Bacon's Rebellion

Does Charlottesville Really Need Community Land Trusts?

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Community Land Trusts are being examined in Charlottesville-Albemarle County as a tool for providing affordable housing. The region needs to do something: The median sales price in the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area has increased from $150,000 to $279,000 between 2000 and 2006. Reports the Daily Progress:

Bill Edgerton, a member of the Albemarle Planning Commission, along with Frazier Bell, a mortgage banker, have been investigating a tool called a Community Land Trust that could provide a broader range of housing options for residents.

A Community Land Trust is a nonprofit corporation that sells affordable homes to those who qualify – in Edgerton’s scenario, low- to middle-income homebuyers or a household that earns between $39,900 and $53,200.

The land trust makes housing cheaper by having a perpetual lease on the land where the affordable house sits. The land remains with the land trust, removing that cost from the property forever, according to information provided by Edgerton.

Creative, yes. But wrong-headed, too. There is something wrong with a region that depends upon the generosity of philanthropists to underwrite the cost of housing for working- and middle-class homeowners. Instead of creating Community Land Trusts, Charlottesville and Albemarle Count need to address fundamental causes: the lack of housing supply in the region, which is a direct consequence of restrictive zoning policies.

I certainly understand the desire of Albemarle County residents to safeguard their beautiful farming landscapes from scattered subdivisions and commercial development. What’s required is (a) allowing Charlottesville to build higher buildings, (b) permitting the recycling of old subdivisions at higher densities, and (c) encouraging compact, mixed-use, urban-density development on land bordering already-developed areas.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

16 responses to “Does Charlottesville Really Need Community Land Trusts?”

  1. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    Here in Portland, Oregon they are doing everything that this article mentions – the land trust, the high density, the high rise buildings, mixed use and redevelopment of older suburbs – and guess what? None of it works! Why? Because it goes against both what people naturally want and against home values/prices. The majority that end up in ‘affordable housing’, be that land trust or some high rise someplace do not have a sense of ownership; or the sense of pride that comes with ownership. They know that when they move, they don’t get much of anything back (in the case of subsidized high rise, they get NOTHING). So this housing is treated just like housing in projects, etc. They don’t care because they don’t have anything invested in it.

    Add to that the extra negative of living in a high rise (if that becomes the situation). It’s an apartment pure and simple, again there is no ownership but there is a huge feeling of ‘it’s never going to get better’. If you are an adjacent property owner of a $500,000 condo, you don’t really want these people who don’t care around you and your property. You don’t have much in common with them and watching them hang out and/or do drugs or alcohol is not what you had in mind when you moved in. As a citizen you see your tax money spent on these folks who don’t care and don’t keep things up. Sorry, while I may not have the answer (actually I have some thoughts but they DON’T include mixed use or high rises – yuck); I am well aware of how the ‘solutions’ that you talk about DON’T work. I see it everyday.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The best way to safeguard bueatiful farm landscapes ensure that they are profitable. Lowering the cost of housing is one way to help do that, but not the only one. It may be necessary, and not be sufficient.

    Mixed use development probably helps alleviate traffic congestion, but compact urban density development probably creates more traffic congestion. Then there is the problem that Accurate mentions: most people want something else, and will migrate as soon as they can get it.

    A coworker recently bought her first SFH. She said she never wanted a shared wall again.

    RH

  3. Waldo Avatar
    Waldo

    What’s required is (a) allowing Charlottesville to build higher buildings

    Charlottesville’s limit is nine stories. We have exactly one building of that height, built nearly a century ago, and exactly one proposed building of that height. Very few buildings around town exceed two stories. Our height limit doesn’t appear to be an obstacle.

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Accurate, I would concede that high-rise apartment buildings would be only a small part of the solution in a place like Charlottesville (and, upon hearing Waldo, perhaps not much of a solution at all). Realistically, I would see re-cycling older neighborhoods (in response to market demand, of course) and extending Charlottesville’s urban fabric into Albemarle County is a consistent and organized way.

  5. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    P.S., I would agree with Ray that ensuring the profitability of surrounding farmland, especially that held by long-time working farmers, as opposed to estate farmers. Definitely a part of the solution.

  6. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    I think that both Ray and Waldo have correctly noted that many people simply do not want to live in dense urban environments. Those who do probably live in them today (e.g., New York City).

    A number of Fairfax County officials have told me that many county workers live far from the county, not just because of prices, but because they want bigger houses and lots for their money. For example, my daughter’s orchestra teacher lives well beyond the Beltway because he and his wife like to keep horses. That is pretty hard to do in Fairfax County in most instances.

    We simply are not going to solve housing and transportation problems jamming people into little boxes. Increasing density can make sense in some locations. But we also need much more teleworking and the encouragement of the development of well paid jobs throughout the state. Public policy cannot continue to be driven by the desire of elected officials to enrich a few big landowners who want to capture all the growth on their lands.

    We need more places with good jobs.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    It’s been alluded to before but we need to define what “affordable housing” is – and is not AND there needs to be an understanding that an “affordable” place to live.. like a condo or apartment is NOT the same market as a house in a subdivision.

    You will not sell a condo to most folks looking for a house in a subdivision.. no matter how many multi-floor condos you build.

    Many people do not buy home/lots 50 miles from an urban area because they cannot afford a place to live in the urban area. They often can.. but the reality is .. they can get more for their money by commuting…

    As TMT alluded to.. if you want a house in a subdivision.. in Fairfax.. it’s going to cost you a bunch.. but if you’re willing to drive 50 miles.. you can get that house.

    and the working phrase is “drive till you qualify”.

    These folks do not want to live with “shared” walls.., don’t want to take an elevator to their “home”, or figure out how to get 6 bags of groceries to their condo…

    they want a driveway.. with a walkway to the front door… and a garage to put their car while they unload their 6 bags of groceries.

    the market for condos is totally different than for homes…

    you won’t stop subdivisions from being built in the country by building more condos in the city.

    as long as there is raw land available within a reasonable commuting distance of urban areas -a certain number of folks are going to drive for that 3 bedroom SFD… and you could be giving condos away. and it would not make a difference.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You will not sell a condo to most folks looking for a house in a subdivision.. no matter how many multi-floor condos you build.

    Even I’m not sure I agree with that. If it costs $45k to live in the suburbs and you can live in what Larry call affordable housing in town for $25k then you might be willing to put up with a shared wall, and a very small lot, like my brother. You might even be able to rent a normal size house (2000-2500 sq. ft. on a decent lot for that kind of money.

    Pretty soon, things start looking a lot different. $20k in your 401k goes a long way in a hurry. Especially if you are young.

    So, I don’t agre with the idea that you could give condos away and still have a problem.

    —————————

    Where I have a real problem is when Larry says, “as long as there is raw land available” as if we should somehow stop it from being available (Through enormous proffers, I suppose.)

    But, he is right. 6 bags of groceries and an elevator is a problem. So is 6 bags of laundry.

    Larry is also right when he says “if you want a house in a subdivision.. in Fairfax.. it’s going to cost you a bunch.. but if you’re willing to drive 50 miles.. you can get that house.”

    As I understand it, Larry lives in or around Fredericksburg, and he has been there a long time. Larry apparently got his house, and there is nothing wrong with that.

    Bottom line, if we really want a workable solution, as opposed to wanting what we want other people to want, then we need to look at things as they actually are, rather than how we think they should be.

    “We need much more teleworking and the encouragement of the development of well paid jobs throughout the state. Public policy cannot continue to be driven by the desire of elected officials to enrich a few big landowners who want to capture all the growth on their lands.”

    That is pretty much the same way I think, except, I’m willing to say that if we wish to allow a few big landowners to capture all the growth on their lands, then we should expect them to share the profits with those who are prohibited from having growth.

    People Like Larry.

    —————————–

    And, I don’t make the distinction between estate farmers and people who make their living off the land, because those people frequently work for the estate farmers, or manage land for them.

    Those estate farms are a whole lot prettier than mine. (I think some of those guys are stark raving mad, the way they are obsessed with “pretty”.) But, we should not expect someone to maintain “our” farmscapes, just because it’s pretty, even if there are a few who are obsessed.

    I’ve got some rocks and boulders I have to mow around. Eventually they grow up wth weeeds and then tree islands. This doesn’t bother me until the trees are in may face. Recently I saw anther farm where they had nine guys, (probably latino) count ’em nine, with weed whackers manicuring around the boulders in the middle of a hundred acre field.

    As far as I’m concerned, more power to them. Just don’t expect me to keep up with the Jones’s in that category. And someone send them a note about Ozone and CO2.

    And yet, that is exactly what happens. We create expectations that MUST be kept up with.

    Consider the Johnson Grass Committee. Johnson grass is defined as a noxious weed in this area. It is als a naturally occuring plant, and if you go 300 miles west, it’s a crop.

    Until recently, I got an annual letter from the Johnson Grass Committee, telling me that I had Johnson Grass, and I had better do something about it, or else I was subject to a misdemeanor, a fine, and having to pay for corrective action.

    Well, Gee. I’m sorry if you don’t like Johnson Grass and it is bad for your cows, but don’t make it my problem.

    The Johnson Grass Comittee was so unpopular because of their tactics, that the county eventually stopped funding their activities.

    So here is a perfectly natural, ordinary thing (Johnson Grass), and suddenly it becomes a crime to do nothing, and therefor it is OK for a few people who have a problem to make sombody else pay for something that isn’t their fault, just because we don’t like it.

    How utterly crazy is that?

    Well, it is crazy enough that it was eventually stopped. But the law is still on the books.

    —————————-

    The Johnson Grass law will probably be on the books in perpetuity. Anything in perpetuity is sure to be a mistake, eventually.

    ——————————-

    I like to fix and repair old stuff. I sure hope there are enough people like me to restore an rejuvenat our older neighborhoods. What do we do if there are not? What if there is no market?

    Even worse, what do we do when the equivalent of the Johnson Grass committee wants us to stop?

    RH

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH and others should not misunderstand my views.

    I am not opposed to growth – any kind of growth – population growth or business growth – and I’m actually in favor of “growth” of levels of services for citizens.

    and that is why I simply believe that anywhere that growth is approved – the required infrastructure should also be required to serve that growth.

    So I’m not in favor of restricting land-development – in response to the market demand for growth.

    But I do believe that part of the price of any home – is the infrastructure needed to serve that home..

    Almost no one would be in favor of allowing homes to be built without water/sewer… and yet. “affordability” advocates claim that it is somehow “unfair” to insure that home prices include the other necessary infrastructure costs…

    We confuse “affordability” I believe in the discussion about growth and housing costs.

    The market will not provide Volvos for 15K yet.. we have folks essentially claiming that 1. – it’s “unfair” that Volvos cost 50K and 2. – if someone cannot “afford” a Volvo..that they cannot afford a car.

    Just substitute “house” for “Volvo” about to get my point.

    (and just to keep RH happy.. yes.. I got a house in the suburbs .. many years ago (1970).. and my job was in the boondocks 30 miles away and so I did carpool. And I did pay full boat costs for well, septic, the subdivision road and the buried electric lines. And it is the classic “large lot” sprawl lot to boot!)

    but I stick by my guns on the condos.

    People who want a single family residence with a yard and a garage are usually not interested in a condo.

    Some of them might be under some circumstances .. but the majority of home buyers – want… homes.

    and as long as developers are free (as Waldo stated) to build multi-floor condos – and there was a market demand.. – then wouldn’t they have been built already?

    Sometimes.. the discussion sounds like a complaint along the lines of “there ought to be 15K Volvos offered for sale” so that folks will have “affordable” options.

    🙂

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I don’t think the question is whether homes and businesses need infrastructure (and each other).

    It’s a question of how it should be paid for.

    If I buy a Volvo, I don’t expect anyone else to pay for my crash protection, but infrastructure is not the same. We all use it, we all depend on it, and we all benefit from it. To claim that the need for infrastructure is caused only by new construction and to impose supernormal requirements on it can only raise the costs above what it should be and shift the burden unfairly.

    For example, I don’t actually think that Metro should be paid for only by those who ride it, because there are obviously other beneficiaries. But how do we allocate the costs for the benefits received? I’ve argued that there is some reduction in congestion from the use of Metro, and so auto drivers should pay some of the costs.

    But, there is reason to believe that not all auto drivers benefit equally, that the reduction in traffic isn’t one for one, and the argument for induced demand applies here as well.

    We don’t really have anyone trying to figure this out, and at the same time we have both Metro promoters and Metro detractors making unsubstantiated, not to say wild, claims.

    It is the same with other infrastructure.

    We don’t know all the causes for requirements, we don’t know who benefits, or for how long. Certainly there is some truth to Larry’s arguments, but I submit that we would be better off and closer to being correct if we err on the side of not imposing supernormal requirements, and allowing more costs to be shared generally.

    At the same time, existing residents need some protection from simply being priced out. Unaffordability should not creep up on you on account of other people’s behavior. At the same time, our own (prior) behavior should not be billed out to the newcomers.

    How we strike that balance is beyond me, but I think the Volvo analogy is a false one. It is confusing public goods with private.

    Larry got his house in F’burg about the same time I bought mine in Alexandria, so as to be close to my job. I got an old, wrecked Volvo, and restored it, if you will. He was lucky, and able to stay put. My job and marriage changed my living working and commuting arrangements several times. I don’t think either situation is right or wrong or should be billed differently.

    When Larry got his place he might have been using 0.01 percent of the infrastructure then in place. No problem. But, when eventually someone comes along and uses up the last 0.01 piece, there is a problem, and that problem is partly caused by the 0.01 piece that larry is (still)using. I used my 0.01 piece in several different places over the years. How do you send the bill for that, fairly?

    It is a tough problem, and it deserves more than simplistic answers.

    RH

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If new folks move into an area and their home needs water/sewer – most all of us will agree that they need to pay for it. Certainly those who bought a lot that needs a well and septic do so.

    We’d think the same way about the roads in their subdivision

    and most of us would think that if a new school is needed that the new folks need to pay for at least some of it.

    Proffers do not cover the full infrastructure costs associated with growth.

    So who pays the rest? The folks who already live there do.

    Unlike RH.. I don’t view the past – as the proper guide for the future when it comes to growth.

    I see the past – as proof that we did it wrong…

    For a long, long time, we basically had loud and strong voices that claimed that growth did pay for itself.

    When it became apparent that it did not – proffers were invented.

    Ray admits this… but then refuses to suggest a fair way to allocate – beause it is “too complicated” to figure out, “could be misused”, and we’d probably end up with something not fair.

    so.. what does it mean when one admits that change “might” be needed but at the end of the day – is opposed to change?
    So.. one could say almost anything about.. what “should” happen but if at the end of the day -you’d still be opposed to changes – anyway?

    My premise is simple.

    If we are going to grow – and you don’t want large segments of the public against growth – and advocates to policies to limit growth –

    you have to look at the reasons why people are opposed to growth ..

    .. and it boils down to a lowering of the levels-of-service that growth without infrastructure imposes.

    Primarily crowded roads and crowded schools.

    When a localities experiences growth with these kinds of impacts and more growth is proposed – quess what happens?

    Well..your elected politicians get voted out of office .. replaced by newly elected that promise to restrict growth….

    so basically.. we… do have a choice.

    Either get in the game and figure out how to charge for infrastructure – even if it pains one to figure out how to allocate and even if it is different from the way “it used to be”…

    OR… stand aside… and watch restrictive growth policies (that..yes are unfair and dysfunctional) .. grow and expand.

    You can .. change/adapt/etc… or you can stand still and refuse to change – and watch it happen around you – anyhow.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: how to provide affordable homes

    you figure out two things.

    1. – the shortfall in the number of units needed in a given locality

    2. – the average median income price for affordibility…

    then.. new development proposals have to provide ‘x’ number of units (as a condition of approval) in their development that will sell at the median threshold price to folks that are strictly means-tested and who agree to split any profits from the future sale of that house with the Affordable Home authority.

    Oh.. and these homes would not have proffers on them. The infrastructure tab would be picked up by existing taxpayers.

    The developer is also free to NOT build anything more than basic housing without fancy extras and the affordable home buyer IS free to sell back to the Afforddable Home Authority – at the price they paid plus a share of the increase in value – but not all of it.

    My prediction:

    If we did it this way – the issue of a “lack of affordable housing” will evaporate .. overnight…

    .. because the reality is that people already do have options but they essentially want MORE than they can afford – which is truly not a need but instead a “want”.

    but, let’s go ahead…and set up some affordable home authorities – on a sunset basis – and see what plays out…

  13. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Supply and demand.

    I was recently at a cocktail party. Standing around talking to some of my long time friends (all of whom went to UVA with me). I asked them where they wanted to retire. All five said Charlottesville. None of them have ever lived in Charlottesville except for the time they spent at UVA – 25 years ago.

    They will sell the houses they bought years ago in Northern Virginia (right now, still with huge gains). They’ll use the proceeds to buy houses and property in and around Charlottesville.

    As they increase the demand faster than the supply the price will go up.

    I don’t know what to tell you guys – that’s just life (or at least life in the United States).

    Of course, there is a way out:

    If you want to stop this you need to have intrusive government. But you have to disguise this because Americans don’t really like intrusive government.

    Forbid development on farmland. The farmers may initially get mad. Eventually the farms will be very valuable as the rich and super-rich buy them and pretend that they are something called “gentlemen farmers”. Can you say Western Loudoun County (aka “horse country”). Call this conservation.

    Remove all density zoning in the non-farmland. Drive out the single family homes in favor of condos. Bulldoze the tract houses and build apartments. Some will be nice (e.g., Park Avenue) and some will be lousy (e.g., the South Bronx). Call this “affordable housing”.

    Tax any recalictrant single family home owners into submission. Just don’t call it tax. Maybe even declare that the suburbanites are failing to pay their “full location costs”. Make this declaration without even considering how much the suburbanites actually pay in taxes. Use the “full location costs” myth to tax the suburbanites even more. Call this “paying full locational costs”.

    And never mention total taxes or total costs because your “fairness” arguments will quickly fail if you actually add it ALL up.

    Finally (and this is the tough part) – keep saying that you are a conservative Republican who wants government out of the people’s business. Call this hogwash.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    For a long, long time, we basically had loud and strong voices that claimed that growth did pay for itself.

    And now we have loud and strong voices that claim it doesn’t.

    We don’t have any real evidence that the latter is any more correct than the former, despite Larry’s assertion that it does not.

    We don’t have any real evidence that the latter are any less driven by self-interest than the former.

    Neither side is willing to budge. (Probably due to self interest.)

    I’m not even claiming that growth does pay for itself, only that the evidence that it doesn’t isn’t convincing. The idea that it doesn’t has become a mantra, repeated manytimes and many places, without additional thought. “Sock it to the Developers” is the battle cry.

    All I’m saying is that there is probably evidence or facts on both sides. If we cannot agree as to what the facts are, then we ought to at least be able to agree on how to test the facts.

    If proffers do not cover the full infrastructure costs associated with growth and the folks who already live there do, then lets see the ratios. And let’s see the ratios in the gain in assessed value of new homes over the past five and ten year periods, vs the gain in assessed value of older homes over the same period.

    I do not think that the past ought to be a guide as to how to do things in the future, but I do think that when you substantially change the rules, then there needs to be an assessment of the cost of the new rules, with a view towards compensating those who made investments under the old ones.

    I buy a hundred acres. The next day a law is passed against Johnson Grass. I am liable for eradicating Johnson Grass, and if I don’t it’s a misdemeanor. I’m liable for fines and direct action against my property, including tresspassing and sending me the bill for eradication.

    Meanwhile, I can’t sell the property unless I hire a botanist to certify it doesn’t have Johnson Grass, because no new owner wants the additional restriction and liability.

    Sorry folks, no dice: you cannot pass new requirements to me without compensation, any more than you can with any other government contract.

    The Johnson Grass example is extreme, but it is no less real than what happens every day. If you want to place a new requirement because it is valuable to you, and it costs me, then you have to expect to pay.

    Once you make that assessment, and compensation, then you can make any new rules you want.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And, you can do it with a clear conscience.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “watch restrictive growth policies (that..yes are unfair and dysfunctional) .. grow and expand.”

    Precisely, exactly.

    We know that restrictive growth policies are unfair and dysfunctional. We know they are going to grow and expand until OUR polititcians get kicked out, and we swing the pendulum the other way.

    Why not prevent them from being unfair and dysfunctional, and prevent them from expanding, and we get to keep our politicians instead of handing the process over to our opponents for the next umpteen years?

    Why shoot ourselves in the foot by being greedy?

    In prince William Corey Stewart is pushing for $50,000 proffers because he hopes that the higher proffers will prompt developers to stop building in the county for a while.

    At the same time, he says the reduction in supply will cause existing houses to be valued higher.

    Meanwhile, over in Culpeper county, the county administrator is saying that a dramatic drop in housing starts has thrown previous tax projections out the window. “We may need budget cuts and we may need to look at borrowing and bonding. We are certainly going to have to do a closer watch of our revenues.”

    Go figure.

    RH

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT