mix of single-family homes and duplexes and the only properties that exhibit problems (noise, lack of regular maintenance & upkeep) are the duplexes that solely feature renters. The single-family homes and owner-occupied duplexes are consistently better neighbors. If your proposal is open to those who own but do not live at their property I would not agree with it; owner-occupied properties is the way to go.

November 19, 2007 10:06 AM

William Knox   

Thank you for your input about the doubtful long term value of "going condo" on a small scale.  I hadn't considered it before.  Despite your caution about the economics, I will brazenly propose my guess (or suspicion) that this this is mostly revenue related.  Whether a duplex becomes a condo or whether a duplex becomes a single residence, I believe the originators of this plan believe that the village will see a bounce in assessed values.  The assessment per square ft of the single residences in my neighborhood far exceed the duplexes (although, the duplexes are larger with more square feet).   I assume (perhaps wrongly) that this is because the assessment of duplexes are the result of the economic realities of the rental market (being so close to lower rent Milwaukee).  Forgive me for extrapolating; but, I bet "Shorewood Homeowner" is on track - the highest value for the wider community, the market, and the tax rolls lies in owner occupied housing.

Having admitted this, my family moved to Shorewood partly because we wanted the dense population of residents that represented a greater cross section of wealth than other communities.  Those young families that can't afford homes in other communities - I want them here renting duplexes in Shorewood.

I hesitate to support the village's plan because it will be so difficult on both the political and economic ends to make the right investments.  Heaven knows everyone deserve a zero interest loan.  Will I really be happy when my neighbor receives one and I don't?  Also, converting a duplex into a single residence or a condo has got to be a challenge more suited to real estate investors than the village government.  To do it right with consultants and audits will cost a lot.  And, of course, the plan as it relates to conversions impacts negatively one of the unique aspects that drew me to the village in the first place.

November 19, 2007 1:46 PM

Nancy Peske   

Regarding duplexes, what about no interest loans to make them energy efficient? This would significantly lower heating and cooling costs for the renters, making the units more attractive and a better value for a young family trying to save money for a downpayment on a home.

Regarding attics, isn't the idea that the upstairs could be used not simply for storage but as an office, recreation room, hobby room, or bedroom sans closet? Isn't that a draw for potential homeowners? Or are our property taxes so high that such features are meaningless to them?

What about loans for constructing driveways and garages for the homes that don't have them? This seems like a very important feature for a homebuyer.

What I don't understand is the money for exterior maintenance; is this for making a house prettier but not necessarily worth more, or is it intended for elderly homeowners who can't afford to fix or replace broken steps, railings, etc.? I would think it's the latter.

November 20, 2007 7:52 AM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

Posts

Tags

Search the Blogs