On the agenda for tonight’s council meeting is a request from Barbara Van Auken to change the policy regarding ornamental street lighting. Currently, if your neighborhood wants these pretty street lights (and my neighborhood has them — they’re great), you have to get over 50% of the neighbors to agree to a 50/50 split of the cost of installing them. The city pays 50%, and the neighborhood pays 50%, divided among the homeowners. Each homeowner can pay their share of the cost as either a lump-sum payment or spread out over 10 years on their property taxes, with interest. This called a “special assessment.”
The Orchard District (which is bounded by Columbia Terrace, Sheridan, Main, and North) wants ornamental lighting, but has not been able to gather the requisite number of signatures to get a special assessment for them. So Barbara Van Auken has a plan: have the city pay for the ornamental lighting not at 50%, or 80% (like they do for sidewalks), but 100%, subject to some restrictions, of course:
Council Member Van Auken has suggested a new policy that would allow for 100% City participation in a lighting project if the following criteria are met: 1. The area served is eligible to receive CDBG funds for a street lighting project; 2. The area served has an established and active neighborhood association that supports the project; 3. There are sufficient CDBG funds available to fund the project.
“CDBG” is short for Community Development Block Grant, a program started by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1974. Basically, the federal government gives money (grants) annually “on a formula basis to entitled cities and counties to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons.” The city receives approximately $1.9 million annually through this program. The Orchard District is eligible to receive CDBG funds because of the average income level of the residents.
Van Auken’s request, the communication goes on to state, “would allocate the entire cost of the street lighting system to the CDBG budget, and qualify the project as an area benefit,” using unallocated CDBG money from past years. How much will it cost to install ornamental lighting on the four interior streets of the Orchard District? We don’t know for sure, but it’s estimated to cost $230,000.
So, the question is, is this good public policy? On the one hand, I can see the benefits of this system. You want to fix up a neighborhood to make it attractive for reinvestment, to try to improve owner occupancy, and slumlords are going to balk at paying higher taxes on their rental properties for niceties such as ornamental lighting. In some older neighborhoods, you may never be able to get any infrastructure improvements that require a special assessment if there aren’t enough owner-occupied properties. In that sense, this is an investment.
But others would contend that this is unfair for a couple of reasons. One has to do with the past: there are other older neighborhoods — also CDBG-eligible — that went through the special assessment process and are still paying for their lighting. The other has to do with the future: since this benefit will only be available as long as CDBG funds are available, and since the cost of lighting is pretty expensive and there are other demands on CDBG funds, very few neighborhoods will get free lighting.
For myself, I have mixed feelings about it. I lean toward relaxing the rules rather than throwing the rules away. For instance, they could change it to be an 80/20 split like the city does for sidewalks (city pays 80% and the neighborhood pays 20%). Maybe the lower cost will tip the scales enough to get buy-in from over 50% of the neighbors. If there’s something that the city should be paying for 100%, it’s sidewalks, not ornamental lighting.
Let’s decide the policy first on what to do with unallocted CDBG funds. Then let’s have an equal and fair application period for all CDBG areas to apply before funds are distributed to any group.
BS!!!!!!!!!!
If there is going to be a policy change, why limit it to lighting. Sidewalks, curbs, lighting (not necessarily ornamental), garbage cans would all improve HUD income eligle areas. The current system means that someone has to track down absentee landlords, etc. and try to get them to sign off on it. Why isn’t this a city staffs job?
If the a HUD eligible area is going to be refurbished to encourge re-investment then the the project should be done in entirety, meaning fix the whole of the infastructre and then move on to the next area. This makes more sense that putting in sidewalks, but not curbs and ignoring high crime areas needs for lighting. Let’s take a comprehensive. I would also suggest that in an area for high rental where the landlords are not reinfesting in the properties and putting in bad tenants that they be assessed while the lower income home owners receive %100 of CBDG funding. This benefits those that put into the community vs. those who simply take out of it.
I agree Karrie, we need to seperate out the policy and draft a useful one with some public ideas on what we would like to see involved and then see if any projects still qualify. Limiting this policy change to just lighting seems to only benefit one neighborhood and a good comprehensive solution should benefit many neighborhoods.
I am surprised that the blogs took this long to pick up on this, some of the older neighborhoods have been buzzing for over a week over this.
Not my blog. I wrote about this last week. I think it is BS and a pre re-election stunt. Nothing more. The rules are there and they should be followed, otherwise we are going to start picking and choosing who has to follow them? Why make rules then?
BVA, IMHO, has a good idea, in that so many places in the Orchard District are rentals they kind of need some kind of exemption/allowance, whatever.
I’m with everyone else though, in not wanting to rewrite the rules for the exception. I loathe favoring any district over another – any section of town would benefit from the ornamental lighting (or sidewalks or whatever). Plus, rewriting laws to suit the exception rather than the rule makes for really complicated zoning and codes a few decades down the line.
Maybe an exception could be written, which would, I think, suit most neighborhoods. The 50% of homeowners that have to approve such a measure are the owner-occupied homeowners, NOT all homeowners. And if a landlord can be easily reached, or lives in the property that they maintain, then their vote can count as 1/2 a vote or some percentage that seems equitable.
Sounds a tad complicated, but I think it would solve both sides of the landlord issue, in that those landlords who care would have some measure of input/be able to help – whereas the ones who don’t care wouldn’t count against the neighborhood. And this would be less complicated than writing the code for the exception, as I noted above.
I can’t imagine that the increase in taxes as applied over ten years will be all that much of a hike for anyone, even with the interest. In the end, it will help them get renters, if you think about it.
Landlords who are the absentee type probably deserve to be hit with a tax hike if they are so absentee that the neighborhood association can’t find them with some small effort. And if this causes them to sell, maybe someone who cares will buy the complex. And it would seem to me that if a landlord is around, and cares, they would approve the measure, too.
I know of at least 3 NO votes on this issue. We’ll have to see how this plays out and if it does pass, then standby to pay for another arnor and whatever else any other neighborhood wants, except of course the poorer neighborhoods. Status quo
Bring it on to the East Bluff! I don’t think this item will pass or will be deffered. But if it does, Bring it here!
I’ve heard tell this is going to be deferred. I hope so. I agree with previous commenters that the best course of action would be to divide the question. Figure out what our policy is going to be and then decide which neighborhood will get first crack at the new policy. That’s the fair way.
Otherwise, it looks like the policy is being changed specifically to benefit one particular neighborhood.
Crap!
Von – so you live in the Orchard District – or it’s crap to defer it – or rewriting policy is crap? You’re so vague, my friend. 😉
Why not cover the background on this story? A petition was turned into the city for the Orchard district with over 50% of homeowners signing off on it. The city had the project on the to do list. Then I and others threw a monkey wrench into the plans by pointing out that the “established and active neighborhood association” had lied to people to get the signitures.
homeowner,
Are you saying the neighborhood really does not want decorative lighting? Lied how?
Perhaps run a counter petition.
As long as they don’t put in the obnoxious yellow colored lights, I know the visibility is supposed to be better but they can make a whole neighborhood look like and industrial parking lot, esp. in the winter. White light for decorative.
The Orchard district is just the new name for Flora/Ellis. They had gotten such a bad rep. in the past that they changed the name so you all would not know who they were. The “established and active neighborhood association” is the same crew who may be better known for how they have run the West Bluff NHS.