Live blogging the Carrboro interviews

Also, in John Marold's defense (not that he needs it from me but anyway...) I in no way thought he, or anyone, was dodging the second part of Alex's question, or any question. I like Alex's question a lot but it was hard to digest it all and offer a comprehensive response in 2 minutes as the first part of the question about taking an unpopular but principled stand ate up most of our time. It was interesting how the last panel did focus more on the ideologue part of the question. Perhaps the first respondent on each panel helped set the tone and content of how the other respondents would address the question, which helped make each panel unique.

Lastly, Will, I'm unclear in what way you perceived me as terse. My intent was to be concise and who knows if I succeeded on that account. This has been an engaging process.

Alena,
We are neighbors, but I don't think we have ever met. Jim tells me that I see you all the time walking your dog... and sure enough, he pointed you out today and I do see you often when I am driving off in the morning (though I never do wave... hmmm... is there any real hope that a community meeting center can help a person like me?) I thought you did very well last night. Please don't be offended by my commentary below. It's just my preliminary opinion... and I am open to community input and changing my mind!

Here's my prelim:

James Carnahan: He's the best qualified. Everyone knows where he is coming from. I don't think there would be much difference in what aldermen say about James in open versus closed session. James is a clear thinker with keen intelligence. He has integrity; he listens well; he understands the town and the issues.

Dan Coleman: Dan's the next best qualified; I would enjoy having Dan in the seat. I wish I had a better sense of how Dan accommodates for opposing worldviews.

Lydia Lavelle: What I like about her is that a) she's above the fray, b) she seems pleasant, hardworking, and responsive, c) she lives in the NTA, but would clearly represent all of Carrboro, d) I don't think anyone would have strong objections to her--- though people would complain that she hasn't been involved in Carrboro government— I think Lydia could work hard to overcome complaints by detractors…

Catherine Devine: Catherine has really grown with this process. She's clearly qualified. I like her straightforward approach to problem solving and her no-nonsense attitude.

Katrina: It's really too bad that Katrina just doesn't seem to ‘get' that her humor and sarcasm are lost on many folks. Katrina probably has the most potential of all 12 candidates… if she could just loose the attitude…

Marshall, Beck and Calamanis are all reasonable choices too: Marshall's weak finish in the election probably hurts him; Beck has a strong application, but suggestions that he has social connections with current board members may hurt; Callamanis did well at the forum. Living in the NTA is her strength (as is Lavelle's) -- Callamanis' application seemed weaker than Lavelle's.

Marold—His answers last night danced around the questions. I don't have a strong feel for who he is.

I kind of liked Kirschner and Vickers—something very middle-America and appealing about these two. I just couldn't read between the lines.

Clossick—Unfortunately, he was teamed up with three who knew their stuff last night, and that hurt him.

Like Mark C., I could live with any appointment… and like Jacquie you all make me want to cry…. (Melanie—let's take a ‘skilz' class together… I need to learn how to do those cute exclamation boxes so people will know not to take me too seriously…)

Now you're catching on, Will. Even if the Mayor and Board members listen to folks with an opinion (no matter how well-formed), under this process, those opinions will not get aggregated to make a final decision. To get that result, you have an election; oops, the State of North Carolina won't allow that!

Yes, process matters!

Oops Alena-- I spelled your name wrong-- bet you're used to it...

David, it was Terri that suggested you were terse - or direct.

From what I recall you were concise and didn't elaborate or, better, meander.

I'm always trying to pound 10lbs. of sugar into a 5lb. sack, rhetorically speaking ;-), but I thought all the folks should've expounded to their full 2 minutes. Some did - and stayed on target - like Dan and James - some didn't.

Actually Will I said David's responses were "direct and minimalistic." In other words he didn't ramble, he answered the question and didn't worry about filling an arbitrary time limit. "Terse," which has a negative connotation, was your word.

Given this 'goofy' system, I hope the alderman take this opportunity to appoint someone who brings a different point of view to their group, someone who will not just take cultural, social and economic diversity into consideration when making decisions, but someone who actually represents cultural, social and/or economic diversity in comparison to the rest of the board.

I know what you mean Terri.
Since it's a two year appointment, it makes sense to appoint someone who doesn't have a steep learning curve.

I meant just the opposite Mary, not because of the learning curve, but because this is an opportunity to address the issue candidates discussed in the fall and that the BOA asked the applicants to address last night--how do we get broader involvement in local government. Several of the applicants just don't fit the 'usual suspects' profile. In other words, here is a shining opportunity for the alderpeople to put their expressed desire for more diversity into action.

Terri, I understand your sentiment. I was countering your argument with my second sentence. No perfect candidate jumps out at me... what about you?

I didn't get to see it--never thought listen check online. (WCOM doesn't reach out here.) Just as well--the clothing commentary would have driven me nuts.

Still--from what I've read here--and know about folks on theboard--Dan Coleman. 'Cause he's idealogically in tune with the board.

melanie

Ruby and Joan:

Property taxes may not be a significant portion of a home price, but I would offer that they might be a significant portion of the income of someone who bought their house long ago, is retired, and is now living on a fixed income.

As for affordable housing, the policies I've seen proposed (inclusionary zoning, naming conservation districts, limiting building height, the rural buffer) all work to increase the cost of housing.

Chris,

Current affordable housing programs have two elements. First, they increase supply (small house ordinance). Second, by putting those small houses into the Land Trust those affordable homes are protected in perpetuity (inventory). The problem with that equation is what you identified--the homes that are affordable only because they were purchased many years ago. Those owners are being doubly hurt. First by the increased cost of living in town, including tax rates. I don't really see that as much of a problem by itself. However, the assessed value of those homes is a significant problem and is not so slowly, but very surely, removing them from the affordable designation. In other words, while current policy is working to increase inventory through the small house ordinance, other factors are working to reduce inventory (at a faster rate).

Here's an example. If I had purchased one of the old mill houses in downtown Carrboro back in 1989, I would have paid about $40,000. On a tax rate of 60 cents per $100, that's $2400 in taxes. But today that same house, due to the outrageous housing inflation in southern Orange County, is assessed at $200,000 (low estimate). On a tax rate of 60 cents per $100, that's $12,000 in taxes (tenfold increase). It's not the tax rate that's the problem for existing home owners, it's the assessed value, resulting from the housing boom.

Those small houses that are dedicated to the Land Trust do not face this assessment inflation. They are assessed at a constant rate, rather than against market comparables so they stay affordable while the homes that USED to be affordable are now unaffordable. It's a cyclical problem, affecting both Chapel Hill and Carrboro. It's a problem that is being exacerbated by infill/redevelopment of the downtown areas. It's a problem that no one seems to be willing to talk about.

When this problem is also viewed from the lens of stagnant wages for the working class, it goes a long way toward explaining how Carrboro morphed from a blue collar town in the 1980s to the 'groovy' factor of today. Working class folks are becoming an endangered species in Carrboro.

That's a long way of saying I agree with you--taxes are a problem, just not in the way most people think.

Terri - thnx very much for that post. I had a similar conversation with John Marold after the candidates forum last night, but you've made the point with more clarity than I did, which is that while tax increases do affect affordability to some degree the real killer is the huge increase in the actual value of the house, which puts buying out of reach for far too many and jumps taxes way more than the increases necessary to balance the budget.

Since we're on the topic, I'll throw out an idea that a friend suggested: should the town be considering buying up some relatively affordable properties on the market now and preserving them as affordable housing? It seems we mainly talk about affordable housing in terms of new construction, but there is a fair amount of already built property/condos for sale in town that would at a minimum be a safe investment (i.e. low risk), but more importantly could be preserved as affordable housing before it's bought by a landlord type (a la Pine Street...)

This is the sort of idea I'd like to flesh out if I were on the board. It may not work, but seems worth exploring. We've got to get creative about affordable housing.

Further off point, I'll also do may derndest to make sure there's live streaming - at least with audio - of board meetings. For the life of me I can't figure why only cable TV subscribers should have the priviledge of getting board meetings live. Seems it should be all or nothing and I vote for all.

I was all set to expound last night on affordable housing vs. assessed value. Catch-22.

We recently invested in an affordable condo circa 1968, well built and very close to downtown and within easy landlord distance (around the corner from our 1920 millhouse, purchased for a song in 1997 and now look what happened).

I served on the Orange County SWAB with Al Vickers. He was first a Chapel Hill rep, then a Carrboro rep when he moved.

He's a very smart guy who graps issues in both the broad view and the specifics.

I'd classify him as fiscally conservative, given his end of our collective wrangling over waste management fees and their apportionment.

Terri, when a valuation goes up five times, the tax bill goes up five times, not ten.

The correct calculations based on your example are $240 and $1,200 ($40,000 divided by $100 = $400 x $.60 =$240; $200,000 divided by $100 = $2,000 x $.60 = $1,200).

Real estate taxes are an important factor in the cost of living for existing low-income homeowners and a significant cost for prospective purchasers of homes. The impact is an incremental one on prospective purchasers, but it can be a very big hardship for people living on social security with few assets other than their homes. Although, we should also acknowledge that there is a very significant tax exemption for lower-income senior citizens (the NC Homestead Exemption).

Psychologically, I think many believe Terri's numbers...

Thanks for correcting my equation Mark. I looked at my own tax bill after writing last night and realized there was a problem but couldn't figure out where.

But the problem is still the same order of magnitude--for people on a limited budget, $1200 a year could be the difference between staying in a home they've owned their entire lives and having to sell--especially when they know they can get such a high sales price. With additional luxury housing going into the downtown areas, this problem will surely become more visible over the next few years, unless we can do something to stop it in the meantime.

The other aspect of this problem is wealth. For most of us, owning a home is our single largest capital investment. Buying a small house and then using the appreciation to buy up when we get married or start having children is the typical path to wealth creation. Don't get me wrong about what I am about to say but...the Land Trust and Empowerment, while they are providing affordable housing, are having the unintended consequence of eliminating wealth creation opportunities for the poor. Is this a problem? I waffle back and forth. I do think it adds to the income disparity problem. While those programs help low income people get high quality, dependable housing, they also lose the best opportunity available for creating wealth and moving into the middle class. I feel like it's an issue that deserves additional discussion. Let me reiterate that I am not criticizing the Land Trust or Empowerment, they are good valuable programs providing a valuable service. But we need to address the unintended consequences resulting from that service, perhaps through policy.

Terri, there's more to your story. As people "buy up" they also spend a higher percentage of their incomes on housing. Those who remain in affordable housing AND continue to improve their financial circumstances have the opportunity to put the extra income that doesn't go to housing to work as an investment in their future. The problem, of course, is that we as a nation typically don't save and consume what we earn on wants, not necessarily needs.

And Ruby, as that valuation goes up, so does the pressure on some of our elderly citizens to sell to speculators, often times without a good plan for subsequent housing.

Good points Fred. What you raise is my real issue--we don't have an affordable housing problem. We have a economic development problem. Affordable housing and jobs are so closely tied to one another that efforts to address them separately will inevitably lead to even more unintended consequences.

The pressure on the elderly is reaching crises proportions IMHO. They are selling out with nowhere to go locally. Leaving the community means losing their social and emotional support systems and then spending any financial profits they made on their home sales by having to purchase services that could have been available for free if they had stayed in town. To say nothing about the lose of quality of life, emotional security, etc.

Homeownership is by far and away the best way for lower and middle class families to develop wealth, stablity etc. It is why my employer, Self-Help spends so much time focusing on it. Maybe someone could chime in on the land trust model. My limited knowledge is that the increased equity is split b/w the family and the land trust when the property is sold.

Terri, I said that real estate taxes "can be a very big hardship for people living on social security with few assets other than their homes." So we are in agreement there.

As for the equity building issue, it is incorrect to lump EmPOWERment into the same category with the Land Trust on that issue. The two organizations have very different philosophical foundations relating to that issue.

In fact, the question of "permanence of affordability" versus "family wealth building" is a deep and seldom exposed divide within the affordable housing movement. There are no "right" answers. The two different philosophies are simply meant to address two different aspects of the housing affordability problem in America.

Thanks Mark for that clarification on the philosphical differences of the two organizations. As a matter of fact, EmPOWERment was started with the specific intention of wealth building through homeownership. Unfortunately, the demand for housing in our area exploded before the non-profits and the government agencies firgured out a "good" model for affordable housing.

David, I believe both Empowerment and the Land Trust offer financial management classes to their clients. Do you think that as our two towns become more density urbanized that we might see a shift in wealth building as Fred's post implies?

Mark--could you explain how Empowerment and the Land Trust differ with respect to permanence of affordability (Land Trust) and family wealth building (Empowerment)? I was under the impression that when Empowerment purchases property it goes into the Land Trust as part of the sale--but I will admit to having a very limited understanding of how Empowerment or Community Realty function. Sorry if you thought I was implying either or both were 'wrong.' I think we have a good foundation for addressing affordability between the two. I just think we need to add a couple of other layers of service/understanding to more adequately address the complexity of this issue.

Terri,
Empowerment homes don't automatically go into the Land Trust, although some do...others have restrictions incorporated into their deeds to give Empowerment the right of first refusal to repurchase the properties when the owners decide to sell.

Also, properties in the land trust aren't "affordable" because they are small. The small house ordinance and use of the Land Trust are not used together. Land Trust homes are affordable because part of the ownership interest is in the hands of the non-profit. In fact, purchasers of land trust homes actually own lease-holds. the Land Trust keeps the deed. This is different the fee simple ownership you probably have in your own home. Because the Land Trust holds the deed, they maintain an on-going ownership interest in the property. When an owner decides to sell, the organization sells it for them, and based on the terms of the original purchase, the seller takes from the sale the equity they contributed (mortgage payments) during their leasehold as well as a percent of the increase in real value of the property.

You were confusing different affordable housing tools in your description earlier in this thread.

I must underscore Mark C's point that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to providing affordable housing. Variables include the income of the purchaser, credit history, age of the purchaser -- are they a first-time young family?, single person?, mid-career?, retiree? -- is it a single family detached home, condo, or other multi-family unit, etc. There have been a number of Land Trust purchasers who have taken advantage of this method of ownership to save money, realize a moderate investment gain and then are able to transition into market-rate housing.

These things that you label as "unintended consequences" are things that the non-profits are aware of and they make buyers aware of...often the trade-off and the buyers circumstances make the trade-offs ideal. For others, we'll continue looking for other solutions.

Mark

"The small house ordinance and use of the Land Trust are not used together." I believe they are used together in Carrboro, Mark. New developments are required to build a certain percentage of small, affordable units which are deeded over to the Land Trust. I'm not sure what tools you think I am confused about; the confusion may stem from the different strategies the two towns are applying to the problem.

"These things that you label as “unintended consequences” are things that the non-profits are aware of and they make buyers aware of…often the trade-off and the buyers circumstances make the trade-offs ideal. For others, we'll continue looking for other solutions." I'm happy to hear you think the non-profits understand all this complexity; I don't think the average citizen does. In fact, during the fall political forums, we heard from the candidates that this is the most complex problem facing the town of Carrboro. My attempt here is to begin untangling the complexity and engaging the community in looking for those 'other solutions' you refer to. First, we must describe the many facets of the problem space.

What the BOA should do: Appoint someone less like themselves and more representative of Katrina's 30+%.

What the BOA probably will do: Appoint someone most like themselves, so that the appointee can take the advantage of incumbency into a tough election in 2007.

'When a valuation goes up five times, the tax bill goes up five times"

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

Mark, Terri, Ruby and Fred are all working on the erroneous assumption that rising taxes are a neccesary function of governmental reevaluation arising from rising property values. The problem here, is that at the point of reevaluation, local governments are required by State statute to readjust tax rates to a 'revenue neutral' position. To wit: In an inflationary environment such as ours, the ad valorem rate must be lowered to the point where a property owner whose assessement fell at the median would experience no change in tax liability.

Does this mean nobody will take a hit? No. Properties are assessed on an individual basis. Those assessed to have appreciated at a rate greater than the median will experience an increase: On the other hand, those assessed at a lower rate than the median will actually see a net decrease, and concomitant savings. Now, if subsequently, a local government chooses to increase the tax rate from the new base, that is a policy decision on the part of the elected folk who sit on the governing body.

It is further worth noting that 'tax value' is usually substantially less (typically 30% or so, in our neck of the woods) than 'market value'. For example, If Ruby were to place her house on the market for the 'tax value' of 100k (I'd grab it in a second if I had the resources) cited above, it would probably last about 30 seconds before flippers were to move in and subsequently turn it for 125 k or more, based on comps.

I'll have more to say that is more directly germaine to the subject matter of this string later, but I've been messing about with this long enough, and need to finish the books and lock this joint up.

Terri, without belaboring the point, suffice it to say that Mark K. is correct. It is possible (under some cricumstances) to comply with the small house ordinance and therefore not necessarily have to build any affordable housing at all. This route does not involve the Land Trust.

"Those assessed to have appreciated at a rate greater than the median will experience an increase." That's the point of this discussion Alex. It's also called gentrification. Tax value is determined by comparing existing properties with those that have recently sold in an area (comparables determined by number of bedrooms, square footage). I believe the Tax Assessor's office goes through this process every 4 years.

When new development comes into an existing neighborhood, those new units serve as the comparables for the next tax revaluation. Rosemary Village served as the comparables for Northside this year. Once the Art Center development goes on the market, those properties may serve as the comparables for Carr Court and Lloyd Street (depending on sq footage, # of BR). I have confimed this with the tax assessors office.

Those units in the new developments that are dedicated to the Land Trust are not used as comparables--only those that are sold on the open market. So existing properties which used to have a relatively low market and tax value, now have a much higher tax value as a result of the revaluation. Yes, the rate is modified some through the 'revenue neutral' provision, but not enough to keep the new assessment from being a significant financial burden on existing homeowners in those impacted neighborhoods.

There's also a market value impact but that is so obvious that it doesn't deserve much discussion. Although it will be very interesting to watch how the resource conservation zoning district impacts market value. My guess is that properties with in the RCD will not be as responsive to market forces as other properties in the downtown area due to the restrictions imposed by that zone classification. In other words, the RCD might have a negative impact on wealth creation opportunities for those homeowners.

Jeff Vanke is on the money in his last comment.

There is a terrible tendency in these kinds of proceedings to decrease the diversity of opinions held by the board appointing a new member to itself. This is a natural outcome from this kind of process: you select the person that seems most suited to the job by asking them questions. The people most like yourself generally have answers in agreement with your own opinions and therefore seem most rational to you. Therefore, you end up decreasing the diversity of the group as a whole.

Since the quality of the decisions made by a group tend to increase with diversity (and conversely, to decline in quality when diversity is lacking), this process has a natural tendency to produce a board whose decisions are actually worse than they would be if the seat was left unfilled entirely.

It is possible to avoid such an outcome, but it takes a great deal of restraint on the part of those making the appointment. In this case, I think it is best to appoint Katrina Ryan since her standing in the polls made her the next-place finisher in the election. I have heard some people say that her style fits poorly with the culture of the Board, but that indicates that she is likely to bring some healthy diversity to the board. Clearly, her experience and skills aren't in question, just whether or not she is a "good fit" for the board. The fact that THAT is the concern being raised (especially in light of her good showing in the polls) indicates that the Board is very much in danger of looking for someone that most fits their own views, rather than represents the diversity of Carrboro.

Being progressive means making sure that everyone's voice is heard and that they are represented in spite of the fact that they may not agree with you. Acting otherwise (as we have seen nationally), simply divides communities. In this case, I think the honorable and progressive course of action is to go with the runner-up candidate: whether or not you agree with her viewpoint.

Kevin Gunn states, regarding Katrina Ryan's candidacy, [Clearly, her experience and skills aren’t in question, just whether or not she is a “good fit” for the board.]

Since I'm not a Carrboro resident, the final choice by the BOA doesn't directly impact me (although that's not to say it won't have an indirect impact). But I question Kevin's Gunn's statement above. During the fall campaigns I remember several situations on the OP website in which Ms. Ryan made rash and unsubstantiated statements. One was her statement that increased crime was associated with bus stops. When challenged on this she said that her source was an 'unidentified' Carrboro police officer. When challenged to provide the officer's name or to have the officer come forward, she did neither nor did she recant her initial, inflammatory statement.

On another transit-related issue she quoted vague sources from her Texas days. When challenged by Patrick McDonough to provide more information about those sources she told him she would get back to him and, as far as I can tell, judging from a later post by Patrick, she never did.

Experience and skills at using misinformation to further one's agenda are attributes we probably don't need in this area. We already have plenty of those in Washington.

I'm not a Carrborundum and I think that voting is the only true democratic way to select a representative, but - you would think from Kevin Gunn's post that the entire Board except for that vacant seat was appointed by space aliens. All of them were elected, thus the person they pick is much closer to representing the views of the Carrboro voters than someone chosen because they are not like them in an attempt to achieve some vague notion of diversity.

It often takes candidates two tries to get a seat, so Katrina and her supporters should think ahead if she doesn't get chosen.

Unless you consider that 90% of Carrboro residents chose not to vote in the last election. Why? Disenfranchisement or contentment? Given all the emphasis the candidates this fall put on citizen engagement and the fact that the seated alderpeople chose to make citzen engagement one of the 5 questions they asked of the applicants, it seems to me like they have all voiced their desire for diversity. The question now is whether they will act upon that value or just keep talking about it.

Here is the thread from the fall to which George referred.

So what kind of diversity do you all mean?