Of all the issues in this election, affordable housing perhaps best illustrates the fundamental difference in approach to government between incumbent Democrat County Commissioner Jerry Mallett and his Republican challenger Frank Holman. Broadly speaking, Holman believes in less government while Mallett’s actions point toward the belief that a judicious infusion of government resources can help cure what ails a community.

A complex question with no easy answer, both candidates acknowledge that affordable housing is a high priority concern for residents of Chaffee County. Earlier this year, Mallett helped create the Chaffee Housing Trust. This is a non-profit that is designated to own the real estate while the homeowner owns the house and any improvements.

Recently, the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners voted to approve the donation of public land at the intersection of Mesa Lane and Crestone Avenues in Salida to help get Crestone Heights, the housing trust’s first affordable housing project, off the ground. During a work session on the project, Mallett rebuffed such basic questions about the project as appraised value of the public land and particulars of the donation and subsequent administration of the project by the non-profit housing trust. By unanimous vote, the county commissioners approved the land donation.

Holman questions whether there was conflict in the above-mentioned county land donation since Mallett is both a county commissioner and member of the board of the housing trust. However, he also said the Chaffee Housing Trust may well be a good solution to this vexing issue but he needs more proof to become a believer that it’s a solution that “works and makes sense.”

From his viewpoint, Holman points to new products in modular homes as a possible solution to the affordable housing issue. He explained some modulars allow for people to add on additional rooms onto the base unit as household budgets allow. Finally, Holman said he believes some of the county’s building regulations and permitting requirements drive the cost of new homes upward and that he would convene a panel of experts to study the issue to see if there can be ways to help mitigate the situation.

For many years now, Chaffee County has struggled with the issue of providing affordable housing to essential workforce members of the community. Market forces have driven the cost of home ownership out of reach for low- and moderate-income residents, removing the first rungs of the ladder to the American Dream. Instead of being able to imagine raising a family in the community where they work and live, all too many people are left out, watching the now unattainable dream being sold off to the highest bidder.

It would be contradictory to the values of this community, and an act of gross negligence, for us to fail to act to preserve the character and quality of our community while we can still do something. The Chaffee Housing Needs Assessment (January 2007) revealed that 64% of residents “strongly agreed” that workforce housing needed to be addressed, 59% “strongly agreed” that low-income housing needed to be addressed, and 85% of employers placed the highest priority on entry-level for-sale housing. As laid out in this carefully researched study, the Needs Assessment identified several steps that the community could take. Those recommendations included: the creation of a community land trust to provide home ownership, changing ordinance to require and incentivize inclusion of affordable units in new development, and providing county owned land for affordable housing. Elected officials have responded to this grassroots demand for action.

Eighteen months after the publishing of the Chaffee Housing Needs Assessment, the City of Salida and the County are putting that plan into action. The nonprofit Chaffee Housing Trust was formed, based on a strictly democratic governance model that cedes control to the community. The City of Salida has taken the lead on bringing the development community to the table by proposing a housing ordinance that will be inclusive of low- and moderate-income residents. The County has contributed to the effort by jump-starting construction with the donation of a lot that could be leveraged to build more units than a developer could do on their own.

By any measure, this has been a rational, carefully-vetted process, in plain view of all the stakeholders, with transparency and open dialogue. Unfortunately some members of the community have failed to notice this movement, and fail to appreciate the common benefits it will bring. Joe Judd’s lengthy posting to the Salida Citizen reflects this position. Mr. Judd’s complaints are numerous and well-intentioned, but fail to accurately portray the issues or the facts.

The proposed Crestone Heights development is the Chaffee Housing Trust’s (CHT) first project, after a lengthy consideration of several options. The County agreed to donate the land contingent upon the sale of the neighboring lot to the CHT and the development of much-needed affordable units. As any developer does, the CHT negotiated the sale of this lot and the development of the two contiguous lots with the land owner. In return, the land owner gave up the opportunity to sell the lot at a profit, or to develop the lot at a potentially-significant profit. Together, the developer and the CHT will create 9 units, 8 of which will be restricted for sale to qualified buyers (earning 80% Area Median Income or less, as identified in the Housing Needs Assessment). This deal lowers the developer’s risk proportionate to the diminished profit margin. There is no undue or disproportionate benefit to a single developer. Any developer who is as willing to come to the table will be treated the same way. In fact, Mr. Judd himself has approached the CHT about partnering on a project. There is significant benefit to the entire community, thus meriting the County’s donation. The project is no different than what could be built if it was entirely owned by a private developer. The negotiations have been no different that what would typically take place between land owners, contractors, and developers. The fact that it is designated as affordable housing has no bearing on the property values of Mr. Judd’s neighboring development, as studies have borne out. The process was above-board, discussed in public hearings, and strongly supported by the community and the commissioners.

Mr. Judd mischaracterizes the City of Salida’s efforts to create a zoning ordinance and incentives that will foster more inclusive housing. His assertion that an ordinance drives up housing costs are not supported by research. In fact, in many places where similar efforts were made, it increased the stock of available housing that was affordable. Inclusionary Zoning creates a level playing field for all developers, with predictable outcomes. Mira Monte may not have been the contentious issue it became had there been such ordinance in place. The City needs to establish rules that put the burden of new development fairly upon those who benefit (new homeowners and developers) and share the equity in our sought-after community fairly (inclusion of low- and moderate-income residents in new housing developments). Fees in lieu are another piece of the puzzle that makes it fair for small and large developers alike, but does not burden existing homeowners. If the City doesn’t set the rules, then who will? Clearly the marketplace has failed to provide affordable housing, forcing the City to act on behalf of all citizens in pursuit of the common good – a sustainable, inclusive, diverse, equitable community.

To his credit, Mr. Judd did create affordable units in his Triangle Court project a few years ago. While four of the units were affordable at first sale, that affordability was then lost, and the next buyers will pay full market price. The critical aspect of the Chaffee Housing Trust that must be understood is that units that become part of the CHT’s inventory will stay affordable in perpetuity. Each successive buyer will also pay an affordable below-market price. Each seller will still realize some equity that is reflective of the market increase in value, but some of that equity is also kept with the home. This eliminates the need for any ongoing subsidy to retain affordability, removing the burden on government to provide housing subsidy year after year for each unit. So the value of the County’s land donation to the Crestone Heights project will never be lost. It was a one-time donation with perpetual benefit. This is wise and prudent fiscal management of collective resources. A one-time sale of the lot would have brought a short term infusion of cash. By putting the lot into the CHT’s inventory, the benefit is realized over and again with each sale and resale of a unit on that property. As steward of the public good, the CHT retains control of the land (and its value) in perpetuity.

The rising costs of development are a result of the market forces at play. There is an increasing demand to live in our community that is stressing the capacity of government to provide the expected services. Sustaining a healthy community requires that government fund services (water, sewer, schools, etc.) to meet demand. It is fair to ask that the source of the stress on services be asked to pay its fair share. If growth is the source of the problem, then growth should bear proportionate weight of the solutions.

It is precisely to avoid the situations in Aspen, Vail, and Summit County that the current effort to address affordable housing has been initiated. In fact, inclusionary housing ordinances in these areas are far more punitive and costly to developers than anything currently under consideration in Chaffee County. They waited too long, and acted too late. We have the privilege of time to act now, before we become like them. If we fail to act, then we will lose our lower- and middle-income residents, and the quality of our community just as Mr. Judd fears.

This is just the beginning of the dialogue that is needed between all stakeholders in our community. It must be open, based on accurate information, fair, and equitable. This means that all sides must concede something in order to get something. The Chaffee Housing Trust is open to critical feedback and debate, and will continue to invite any interested parties to grab a seat at the table. But this must be a solution-oriented process. With the Chaffee Housing Needs Assessment as a guide, and the Chaffee Housing Trust as conduit for action, the other pieces of the puzzle will need to be put in place. This includes private enterprise, developers, government, financial institutions, nonprofits, and most importantly concerned citizens.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or would like to be involved in creating affordable housing for Chaffee County.

Read McCulloch
Director, Chaffee Housing Trust
719-207-4348

I would like to address this issue from three different perspectives: as a Builder and Developer, as a neighbor, and as a concerned citizen of Chaffee County (and in the near future, as a citizen of the City of Salida).

As a Builder, I do have a vested interest in the decision to donate this property, as I currently own, and am building on, the neighboring parcel of land.

While I do support the idea of being able to provide affordable housing, I don’t feel as though an appropriate plan has been established at this time. This property is being considered for donation. It will not only benefit the Chaffee Housing Trust. It will also substantially benefit the Developer of this project.

As a Builder who is currently operating in the free market, I feel this project puts me at a tremendous disadvantage. The fact that there may be nine affordable housing units on this property has the potential to seriously affect my ability to sell the four neighboring units which are scheduled to be completed in the next month. I am greatly concerned that a potential buyer will realize that there will be nine affordable housing units built here, and will see that as a negative to the overall flavor of the neighborhood, and the future value of the property. It may be that there will be no negative impact from this project. However, very little can be done to combat the public’s perception, especially given that there is no working plan, or set of standards to be adhered to.

This property in question was sub-divided and zoned R-3 during the past two years. I purchased my property under the assumption that I was in an area zoned R-3. Given the current situation, where there is only one lot next door, I could potentially have three residences as neighbors. If this land is donated, I could have nine residences next door. If the County property were to be sold on the open market, it would still only allow a total of six units on both pieces, spread over both pieces of property.

I see no option being presented to offer this piece of property on the open market. The individuals who developed and sold this property to me had tried in the past to work with the County to purchase the property in question. It is my understanding that the County did not pursue this as an option at that time.

As a local Builder and Developer I have worked within the parameters of the city zoning, as well as the open market, to develop an affordable alternative for housing in the Chaffee county real estate market. I would point to my project at Triangle Court as evidence of success in being able to provide a good, high-quality housing option to buyers in Salida. A total of 10 units were built over a four-year period. Eight of these units sold for $200,000 or less. The initial phase consisted of four units, which listed between $165,000 and $175,000. These units offered high end finishes in every unit, including hardwood floors and granite-tiled counters. This also offered full ownership of each condominium, including the potential for these buyers to realize any gains in the market, thereby providing a measure of financial security for the future.

I feel that the developer of this project would be operating at a tremendous advantage in this situation. She would receive the chance to build this project and make a profit, with the financial guarantee of the Chaffee Housing Trust, and any government entity which supports it. It is my understanding that the Chaffee Housing Trust will guarantee a full return of the land cost, plus any interest, as well as providing a guarantee to the bank for financing needed for construction of the project. I see very little, if any, risk on the part of the Developer in this project.

Shouldn’t there be some sort of due process in the County’s decision to essentially provide a risk-free investment opportunity to only ONE member of our community. I don’t feel that the particulars of this agreement to give away public land (an asset which belongs to ALL the citizens of Chaffee County) were ever given proper public notice. As a Builder myself, I would love to be in the position to have an exclusive opportunity such as this. However, I don’t believe it would be fair.

I would also like to point out what I see as a from of blackmail, which the City and others term an “incentive”. The current discussion of Affordable Housing suggests the following model: When a project developer is willing to donate a percentage of units as Affordable, they may be given some incentives, such as an increase in density, or a fast track on subdivision approval. However, if a Developer does not want to donate land or units to the Chaffee Housing Trust, they will pay a “fee in lieu”. This fee has not yet been determined. However, it certainly appears to me to be a form of blackmail. In other words: “play our way, or pay the price”.

The end result of making a Builder, or Developer pay a higher fee is to increase the cost of the housing units which they build and sell. This will, in turn, drive up the cost of any units that don’t fit the criteria of Affordable Housing. Thereby, increasing the cost of housing for all citizens of our county that don’t meet the criteria for Affordable Housing. This makes it even harder for those who do not meet the parameters of Affordable Housing to afford a home.

The threshold point for when this “fee in lieu” kicks in has not yet been determined. Some have suggested ten units or more. Some have suggested that ANY number of units, on any City lot, be forced to meet this requirement. This would mean that anyone building even a single family home, within the city limits, would be forced to pay a “fee in lieu”. In the end, this amounts to a tax on anyone who builds on a vacant piece of land in the City, and potentially in the entire county. If the City of Salida (or Chaffee County) truly wants the cost of affordable housing to be supported by ALL, the only fair solution is to put a tax issue on the ballot. Of course, it is rare that the citizens will agree to a tax hike. Therefore, the City can simply circumnavigate this by calling it a “fee”.

As a neighbor, I would like to make the following points: I do support the addition of affordable housing to our community. However, I believe it should well thought out and planned. I would like to point to the recent situation on F Street, regarding the construction of a duplex unit, and a triplex unit on two neighboring pieces of land. The citizens of F Street were so infuriated with this plan, that they circulated a petition to have the entire area zoned as an historic district. It is my understanding that the planned buildings could have been built as planned, given the existing zoning. I might also add that I applaud the developers of this project for having the integrity to walk away from the project, in order to not stir the pot and go against the wishes of many neighbors.

I would also like to remind the Commission of the recent decisions made regarding the Mira Monte subdivision, which is coincidentally just a few blocks from the project being discussed today. Once again, there was vehement disagreement among the citizens concerning the density being allowed. Despite the objections of many citizens, annexation was granted. The net gain in affordable housing for Salida was seven units, which are to be built as “mother-in-law” units, above detached garages. I feel, as do many I know, that the developers of Mira Monte dangled a small carrot of a few affordable housing units, to achieve a much larger project. Rather than listen to the citizens, I feel that the city caved into a large out-of-town developer, to gain revenue from tap fees and other revenue sources. The developer of Mira Monte had no given right to annexation. Had annexation to the City not been granted, the project could not have been built.

My point in bringing up these recent issues, is to remind the Commissioner’s of the powerful feelings of existing neighbors and citizens, when local government makes decisions to help a few, at the cost of the many, especially when the many are themselves citizens and voters. How can the citizens of the City and County protect their rights, regarding the value of their property, if there is not some sort of due process given?

Inclusionary Zoning, as discussed in a previous round-table discussion, seems to offer every advantage to a developer who is willing to work with the Chaffee Housing Trust, at the expense of existing homeowners. Keep in mind, for most people, owning their own home and the resulting financial security that comes with it, is the single biggest opportunity for most Americans to achieve financial security. This is true for those seeking affordable housing. But, it is also true for those who currently own or hope to own a home, but don’t qualify for a government sponsored program.

My understanding is that this project on Crestone Avenue will comprise nine units, eight of which are intended as affordable housing. From attending the discussion of affordable housing in the last week, it is also my understanding that the desire is to provide a MIX of housing in a given development. This project is in no way representative of that. I am much more in favor of an appropriate mix of housing. For the same reason that Housing Projects in big cities tend keep people in a lower socio-economic status, I feel there is a potential for an affordable housing project in Chaffee County to fail in the same ways, if not properly implemented.

Finally, as a Citizen, I have the following concerns: I feel that this project will set a precedent for how all future projects will be done regarding the ability to offer affordable housing in Chaffee county. It is VITAL that this project be done right. I don’t feel it is fair to the citizens to look at each project on individual merit and decide on an approval accordingly. Just as there are zoning codes and building codes, there should be established parameters for future affordable housing projects. This should extend from land issues, such as this discussion to donate County land (which is currently an asset of the citizens of the county), to zoning and Building Department issues. The potential that I see in this situation is to provide Affordable Housing to a few, at the cost and detriment of the existing citizens.

The county seems to be entering into an agreement on this project to donate land, without any clear vision of what is to be built. I believe that the citizens of the county should know exactly what to expect in return for this donation. Providing cheap housing fits the definition of affordable housing. But, I don’t believe anyone wants to live in, or subsidize cheap housing. Any affordable housing should be thoughtfully constructed, from the quality of finishes to the aesthetic appearance. And probably most important, the overall efficiency in operating and maintenance costs over the lifetime of the building need to be considered.

By bringing up these points, I don’t mean to insinuate that I believe the standards will be lower in this project, or in any future affordable housing projects. I just believe that if the citizens are asked to support these decisions, they have every right to know what they are getting for their money. This also should include a list of home prices, and perhaps an estimated operating cost. Transparency in the entire process is essential.

Finally, I would like to point out what I see as an incredible irony in the entire affordable housing debate in Chaffee county. When someone wants to build a home in this county, everyone is very quick to jump on the band wagon of adding fees for this and that. Tap fees have risen over $8,000 in the last 4 years in the City of Salida. Building permits have gone up. Fees have been added to building permits to benefit the school system. “Let growth pay its way!” they say. “These new people can afford it!”, they say. This is precisely what drives up the cost of homes in our county. To be sure, there are other forces at work, including the free market. But, in the end, every subsidy provided to one group must come at the expense of another group. Realize that the ones paying the extra fees may well be the ones who can afford it the least, as well as those that can.

Each subsidy given to Affordable Housing cannot come at the expense of those in the rest of the market. If the middle end of the market gets priced out, then we have exactly what every one fears in this county. We have a situation just like Aspen, or Vail, or Summit County. The upper end can afford to pay whatever they have to, and the lower and middle sectors move somewhere more affordable, along with everyone else. In the end, this is the most destructive thing we can do to both the housing market, and the quality of life which we all love and strive for in Chaffee County.

Please, consider carefully your decision on this matter and its implications on all future discussions regarding affordable housing in our community. It should be fair to those striving for home ownership, as well as protecting those who are already homeowners, as well as citizens and local businessmen.

Joe Judd
Owner, Judd Fine Homes