Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Land Trust Buster on 01-23-09
A land trust is Communist Capitalism at it’s best. We the “land trust” will always dictate to you the “owner/payor” what can and can’t be done with the house/property, as long as you pay your bill, including the amount you can sale it for in your future. We can re-sale the property if you resist. Govt. Funds + Community Land Trust = Communist Control
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By i.no-trusts on 01-23-09
All these nationalization tactics reminds of the Swedish banking problem in the 1990’s. The Swedish government took over prime stock holders shares (the one’s with votes) with bailout money and nationalized there banking institution. This will happen to kalispell citizens that play the victim card instead of demanding accountability. Your leaders will be in control of your freedom’s…...good luck….....Sheep!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Scott Brown on 01-23-09
Land trusts are not the choice of most of the country or the world to provide for workforce housing and as a means to keep it affordable for future generations.
The mechanism which works and is most common is “deed restrictions and resale cap rates”.
Housing authorities experimented with land trusts and found them to be too easily manipulated by local politics and and neighbors, plus they by nature are all concentrated and do not allow for “sprinkling” homes throughout communities.
Land Trusts are better than nothing when it comes to providing workforce housing, but fall short in comparison.
Telluride and Aspen, and now all the other ski resorts and most city programs have determined that deed restrictions which state that an applicant must “live in the town, work full time and own no other home in the region” and can only sell the home to someone that meets the same restriction with a maximum profit allowed of 3% per year is the program that works.
The owner can sell their home on the open market in a deed restricted market as compared to free market homes. The homes stay affordable and stay in the hands of working people and families and it does not take a committee meeting of the land trust board that owns the land to approve the sale or agree what is a fair price.
This system sounds a lot like King Henry and serfdom where you could own you house, but not the land.
We got rid of this centuries ago.
Why would you bring it back?
Land trusts like soft-seconds and have come and gone.
They do not work.
You missed the point.
They work to some extent, but they are not being used widely, and they are not the best program.
Deed restrictions and cap rates are better. We have been doing ownership workforce housing in Aspen and Telluride for 35 years and we know from trial and error experience.
One-third of our full-time residents live in deed restricted housing. We are talking thousands of units.
Not owning the land underneath your home is not owning, it is serfdom, and I’m sure they still think it OK in England where serfdom was famously successful for the kings and earls, but it is not acceptable in the United States.
The land is owned by someone else, so you are beholding to that entity and they can change the rules, go out of business, or the Board of Directors can just change and reinterprete the rules.
A deed restriction is a legal document that is filed and recorded and the home and the land is owned by the owner not some non-profit.
The calculation of the maximum sale price of the property in the event of a sale is controlled by the 3% cap rate which is just a simple calculation and does not require a meeting of the board that owns the land and is not debatable, or arguable, or up for negotiation based on whether the board likes you or not this week.
I will be happy to send you a sample deed restriction if you would like to see one.
I know of trailer parks that work this way in Mexico, but I must admit this is the first time I’ve heard of anyone doing ownership affordable/workforce housing on rented land.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Bob Oaks on 01-23-09
The relative merits of ground leases vs. deed restrictions used to trigger passionate debate among community land trust prctitioners. Much less partisan now, the central criterion is how well perpetual affordability can be secured and there are good arguments for both sides. The national CLT Network now includes nonprofits that use either and sometimes both models in their housing programs. A fairly straight forward analysis of the pros and cons is available at: http://www.burlingtonassociates.net/resources/archives/Affordability Restrictions.pdf
I’m surprised that there is anyone out there, still, who is so doctrinaire and ill-informed as to think that a 99-year legally enforceable ground lease is something “up for negotiation based on whether the board likes you or not this week.“
I can’t get the links to work.
I think I found the paper. I know this guy. He likes “soft seconds”, obviously I don’t. But his analysis is interesting. If only I could get the money he gets to write papers for NHT to build more housing with.
Here is something for you to look at while I read this deal.
Send me an email. I have a paper I wrote entitled, “The Solution to the Foreclosure Crisis” that I’d like you to read.
I can’t get cut/paste to work on this site.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Annie Oakly on 01-23-09
Amazing! How you seperate people and make reference to “workforce housing”. Can you define this? Who makes up workforce housing? What is the debt ratio formula? What are the qualifications? Hasn’t overpriced land, mortgage miscues, and housing cost this nation and Montana enough? Just another Nationalization Investment Strategy for the wealthy to keep control of their ASSetts. They planned for tourist town and got China’s borders opening to become the leading trend of global travel. They kept building commercial retail space but got the internet and the death of the relevence of brick and mortar buildings.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Scott Brown on 01-23-09
Workforce housing is for gainfully employed individuals that make somewhere between 80% to 130% of AMI. The usual examples are firemen, teachers, nurses, etc.or, “essential people” in our communities that cannot afford to own an adequate home in a safe neighborhood with good schools.
From experience, I can tell you that there is no alternative to developing programs so that the rich are not the only people who can own a home. It works in Telluride and Aspen which are extreme examples of the rich peoples hubris. The average price of a home in Aspen is near $5 million. Without a Housing Authority, responsive government that allows breaks for developers that build workforce house (inclusionalry zoning), a dedicated funding source (1% RETT) which delivers approx. $10 million per year to the housing fund there would be no community, no workers and just a bunch or rich people wandering around wondering when someone was going to take out the trash.
It is just OK to be a normal person, work for a living, love you children and family, ski 50 days a year, hike the wilderness and smile alot and live in workforce housing.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By goofballs on 01-23-09
Just another way for the developers to BS the planners, reiview boards and commissioners into thinking the land barons are kind and honest and will sell something to poor people…. WRONG.
Go look at the lot prices at Sliverbrook and million dollar houses there after they BS’s everyone that they would have some lower income inventory.
Not after the approval…. it all goes out the window! Lucky the dump within walking distance because thats the future. Soon there will no workers and only horse trailers driving around town with the trash.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Sam Adams on 01-23-09
Scott Brown you are a trip. Skiing 50 days would usually occur in the 90 days known as winter. According to my research, most teachers, fireman and nurses don’t get those days off. I think that what you are really saying is there should be subsidized affordable housing so you can screw off as much as possible.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Lander Zone on 01-23-09
I don’t like the thought of dual ownership let alone a triparite governance. Land Trusts are used for privacy, there is no public record of purchase and they protect true owner barons. These barons use them for asset protection or hiding assets to avoid creditors. Also, when a homeowner wants to sell the home the baron’s of the land trust will tell you who you can sell it to and for how much. A wise investor knows this will not help the foreclosure problem. Used heavily by public figures all the way down to the local level, espeacially helpful when these figures get in trouble with the law.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Funguymon on 01-23-09
So let me get this straight. The city applies now so you can get tax payer money for a non profit organization to own land to rent out to other people for no profit. I would say the profit part is the land itself, not the paper money itself. Toooooooooo much government deciding where our money goesssssssss. Let’s end this #### people….... Maybe these hard workers would have more money if the government didn’t tax us to death. So, I vote no on this!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Freedom on 01-25-09
Hasn’t anyone ever heard of Irvine, California? The Irvine family did this years ago and it has been going on ever since. In Irvine you DO NOT own the land you lease it for 99 years. There is no cap on what you can sell “the house” for but you willl always have the land lease payment. It is amazing to me that in this country this can happen, however, it has been happening for years…nothin new folks, just different players. Oh and by the way the Irvine family is worth billions!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Bob Oaks on 01-26-09
The Irving CLT incorporated in March of 2006 for the reasons described below in (1.) Shelterforce Magazine (Issue #149, Spring 2007) and (2.) by the City of Irvine on March 15, 2006
1. Irvine, California
The City of Irvine came slowly to the community land-trust model. By learning from earlier policy mistakes and by seizing an opportunity to create thousands of moderately priced homes, however, Irvine found its way to this innovative model of permanently affordable housing.
In 1975, housing advocates in southern California sued the still-brand new City of Irvine. The Irvine Company, the private development company responsible for the city’s planning and construction, was preparing to build office and industrial parks that would make Irvine a major regional employment center. But Orange County’s tracts of ranch houses didn’t offer reasonable housing options for the people who would work in the newly created jobs. To settle the suit, Irvine launched one of the nation’s first inclusionary-housing programs. The program’s initial success led the city to expand its scope, requiring that 15 percent of all newly built housing must be affordable to low- or moderate-income households. Since the mid-1970s, Irvine has produced more than 4,400 units of affordable housing-a significant achievement for a town of 62,000 housing units.
Unfortunately, Irvine’s inclusionary-housing program required the units to remain affordable for only 13 to 30 years. When the control period ends, the housing can be converted to market-rate. As a result, more than 1,000 affordable units already have been lost. Many of the remaining affordability controls will expire during the next 10 years, leaving Irvine with little to show for its pioneering effort to make room for working families.
Faced with the impending loss, the Irvine City Council convened a housing task force in 2005. Led by Mayor Beth Krom, the task force was charged with searching for strategies to preserve affordable housing and developing a plan for capitalizing on a unique opportunity to increase the affordable-housing supply. In 1999, the Marine Corps had closed the El Toro Air Station, a 4,700-acre military base adjacent to the city. After years of public debate about how to reuse the El Toro site, including a proposal to develop an international airport that was rejected by voter referendum, the city decided to create one of the nation’s largest urban parks and a new mixed-income, mixed-use community surrounding it.
The housing task force drafted a strategy in 2006 that called upon Irvine to develop 9,700 new affordable-housing units-10 percent of the city’s housing stock-and to place these units under the stewardship of a municipally sponsored CLT. The community land trust is still a relatively new idea in California, but the model was familiar to many in Irvine because the University of California has long used land leases to preserve faculty housing around its Irvine campus. The task force’s recommendations were unanimously supported by the city council.
The Irvine Community Land Trust (ICLT) was incorporated in March 2006. The city council budgeted $250,000 in start-up funding for the land trust. In addition, the city’s redevelopment agency is providing staffing to the organization while the land trust’s first projects are developed.
Irvine is well served by existing nonprofit and for-profit developers of affordable housing, so it is not intended that the ICLT will serve as a developer. Instead, the land trust will focus on long-term stewardship, finding and screening buyers for homeownership units and monitoring those units over time.
Mayor Krom regards the land trust as an integral part of Irvine’s sustainability plan. Given the city’s history of creating high-quality, affordable housing that is integrated into the community, Krom is excited about the opportunities the Irvine Community Land Trust presents. “Irvine has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to significantly expand affordable housing to meet the needs of a broader spectrum of people-particularly those who work in our city but cannot afford housing here,“ she says. “The city and the land trust board will work with our private and nonprofit developers to effectively leverage our resources, tripling our inventory of affordable housing over the next 15-20 years and establishing permanent affordability.“
2. Irvine Adopts Housing Strategy
Land Trust created to support affordable housing
IRVINE, CA (March 15, 2006): At the March 14 meeting of Irvine City Council, a new housing strategy was approved. The plan calls for the development of the Irvine Community Land Trust to create permanently affordable housing in Irvine. When the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station was annexed, the City established a housing task force. It recommended the City adopt a goal of 9,700 units of affordable housing by 2025 representing approximately 10% of the city’s housing stock.
“The creation of the Irvine Community Land Trust will facilitate the City’s ability to continue providing a full spectrum of housing needs for our residents,” said Mayor Beth Krom. “It will also help us address the challenge of providing high-quality, affordable housing in perpetuity.”
A seven-member Board of Directors made up of two City representatives, three members of local community organizations, and two members elected by the eventual residents living in Trust units will oversee the Trust’s activities. Mayor Beth Krom and Councilwoman Christina Shea have been appointed to serve as the interim Board. The City Council will appoint all seven members within the next 60 days.
Since its incorporation, Irvine has created affordable housing that is fully integrated within the community. The City currently has 4,400 units of affordable housing, 3,155 developed through its inclusionary housing program, which requires 15% of all new housing to be affordable, and another 1,245 created through HUD-assisted projects in partnership with nonprofit organizations.
Community land trusts are used to create permanent affordable housing. Organized as separate 501c(3) public charities, these trusts obtain land through acquisition or donation and then lease the land to developers to create affordable housing. By maintaining ownership of the land, the trust controls the price of housing built, so both rental and homeownership units remain at affordable levels. They can also lease land for projects that serve people with special housing needs. Community land trusts can also negotiate with developers for deed restrictions and covenants on existing affordable units that are at risk of losing their affordability. Many of the past units created through Irvine’s inclusionary program are in this category.
The City will have a projected $143 million in redevelopment housing set-aside funds generated from the Orange County Great Park project area and a projected equivalent of $125 million from in-lieu fees generated from its inclusionary housing program to support this effort. The housing strategy analysis predicts these resources will have to be leveraged with others to meet the 9,700 unit goal.
Celebrating its 35th anniversary, the City of Irvine has a population of more than 180,000, spans 65 square miles and is recognized as one of America ’s most successful master-planned urban communities. Top-rated educational institutions, an enterprising business atmosphere, sound environmental stewardship, respect for diversity and a commitment to community safety all contribute to Irvine’s enviable quality of life. This family-friendly city features more than 2,600 acres of parks, sports fields and dedicated open space and is the future home of the Orange County Great Park – the first great metropolitan park of the 21st century. For more information, please visit http://www.ci.irvine.ca.us.
City of Irvine Public Information Office
1 Civic Center Plaza, Irvine, CA 92606
PHONE: (949) 724-6077 • FAX: (949) 724-6045 http://www.cityofirvine.org
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Freedom on 01-26-09
This appears to be a paid political announcement from the City of Irvine. It is all well and good to offer these wonderful affordable homes to the people, (and why are they building MORE affordable homes if they already have them?) but look at it logically folks. Why are manufactured houses so cheap and are they not built as well as site built..check it out, they are sometimes better (I can testify to that) but the real reason? No land! So yes you can buy a heck of a house for $100,000 if you have the land to put it on. Now the real reason that Irvine was able to get this “wonderful” job done was because lenders in the 80’s (who had never lent on leased land) finally agreed that they would but ONLY if it had a 99 year lease! Ok, so now we have the Irvine Company (family) knowing they have a gold mine (and by the way prices of housing at that time were NOT UNAFFORABLE..I was there!) they decided to LEASE the land instead of selling it. People that wanted to live close to their jobs in Irvine were FORCED to buy these homes (there weren’t any others, IRVINE WAS OWNED BY THE IRVINE COMPANY… period. Everything was leased and the Irvine Company made millions and still do. When I first came to Montana in 2003 and got into Real Estate I pleaded with builders to build “low income housing”. A very few agreed but even then we are talking 860 sf condos for 129,000! Give me a break folks, we are talking a time when a lot was sellng for 35,000 and you could build a house for 80.00/sf. You figure it out. The builders WANTED to build $300,000 houses for more profit and the Realtors pumped them for more profit. The land went up and the costs went up and up and profit was all anyone cared about. Now we sit with houses that cannot be sold and everybody is looking at the people out there that need homes to bring it all back, However, instead of being realistic with prices of houses and land (and I know it can be done today just like it has been in the past) the developers and builders and the rest of the group have decided that this “land trust” is the future of the flathead. Watch out folks, the only one making money in this little scheem is the “trust”. They will own that land forever and you will own the box sitting on it! Oh and by the way, you will pay every month or every year (depends on the trust) to be allowed to sit your box on that land…It is a trailer park in disguise! Very PRETTY but a trailer park none the less. It is a townhouse. You own the house but not the land. Here’s another one, in a condo, you don’t even own the walls, you own the airspace within the walls! Don’t believe me, look it up. I was in Irvine and in the lending business when the whole thing started. Those houses are now considered “unaffordable”, so, here we go again on another piece of property. Pretty smart! By the way, what do you think the word “affordable” means in Irvine, Ca. In 2003 I desperately tried to get houses (1000sf) built and sold for $100,000 to $120,000…NOBODY WOULD DO IT AND DON’T KID YOURSELF, THEY COULD HAVE!!!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Freedom on 01-27-09
Well, where are all the pro “land trust” people now. Did this one shut you up…should have, it’s the truth!!!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By AlwaysMontana on 01-27-09
Reading all this really reminds me of the practice of “sharecropping”....just in a more formal attire.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
In order to post comments you must register once with the Beacon and be logged in. Log in below or register now.
Cat-Griz: 109th Meeting Could Have Playoff Implications
A Holiday Curtain Call
Mixed Martial Arts Return to Kalispell
DOR Director Says Reappraisal Process Working
After 42 Years, Books West Closes its Doors
Comments on: Are Land Trusts an Answer to Affordable Housing?
Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Land Trust Buster on 01-23-09
A land trust is Communist Capitalism at it’s best. We the “land trust” will always dictate to you the “owner/payor” what can and can’t be done with the house/property, as long as you pay your bill, including the amount you can sale it for in your future. We can re-sale the property if you resist. Govt. Funds + Community Land Trust = Communist Control
By i.no-trusts on 01-23-09
All these nationalization tactics reminds of the Swedish banking problem in the 1990’s. The Swedish government took over prime stock holders shares (the one’s with votes) with bailout money and nationalized there banking institution. This will happen to kalispell citizens that play the victim card instead of demanding accountability. Your leaders will be in control of your freedom’s…...good luck….....Sheep!
By Scott Brown on 01-23-09
Land trusts are not the choice of most of the country or the world to provide for workforce housing and as a means to keep it affordable for future generations.
The mechanism which works and is most common is “deed restrictions and resale cap rates”.
Housing authorities experimented with land trusts and found them to be too easily manipulated by local politics and and neighbors, plus they by nature are all concentrated and do not allow for “sprinkling” homes throughout communities.
Land Trusts are better than nothing when it comes to providing workforce housing, but fall short in comparison.
Telluride and Aspen, and now all the other ski resorts and most city programs have determined that deed restrictions which state that an applicant must “live in the town, work full time and own no other home in the region” and can only sell the home to someone that meets the same restriction with a maximum profit allowed of 3% per year is the program that works.
The owner can sell their home on the open market in a deed restricted market as compared to free market homes. The homes stay affordable and stay in the hands of working people and families and it does not take a committee meeting of the land trust board that owns the land to approve the sale or agree what is a fair price.
This system sounds a lot like King Henry and serfdom where you could own you house, but not the land.
We got rid of this centuries ago.
Why would you bring it back?
Land trusts like soft-seconds and have come and gone.
They do not work.
By Bob Oaks on 01-23-09
Moving from opinion to fact, there is ample evidence that community land trusts do indeed work. Data collected over an almost twenty-year period by the Burlington Community Land Trust (now the Lake Champlain Housing Trust) confirm that —see: http://www.champlainhousingtrust.org/assets/pdf/publications/permanent_affordable_homeownership.pdf
Moving back to opinion, there is pretty solid weight behind CLT’s there, too. On “World Habitat Day” in October of 2008 the Lake Champlain Housing Trust was awarded the International United Nations World Habitat Award—see:
http://www.worldhabitatawards.org/winners-and-finalists/project-details.cfm?lang=00&theProjectID=97E5A778-15C5-F4C0-995D3E37BF5D5CDF
What might be considered communistic, seems very much in the eye of the beholder. In the UK, CLT’s are the affordable home ownership strategy of choice of the Conservative Party—see: http://www.communitylandtrust.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=148&Itemid=36
Bob Oaks
Executive Director, NMCDC
By Scott Brown on 01-23-09
You missed the point.
They work to some extent, but they are not being used widely, and they are not the best program.
Deed restrictions and cap rates are better. We have been doing ownership workforce housing in Aspen and Telluride for 35 years and we know from trial and error experience.
One-third of our full-time residents live in deed restricted housing. We are talking thousands of units.
Not owning the land underneath your home is not owning, it is serfdom, and I’m sure they still think it OK in England where serfdom was famously successful for the kings and earls, but it is not acceptable in the United States.
The land is owned by someone else, so you are beholding to that entity and they can change the rules, go out of business, or the Board of Directors can just change and reinterprete the rules.
A deed restriction is a legal document that is filed and recorded and the home and the land is owned by the owner not some non-profit.
The calculation of the maximum sale price of the property in the event of a sale is controlled by the 3% cap rate which is just a simple calculation and does not require a meeting of the board that owns the land and is not debatable, or arguable, or up for negotiation based on whether the board likes you or not this week.
I will be happy to send you a sample deed restriction if you would like to see one.
I know of trailer parks that work this way in Mexico, but I must admit this is the first time I’ve heard of anyone doing ownership affordable/workforce housing on rented land.
By Bob Oaks on 01-23-09
The relative merits of ground leases vs. deed restrictions used to trigger passionate debate among community land trust prctitioners. Much less partisan now, the central criterion is how well perpetual affordability can be secured and there are good arguments for both sides. The national CLT Network now includes nonprofits that use either and sometimes both models in their housing programs. A fairly straight forward analysis of the pros and cons is available at:
http://www.burlingtonassociates.net/resources/archives/Affordability Restrictions.pdf
I’m surprised that there is anyone out there, still, who is so doctrinaire and ill-informed as to think that a 99-year legally enforceable ground lease is something “up for negotiation based on whether the board likes you or not this week.“
Bob Oaks
By Bob Oaks on 01-23-09
I’ll try that link again:
http://www.burlingtonassociates.net/resources/archives/Affordability Restrictions.pdf
By Scott Brown on 01-23-09
I can’t get the links to work.
I think I found the paper. I know this guy. He likes “soft seconds”, obviously I don’t. But his analysis is interesting. If only I could get the money he gets to write papers for NHT to build more housing with.
Here is something for you to look at while I read this deal.
Send me an email. I have a paper I wrote entitled, “The Solution to the Foreclosure Crisis” that I’d like you to read.
I can’t get cut/paste to work on this site.
By Annie Oakly on 01-23-09
Amazing! How you seperate people and make reference to “workforce housing”. Can you define this? Who makes up workforce housing? What is the debt ratio formula? What are the qualifications? Hasn’t overpriced land, mortgage miscues, and housing cost this nation and Montana enough? Just another Nationalization Investment Strategy for the wealthy to keep control of their ASSetts. They planned for tourist town and got China’s borders opening to become the leading trend of global travel. They kept building commercial retail space but got the internet and the death of the relevence of brick and mortar buildings.
By Scott Brown on 01-23-09
Workforce housing is for gainfully employed individuals that make somewhere between 80% to 130% of AMI. The usual examples are firemen, teachers, nurses, etc.or, “essential people” in our communities that cannot afford to own an adequate home in a safe neighborhood with good schools.
From experience, I can tell you that there is no alternative to developing programs so that the rich are not the only people who can own a home. It works in Telluride and Aspen which are extreme examples of the rich peoples hubris. The average price of a home in Aspen is near $5 million. Without a Housing Authority, responsive government that allows breaks for developers that build workforce house (inclusionalry zoning), a dedicated funding source (1% RETT) which delivers approx. $10 million per year to the housing fund there would be no community, no workers and just a bunch or rich people wandering around wondering when someone was going to take out the trash.
It is just OK to be a normal person, work for a living, love you children and family, ski 50 days a year, hike the wilderness and smile alot and live in workforce housing.
By goofballs on 01-23-09
Just another way for the developers to BS the planners, reiview boards and commissioners into thinking the land barons are kind and honest and will sell something to poor people…. WRONG.
Go look at the lot prices at Sliverbrook and million dollar houses there after they BS’s everyone that they would have some lower income inventory.
Not after the approval…. it all goes out the window! Lucky the dump within walking distance because thats the future. Soon there will no workers and only horse trailers driving around town with the trash.
By Sam Adams on 01-23-09
Scott Brown you are a trip. Skiing 50 days would usually occur in the 90 days known as winter. According to my research, most teachers, fireman and nurses don’t get those days off. I think that what you are really saying is there should be subsidized affordable housing so you can screw off as much as possible.
By Lander Zone on 01-23-09
I don’t like the thought of dual ownership let alone a triparite governance. Land Trusts are used for privacy, there is no public record of purchase and they protect true owner barons. These barons use them for asset protection or hiding assets to avoid creditors. Also, when a homeowner wants to sell the home the baron’s of the land trust will tell you who you can sell it to and for how much. A wise investor knows this will not help the foreclosure problem. Used heavily by public figures all the way down to the local level, espeacially helpful when these figures get in trouble with the law.
By Funguymon on 01-23-09
So let me get this straight. The city applies now so you can get tax payer money for a non profit organization to own land to rent out to other people for no profit. I would say the profit part is the land itself, not the paper money itself. Toooooooooo much government deciding where our money goesssssssss. Let’s end this #### people….... Maybe these hard workers would have more money if the government didn’t tax us to death. So, I vote no on this!
By Freedom on 01-25-09
Hasn’t anyone ever heard of Irvine, California? The Irvine family did this years ago and it has been going on ever since. In Irvine you DO NOT own the land you lease it for 99 years. There is no cap on what you can sell “the house” for but you willl always have the land lease payment. It is amazing to me that in this country this can happen, however, it has been happening for years…nothin new folks, just different players. Oh and by the way the Irvine family is worth billions!
By Bob Oaks on 01-26-09
The Irving CLT incorporated in March of 2006 for the reasons described below in (1.) Shelterforce Magazine (Issue #149, Spring 2007) and (2.) by the City of Irvine on March 15, 2006
1. Irvine, California
The City of Irvine came slowly to the community land-trust model. By learning from earlier policy mistakes and by seizing an opportunity to create thousands of moderately priced homes, however, Irvine found its way to this innovative model of permanently affordable housing.
In 1975, housing advocates in southern California sued the still-brand new City of Irvine. The Irvine Company, the private development company responsible for the city’s planning and construction, was preparing to build office and industrial parks that would make Irvine a major regional employment center. But Orange County’s tracts of ranch houses didn’t offer reasonable housing options for the people who would work in the newly created jobs. To settle the suit, Irvine launched one of the nation’s first inclusionary-housing programs. The program’s initial success led the city to expand its scope, requiring that 15 percent of all newly built housing must be affordable to low- or moderate-income households. Since the mid-1970s, Irvine has produced more than 4,400 units of affordable housing-a significant achievement for a town of 62,000 housing units.
Unfortunately, Irvine’s inclusionary-housing program required the units to remain affordable for only 13 to 30 years. When the control period ends, the housing can be converted to market-rate. As a result, more than 1,000 affordable units already have been lost. Many of the remaining affordability controls will expire during the next 10 years, leaving Irvine with little to show for its pioneering effort to make room for working families.
Faced with the impending loss, the Irvine City Council convened a housing task force in 2005. Led by Mayor Beth Krom, the task force was charged with searching for strategies to preserve affordable housing and developing a plan for capitalizing on a unique opportunity to increase the affordable-housing supply. In 1999, the Marine Corps had closed the El Toro Air Station, a 4,700-acre military base adjacent to the city. After years of public debate about how to reuse the El Toro site, including a proposal to develop an international airport that was rejected by voter referendum, the city decided to create one of the nation’s largest urban parks and a new mixed-income, mixed-use community surrounding it.
The housing task force drafted a strategy in 2006 that called upon Irvine to develop 9,700 new affordable-housing units-10 percent of the city’s housing stock-and to place these units under the stewardship of a municipally sponsored CLT. The community land trust is still a relatively new idea in California, but the model was familiar to many in Irvine because the University of California has long used land leases to preserve faculty housing around its Irvine campus. The task force’s recommendations were unanimously supported by the city council.
The Irvine Community Land Trust (ICLT) was incorporated in March 2006. The city council budgeted $250,000 in start-up funding for the land trust. In addition, the city’s redevelopment agency is providing staffing to the organization while the land trust’s first projects are developed.
Irvine is well served by existing nonprofit and for-profit developers of affordable housing, so it is not intended that the ICLT will serve as a developer. Instead, the land trust will focus on long-term stewardship, finding and screening buyers for homeownership units and monitoring those units over time.
Mayor Krom regards the land trust as an integral part of Irvine’s sustainability plan. Given the city’s history of creating high-quality, affordable housing that is integrated into the community, Krom is excited about the opportunities the Irvine Community Land Trust presents. “Irvine has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to significantly expand affordable housing to meet the needs of a broader spectrum of people-particularly those who work in our city but cannot afford housing here,“ she says. “The city and the land trust board will work with our private and nonprofit developers to effectively leverage our resources, tripling our inventory of affordable housing over the next 15-20 years and establishing permanent affordability.“
2. Irvine Adopts Housing Strategy
Land Trust created to support affordable housing
IRVINE, CA (March 15, 2006): At the March 14 meeting of Irvine City Council, a new housing strategy was approved. The plan calls for the development of the Irvine Community Land Trust to create permanently affordable housing in Irvine. When the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station was annexed, the City established a housing task force. It recommended the City adopt a goal of 9,700 units of affordable housing by 2025 representing approximately 10% of the city’s housing stock.
“The creation of the Irvine Community Land Trust will facilitate the City’s ability to continue providing a full spectrum of housing needs for our residents,” said Mayor Beth Krom. “It will also help us address the challenge of providing high-quality, affordable housing in perpetuity.”
A seven-member Board of Directors made up of two City representatives, three members of local community organizations, and two members elected by the eventual residents living in Trust units will oversee the Trust’s activities. Mayor Beth Krom and Councilwoman Christina Shea have been appointed to serve as the interim Board. The City Council will appoint all seven members within the next 60 days.
Since its incorporation, Irvine has created affordable housing that is fully integrated within the community. The City currently has 4,400 units of affordable housing, 3,155 developed through its inclusionary housing program, which requires 15% of all new housing to be affordable, and another 1,245 created through HUD-assisted projects in partnership with nonprofit organizations.
Community land trusts are used to create permanent affordable housing. Organized as separate 501c(3) public charities, these trusts obtain land through acquisition or donation and then lease the land to developers to create affordable housing. By maintaining ownership of the land, the trust controls the price of housing built, so both rental and homeownership units remain at affordable levels. They can also lease land for projects that serve people with special housing needs. Community land trusts can also negotiate with developers for deed restrictions and covenants on existing affordable units that are at risk of losing their affordability. Many of the past units created through Irvine’s inclusionary program are in this category.
The City will have a projected $143 million in redevelopment housing set-aside funds generated from the Orange County Great Park project area and a projected equivalent of $125 million from in-lieu fees generated from its inclusionary housing program to support this effort. The housing strategy analysis predicts these resources will have to be leveraged with others to meet the 9,700 unit goal.
Celebrating its 35th anniversary, the City of Irvine has a population of more than 180,000, spans 65 square miles and is recognized as one of America ’s most successful master-planned urban communities. Top-rated educational institutions, an enterprising business atmosphere, sound environmental stewardship, respect for diversity and a commitment to community safety all contribute to Irvine’s enviable quality of life. This family-friendly city features more than 2,600 acres of parks, sports fields and dedicated open space and is the future home of the Orange County Great Park – the first great metropolitan park of the 21st century. For more information, please visit http://www.ci.irvine.ca.us.
City of Irvine Public Information Office
1 Civic Center Plaza, Irvine, CA 92606
PHONE: (949) 724-6077 • FAX: (949) 724-6045
http://www.cityofirvine.org
By Freedom on 01-26-09
This appears to be a paid political announcement from the City of Irvine. It is all well and good to offer these wonderful affordable homes to the people, (and why are they building MORE affordable homes if they already have them?) but look at it logically folks. Why are manufactured houses so cheap and are they not built as well as site built..check it out, they are sometimes better (I can testify to that) but the real reason? No land! So yes you can buy a heck of a house for $100,000 if you have the land to put it on. Now the real reason that Irvine was able to get this “wonderful” job done was because lenders in the 80’s (who had never lent on leased land) finally agreed that they would but ONLY if it had a 99 year lease! Ok, so now we have the Irvine Company (family) knowing they have a gold mine (and by the way prices of housing at that time were NOT UNAFFORABLE..I was there!) they decided to LEASE the land instead of selling it. People that wanted to live close to their jobs in Irvine were FORCED to buy these homes (there weren’t any others, IRVINE WAS OWNED BY THE IRVINE COMPANY… period. Everything was leased and the Irvine Company made millions and still do. When I first came to Montana in 2003 and got into Real Estate I pleaded with builders to build “low income housing”. A very few agreed but even then we are talking 860 sf condos for 129,000! Give me a break folks, we are talking a time when a lot was sellng for 35,000 and you could build a house for 80.00/sf. You figure it out. The builders WANTED to build $300,000 houses for more profit and the Realtors pumped them for more profit. The land went up and the costs went up and up and profit was all anyone cared about. Now we sit with houses that cannot be sold and everybody is looking at the people out there that need homes to bring it all back, However, instead of being realistic with prices of houses and land (and I know it can be done today just like it has been in the past) the developers and builders and the rest of the group have decided that this “land trust” is the future of the flathead. Watch out folks, the only one making money in this little scheem is the “trust”. They will own that land forever and you will own the box sitting on it! Oh and by the way, you will pay every month or every year (depends on the trust) to be allowed to sit your box on that land…It is a trailer park in disguise! Very PRETTY but a trailer park none the less. It is a townhouse. You own the house but not the land. Here’s another one, in a condo, you don’t even own the walls, you own the airspace within the walls! Don’t believe me, look it up. I was in Irvine and in the lending business when the whole thing started. Those houses are now considered “unaffordable”, so, here we go again on another piece of property. Pretty smart! By the way, what do you think the word “affordable” means in Irvine, Ca. In 2003 I desperately tried to get houses (1000sf) built and sold for $100,000 to $120,000…NOBODY WOULD DO IT AND DON’T KID YOURSELF, THEY COULD HAVE!!!
By Freedom on 01-27-09
Well, where are all the pro “land trust” people now. Did this one shut you up…should have, it’s the truth!!!
By AlwaysMontana on 01-27-09
Reading all this really reminds me of the practice of “sharecropping”....just in a more formal attire.