Home » Blogs » Sue Carlson's blog

Land trust honors Moran

Submitted by Sue Carlson on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 5:23pm.

At its first annual meeting on May 6, the Citizens' Lighthouse Community Land Trust (CLCLT) honored Evanston Alderman Edmund Moran.

CLCLT presented the alderman with a house-shaped award in recognition of his long-term advocacy of affordable housing in Evanston.  In particular, Ald. Moran has been a friend and consistent supporter of the community land trust idea.

The annual meeting also included a panel of speakers about affordable housing.  The panelists included Mary Ellen Tamasy, current executive director of the Housing Opportunity Development Corporation and former director of Highland Park’s Community Land Trust; William Howard, executive director of the First Community Land Trust in Chicago; and Kevin Jackson, executive director of the Chicago Rehabilitation Network.  They gave compelling reasons for community support for the land trust model, which is designed to ensure the permanent affordability of homes.

CLCLT Executive Director Wilfred Gadsden explained that land trust homes are affordable at the outset because the cost of the land is removed from what a low-to-moderate-income family must finance to become homeowners.  Because the land trust retains ownership of the land in perpetuity, a homebuyer need only qualify for a mortgage to purchase the home itself.  Permanent affordability is assured because a resale formula sets a ceiling on the resale price of the home, which, when the initial owner decides to move, may be sold only to another income-qualified household.  In an era of rising real estate prices, the initial homeowner will earn a capital gain on the original investment, but the size of the gain will be limited by the resale formula in order to insure that the home remains affordable to another family.

There is a great need for homes in Evanston for individuals and families at or below 80% of the area median income.  Any subsidies given to make a land trust home affordable remain permanently with the home. That means CLCLT will provide opportunities to new families to achieve the goal of homeownership for generations to come.

Is Ed.Moran's support of the land trust in the public interest?

Submitted by Junad Rizki on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 10:25pm.
It appears to me as a council member Alderperson Moran should want to keep properties on the tax rolls. While the supporters of the land trust have not come out and stated anything about tax status being a not for profit is is likely they will remove the properties from the tax rolls. Thus every tax payer in Evanston from the 7,000 residents in poverty in Evanston to the richest residents will pay for the property removed from the tax rolls. Alderperson Moran should stop using our money for his private charities. I think he needs to explain the value in worrying about keeping people at the 80% of median income in town, since it means little - for diversity.

Alderman Moran's Recognition by the Community Land Trust

Submitted by Daniel Maloney on Fri, 05/11/2007 - 12:36pm.
Junad Riski's comment on the award given to Alderman Moran by the CLCLT makes an assumption and jumps to a conclusion. The assumption that properties purchased by CLCLT will be removed from the tax roles because of the not for profit status of the CLCLT, in my understanding, is not correct. The purchaser of housing situated on land trust property will be responsible for all property taxes. The assessed valuation of the property, however, may be less than if the house had sold at market rates. Appeals of assessed valuation is a task that many Evanston taxpayers are currently engaged in. If successful, would they in effect be passing along a greater tax burden to the rest of the community? Dan Maloney

The community land trust needs to inform the public

Submitted by Junad Rizki on Sat, 05/12/2007 - 7:28pm.
Daniel - the community land trust needs to inform the public its position on if it will remove property from the tax rolls. If the buyer pays for the improvements the house they pay the tax on that - but if the trust holds the property will it be off the tax rolls. If you are a member of the board of this organization please inform the public, it is a very logical conclusion to assume a non-for profit will remove properties from the tax rolls - unless of course you have different information?

Land trust does not remove property from tax rolls

Submitted by Jeff Smith on Tue, 05/15/2007 - 10:31am.

Putting a property in a land trust does not remove it from the tax rolls. It might affect the assessment because it might be put in a different class, but for a group other than a church or a school to remove a property from taxation is a complicated process that the CLCLT has no plans to go through. To the extent that CLCLT ends up replacing board-ups or rundown properties with rehabbed property, the land trust may even benefit the tax base. Also, making housing more affordable frees up households to spend more in the community on goods and services that generate tax revenue.

For other features and benefits of community land trusts see generally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust

"Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government."

Jeff are you a member of the board of the land trust?

Submitted by Junad Rizki on Tue, 05/15/2007 - 10:00pm.
Jeff you stated "remove a property from taxation is a complicated process that the CLCLT has no plans to go through." are you a member of the board? also why would the property be put in a different class - if it was a house? "Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government." "Too many people in this town want to use some one else's pond to play in!" ( that is make developers pay for affordable housing )

the ultimate irony

Submitted by vito brugliera on Fri, 05/11/2007 - 4:32pm.

The ultimate irony of the award is that the likelihood of any inclusionary zoning in Ald. Moran's ward is very slight.

I doubt that anyone would buy a residential building in his ward, $500,000 and up and sell it to someone making 80% of the median or less, at a price they could afford.

The residents in the vicinity of Central St, have made it abundantly clear that they do not want anything higher than 3 or 4 stories, which precludes any development of 25 units or more, for which the inclusionary zoning is applicable.

Thus the likelihood of housing affordable to anyone at 80% or less of the median in that area is remote, very remote.

Another example of liberal drive-by diversity in Evanston.

Distinguish between residential and business on Central St.

Submitted by Jeff Smith on Tue, 05/15/2007 - 11:05am.

Vito, that's not a fair characterization of the residents' position on Central Street. If you drive up and down Central, you'll see plenty of 4 and even 5-story buildings -- in the residential districts, with appropriate setbacks. The current debate has been primarily about putting dense, multi-use development into the existing low-rise business and commercial districts.

Evanston has allowed thousands of condo units to be built throughout the City with at most a token nod to affordability. Example: the 1700 Central development, with 50 units, will make a contribution of $1700 per unit to the affordable housing fund. By contrast, Chicago is proposing a contribution of $100,000 per unit.

I don't understand the argument that, having neglected affordability while development exploded, we should now, in some sort of belated gesture, overdevelop Central Street's remaining business sectors, and destroy their character, in the name of boosting the affordable housing fund. It's backwards logic. Allowing the development of what was banned or limited by zoning increases land prices. Increased land prices make housing (and commercial space) less affordable.

If the 25-unit threshold is the problem, the solution is to change the threshold, not make developments bigger than they should be.

The obstacle to affordable housing in the Central Street area is not the neighbors, but, as you recognize, the market. Affordable housing experts generally believe that it makes the most sense, both for efficient use of limited resources and for reaching the target market, to develop affordable housing where land is more affordable.

"Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government."

Keep them in their own neighborhood

Submitted by Ron Fleckman on Wed, 05/16/2007 - 11:26am.
Jeff, I found your comments to be offensive. If I understand what you said correctly, people requiring affordable housing should stay in their own neighborhoods. Is that in fact what you meant.

Setting fire to straw men

Submitted by Jeff Smith on Wed, 05/16/2007 - 11:17pm.
Ron, we hadn't met when you typed such a divisive and inflammatory post. I've never even thought such a thing let alone said it. Neighborhoods are support systems, and should not be barriers. It should be easier, not difficult, to move throughout Evanston. But it's more difficult to build affordably if you start with expensive land. That's math, not ideology.

affordable housing on Central St

Submitted by vito brugliera on Tue, 05/15/2007 - 3:04pm.

Jeff,

What I find ironic is that they honor an alderman whose ward is least likely to have any affordable, much less likely, low cost housing.

I am not arguing for more density, just observing the realities of what is permitted and desired by neighbors.

After spending four years and fumbling in the process, the Council passes an ordnance that has little chance of providing any affordable units on Central St -- or elsewhere in the ward because of the 25 unit threshold. I am just stating hard nosed facts. The other fact is that I think the bulk of any large scale, 25 or more units, is likely to be remote given the housing market. The horse is already out of the barn. If there was an attempt to make the threshold smaller I think there would be more opposition.

I agree that affordable housing is more likely to be in areas where housing costs are lower. That is why HCVs are in SE Evanston and not in Wilmette or Winnetka or North Evanston.

affordable housing in NW Evanston

Submitted by Jeff Smith on Thu, 09/27/2007 - 9:59pm.

Vito, believe it or not, the CLCLT has been pursuing the possibility of a property in the 6th Ward. It's not easy but we may make it happen. The market is the barrier. If the goal is affordability, at some point you have to say it makes no sense to pay a 50% premium to be in neighborhood X when you can get the same s.f. for less in neighborhood Y.

On a related note, I noted last night at the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission that one argument for redevelopment of some sites in the 6th Ward would be if it would help provide housing for those who work in north Evanston but can't afford to live here. Contrary to divisive stereotyping, many north Evanstonians favor economic diversity, and city policy that would help both jobs and workers stay in the Central Street planning area. It is not the neighbors who are driving the construction of more luxury condos. The trick is balancing affordability v. density, and that balance is upset when speculative development drives up land value. We do not seek exclusionary zoning; on the contrary, we seek to defuse exclusionary inflation.

"Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government."

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Insert Google Map macro.

More information about formatting options

To combat spam, please enter the code in the image.