 |
Bodie Beitz, construction manager for the
Over-the-Rhine Housing Network, says the city can’t
expect every redeveloped building to reduce poverty.
|
At the corner of Race and 12th streets, in a building that once housed a military surplus store, a truce of sorts has been reached.
After 14 months of heated debates, technical discussions and brainstorming, the two sides fighting for control of Over-the-Rhine seem to have put down their weapons in late January.
The new Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan could end a decades-old battle between advocates of affordable housing and supporters of gentrification. Two previous city-led attempts failed in the past 20 years, and a treasure of historic architecture continued to decay as the neighborhood slipped deeper into poverty and steadily lost residents (see The Fight for Over-the-Rhine issue of Dec. 13-19, 2001).
The Over-the-Rhine Steering Committee -- a group of residents, advocates and developers, guided by City Planning Director Liz Blume -- started meeting in November 2000. They slowly put mistrust aside to figure out what they could agree on.
"Everybody was at the table, and everybody moved," Blume says. "We are at the beginning of the end of the planning process."
That, of course, depends on whether Cincinnati City Council agrees the plan is a valuable, citizen-driven guide for transportation, housing, economic development and other issues. Blume and members of the Steering Committee will talk to council members in coming weeks.
The fix is in the mix
Low-income housing has long been in contention between market-rate developers and affordable housing advocates.
The argument used to be about the number of low-income units the neighborhood should have. In 1985 the city agreed to 5,520. Now there are only about 5,200 habitable units for any income level in Over-the-Rhine.
The master plan solves this debate by calling for a range of prices that climb as redevelopment progresses. Studies indicate that once a neighborhood has more than 40 percent low-income housing, a downward spiral begins, according to Blume.
In the next five years, the master plan calls for 40 percent of housing to be affordable for people earning up to 30 percent of the city's annual median income (AMI) of $60,500. About 90 percent of Over-the-Rhine's housing is in that category now.
The plan also calls for 20 percent of the housing in the next five years to have unlimited rents.
The plan doesn't call for one type of housing to replace another; it says vacant buildings and land, which are plentiful in Over-the-Rhine, should be redeveloped to supply market-rate housing.
The plan is not a price-control system, but calls for the city to monitor rents and adjust its incentives accordingly.
In 20 years, the plan says, the housing mix should be evenly divided between four brackets: up to 30 percent of the AMI, up to 60 percent of the AMI, up to 100 percent of the AMI and an unrestricted-income bracket.
Some affordable housing advocates doubt there's enough support, both financial and political, to build their share of the housing, especially in light of the "Impaction Ordinance," passed in October. The new law denies certain city-controlled federal funding to projects that increase the city's concentration of poverty.
"I think it's pie-in-the-sky to think the non-profits will be able to survive and carry out their part," says Bonnie Neumeier, director of the Peaslee Neighborhood Center.
Council vs. ReSTOC
Winning over council might not be easy. A slim majority recently stepped up efforts to revoke a contract with the Race Street Tenants Organization (ReSTOC) for a $4.5 million, 30-unit affordable housing project on Vine Street. Council postponed a Feb. 6 vote, giving Councilman David Pepper a week to pull off another major Over-the-Rhine truce.
Pepper and ReSTOC agreed to a deal -- if ReSTOC sells some of its 47 buildings and improves others, the Vine Street project goes ahead. Now the proposal is up to council.
"There may be a way to do this that will lead to more practical changes on Vine Street in the coming year than if we didn't do it," Pepper said.
Late last December, councilmen Pat DeWine and Jim Tarbell began asking about delays on the ReSTOC project. They sent a memo to Neighborhood Services Director Peg Moertl, the city manager and a reporter.
"There's good reason to think the delays are partly ReSTOC's responsibility," DeWine said.
Before the administration responded, the city solicitor's office signed the ReSTOC contract in early January, which led DeWine to believe staff had deliberately ignored his request to reexamine the project. But Moertl says poor communication on her part was to blame.
Moertl saw no evidence ReSTOC was dragging its feet on the project, which involves rehabilitating seven buildings. The largest project delay was because of new regulations on removal of lead paint, which boosted the project's cost by $1 million, she says.
"It was my experience that part was moving forward in good faith," Moertl says.
Moertl was confident the project would proceed smoothly because of help ReSTOC was receiving from the Ohio Capital Corporation For Housing -- a non-profit organization linking and advising developers, financiers and builders.
Delay in ReSTOC's sale of a Vine Street building -- mandated by council in 2000 to keep the deal alive -- was a separate issue. ReSTOC caused no problems, according to Jeanne Golliher, director of the organization buying the building, the Cincinnati Development Fund.
"There were delays on both parts, probably equally," Golliher says.
The city solicitor's office advised council not to revoke the ReSTOC contract, because reneging could create legal liabilities.
But in a blatant display of the contempt council sometimes holds for the administration, four members of the Finance Committee -- John Cranley, DeWine, Pepper and Chris Monzel -- rejected the solicitor's opinion. Instead they approved Pepper's self-authored legal opinion, which relies on a strict interpretation of the city charter. In other words, what council says, goes.
Tarbell railed against ReSTOC at the committee meeting, questioning the developer's ability to competently handle any project. He cited 11 building code violations, most of them in 14 vacant buildings among the 47 buildings ReSTOC owns. But seven of those vacant buildings were to be developed as part of the Vine Street project, according to ReSTOC coordinator Jennifer Summers.
DeWine wanted ReSTOC to sell some of its vacant buildings before it asked the city for money. Summers responded that the buildings were just shells.
"Market rates on shell (buildings) are extremely low," Summers said.
Summers said the Reds, Bengals and Carl Lindner didn't have to sell property to get city support.
Saks gets paid
She could have added Saks Fifth Avenue department store to the list. Minutes after city council delayed the ReSTOC vote Feb. 6, it tackled the issue of giving $6.6 million to keep Saks downtown for at least 15 years -- the second such subsidy Saks has requested in the past seven years.
Luken acknowledged people feel "there's just something that doesn't seem right to what we're doing" with this deal. Cranley and DeWine shared the sentiment and voted against the subsidy.
The money going to Saks can be used for downtown development, and it compares favorably to other larger retail subsidies handed out by Columbus and Indianapolis, Luken said.
"I think it's a good deal for us," he said.
Paul Booth, who also supported the subsidy, said he wants the city to make sure Saks upholds its end of the agreement.
"I do hope we will take Saks and hold their feet to the fire," Booth said.
If council is half as tough on Saks as it has been with ReSTOC, Booth has nothing to worry about.
The effort council has spent scrutinizing ReSTOC in the past 18 months is telling. If DeWine and Tarbell are concerned about concentrating poverty, they've said little or nothing about the renovation of the old Alexandria Hotel in Walnut Hills.
Developer Jim King is converting the partially-burned building into 83 low-income, mostly one-bedroom apartments for senior citizens, with the help of a $8.5 million city loan. This project alone concentrates more poor people than any ReSTOC project has or will.
"ReSTOC hasn't been very productive, and I think that's a valid criticism," says Karla Irvine, director of Housing Opportunities Made Equal. "But I think right now (some council members) want to beat somebody up."
Those who link ReSTOC to Over-the-Rhine's blight should consider that the neighborhood has 250 to 300 abandoned buildings, according to Bill Langevin, director of the city's Department of Buildings and Inspections.
The condition of ReSTOC's vacant buildings is in the middle of the pack, along with those owned by Tom Denhart, the neighborhood's largest property owner, he says.
"In the grand scheme of things, (ReSTOC is) probably no better or no worse than a lot of folks who have land-banked buildings," Langevin says.
Besides vacant buildings, one of the biggest problems with improving Over-the-Rhine is money to develop housing of any kind. Most of the aging buildings need more work than can be paid back through conventional rents or mortgages. Millions will likely be needed to get the neighborhood to the "tipping point," when there's enough successful housing and businesses to reassure developers they will receive a return on their investment, according to Blume.
Tax increment financing -- a way of paying back today's development with the increased tax dollars it should bring -- is one possibility, according to Blume.
"This is going to be complicated to work out," she says. ©
