Approves the creation of a Special Revenue Fund serving as a revolving loan fund for the specific purpose of creating new affordable housing for the workforce rental population in Denver. (FINANCE & SERVICES) The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-12-14.
Thank you. I move that council bill 620 series of 2014 be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance that creates a special revenue fund, which is an affordable housing revenue fund. If one were evaluating this ordinance only on the design of the special revenue fund it creates. It's thoughtfully constructed to combine numerous sources of money toward an affordable housing goal. The Office of Economic Development delivered what the mayor intended. However, funds don't exist in a vacuum. This one presents several problems and issues, and I like to talk about what I see as those problems and issues. First was a massive disappointment to me. The intention stated by OED, the Office of Economic Development in committee to seek more general fund money to seed it contradicts what I have been assured by the administration during the last budget cycle. You know, when a person goes to great lengths to compromise, you really expect that compromise to be upheld. What was postured as one time funding in the 2014 budget now has morphed into a way to potentially siphon off millions each year short in key basic city functions. A second issue is just I want people to understand this is not the only effort that we are doing about affordable housing. Many other funding sources exist just to name a few. There's housing for persons with AIDS, home funds, community development block grant money, inclusionary housing funds, still private activity bonds, Denver's Road Home, and the Denver Housing Authority, which actually does perhaps the best job. It's not as if the city isn't making headway. The third thing, though, and perhaps is most important, especially given the conversation of some of my colleagues tonight, is the conversation about affordable housing. Now, when I hear terms like the unanimity of all these task force, I can guarantee you, based on what I'm going to say, that a number of the mainstream people from my district were not a part of that discussion. This fund is based on the premise that our citizens feel it's the city's responsibility to supply taxpayer subsidized housing for workforce housing. That's a higher income level than any of the other sources allow. And because of the social engineering aspect that the city likes to put in place, we can expect to see subsidized housing built on more expensive land. Driving up construction costs. One of the reasons taxpayers around the metro area, including Denver voters, funded fast tracks, was to give access to work places for more affordable metro areas. Billions of dollars have already been invested with more to come. But city officials want Denver workers to be able to live in Denver. That's one of the key premises of this. This is not just about housing, about shelter. There's another agenda afloat. I wanted to assess what my constituents think about the city's role in affordable housing. So on this your citizens survey, I asked this question. Housing prices are rising, inventory is low, and wages remain stagnant, making Denver increasingly unaffordable for many people who work in Denver businesses. Now, I think most of you would agree that's a very fair statement. Is it the city, the city's club? Is it the city government's responsibility to see that housing is affordable for people who work in the city? The survey just went out, so I have only a week's worth of responses, but that already equates to 1287 individuals . Only 21% said yes. It's not a scientific survey, but it clearly shows the trends and an internal thinking of the majority of people in my district. And I know from having done these surveys in the past, how to expect those numbers to move when the remainder come in. I also asked if the city should provide developers financial incentives to build affordable workforce housing. Now, that's exactly what this fund does. 30% said yes. To understand that, I mean, 70% said no. Moreover, some of the people in my some of the people who live in my district earn less than the people intended to be subsidized by this fund. Remember, it's workforce housing. It's not very low income housing. Which brings me to where I started. Using general fund moneys means they are subsidizing people who earn more than they earn. And money will be taken away from city services they thought they were paying for. I cannot support this. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thoughts, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to invite our new housing director, if I may, to ask him to describe the families that will be served by this fund so we can get that clarified before I make a comment. Thank you. Just go ahead and introduce yourself for the record. I sure will. My name is Rick Padilla. I'm the new morphing into the recently hired housing director, and we are further into the job than it was last week when I was called up. So I will do my best to answer your question. Describe those folks. So thank you and good evening, council members. And thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. For folks we're talking about in a 40 to 60% area, median income we're talking about, I think it was mentioned earlier, we were talking about lab technicians and nursing assistant making approximately 29,000 a year, a construction worker making approximately $31,000 a year , a vet technician making approximately $31,000 a year. Those are the folks we're actually talking about, security guard, senior citizens, the folks that make the a large percentage of our of our households in Denver, folks who want to remain to live in Denver, people that want to move into Denver. And then when one question the comment was made that we're making headway on the need for housing. And I was just wondering, is that what the data shows? Are we is the knee are we catching up to the need for housing in terms of how many housing units we need to serve families like these or who earn less? As we all know, you know, I'm a Denver neighborhood native. I was born and raised here. We all know that Denver's a landlocked city. We have a couple of large developments when there where there has been production on a limited basis. But most of the housing that we see going in is infill housing. The the condominiums are 4 to 6 units. It's not really meeting the needs of production where, as you stated earlier, we have a shrinking inventory in this city as well as across the country. So from a production standpoint, we're not seeing new construction come up to meet the needs of these households. Thank you. And if I may, Mr. President, a comment. So I you know, I was listening to my colleague who I respect and differ from on this issue, cite the number of people who said they were willing to pay for housing. I've seen recent surveys that asked people their willingness to pay for roads, and I think only slightly more, maybe 30 or 40% willing to pay for roads. Yet we as a city stay in the road building business because it is our job as a public sector to serve public needs. I do believe that there is not just a benefit to these households when we build this housing at this level, but there is a benefit to our economy. A recent survey from the Denver Regional Council of Governments of major employers across the country, found that Denver's housing prices were reaching the level where they were giving relocation pause . Because when you relocate from Cincinnati to Denver, your employees don't want half the house that they had or half the apartment or to commute for an hour because their salary is the same. But the housing costs twice as much. And so it is a threat to our ability to recruit new employers. Right. This is it's not a charitable issue solely. I do think that it is a humane thing to do to try to keep people in homes rather than homeless. But it is an economic strategy as well to attract employers who hire those workers. I'll go back to transportation is one example. When workers travel from large distances, they lose productivity, they lose time. And yes, the transit system is wonderful. There is precisely one transit stop that's, you know, funded in Adams County right now. Many of our workers travel from that area. They don't have a fast transit option. Even when fast tracks is fully built out, it doesn't reach every community. And so what you have then is people who drive cost more for transportation, even environmental impacts. And then lastly, I will say something about my opinion of the growth of Denver, people coming to Denver. I mean, every time you see a new battery, 621 or industry, one of these new great business incubators and they're relocating high tech smart jobs, folks are choosing to come to the city because they like the diversity of the city. It is something we sell. We sell the mixture of incomes, the mix of people, the mix of racial backgrounds. And so I believe that it is really key to our economy that we invest in this housing. It is not just for the human benefits, although there are many. And so I would say that I very much appreciate this fund as a well-designed structure, and I really do think it's an important first step. And I will hopefully continue the conversation about funding it in the future. But it is very much a city's role and we are a city and a county and we're one of only eight cities that doesn't have a fund like this that we fund with our own dollars. So our competitors are doing it where it counts. We're responsible for all the human services costs. So I just can't accept and there is no evidence to support that this is not a city responsibility. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Kinney. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Canete, you took the words right out of my mouth, except for the one analogy I wanted to use. Was it? It all depends. And the example I want to put out there and just you can visualize it. It all depends what you believe. Our values are in the city. Some people believe when they look in the mirror as a city. When we look in the mirror, we see Manhattan or Coronado or Beverly Hills or even Martha's Vineyard. And you look in the mirror when you look out and look what Denver is, it's Denver. It's none of the above. It is Denver. And it's always been of a very distinct city, an incredible county. We've taken a lot of pride, especially nowadays. And you see this. I even see old Raiders fans wearing t shirts with Colorado flags all over them because it's cool now. We have a very strong sense of locality. We put a lot of pride. Those of us who are from here, we put that little native sticker on our car and it's much more than just putting that sticker on your car that says Native and saying, Oh, I'm a proud Coloradan. Well, we also have very strong values that are locally grown as well, too. And making sure you have access to affordable housing and making sure you have a good job and able to raise your family. That's those values. That's all folks are asking about. And, you know, I do agree with one thing with you, councilman. Fights wages are stagnant and that is a problem. But that's another discussion that we have to have. Housing. There's a housing crisis in terms of affordability, affordability, affordability, affordability, sorry. And there is a crisis when it comes to wages, a crisis when it comes to folks who are working, spending 12, 13, 14 hours a day in two jobs. They don't have health care and they don't have a decent wage. And you pair those two together and you mix that up. You do not have a city that reflects the values that it was built on. It's not the Denver I remember. And so we have to correct that. And, you know, if if I'm wrong, then those folks who vote for these things won't be back. But if I do remember correctly, some of these policies have been here since the eighties. You seen a little bit of tinkering. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, specifically. You can go ahead and take your seat unless someone else calls you up. Thank you, sir. Councilman. Never. Thank you, Mr. President. As is so often the case, Councilwoman Fatima, I read the details in the same way, but come to radically different conclusions. We both look at city expenditures with a gimlet eye, but where she sees wasteful social engineering, I see a really smart investment. And it's worth remembering here that this isn't just a fund to put general fund money into affordable housing. This is a fund whose purpose is to close the gap for 4% low income housing tax credit deals. So the 9% low income housing tax credit deals are incredibly competitive. All that goes like hotcakes. But 4% low income housing tax credits go wanting projects don't even get built because they can't pencil with just the 4% low income housing tax credit. So this fund is designed to close that gap so that the. 4% low. Income housing tax credit projects can actually get built. So what this is, is using a. Little bit of our money to leverage a whole lot of somebody else's money. And that, it strikes me, is exactly what a smart city does. Figure out how to spend other people's money in making our city a better place. So for that reason, I'll be supporting them. Thank you, Councilman. Are there any other comments from members of council saying. No, Madam Secretary. Rocco? Councilman. Oh, councilman here. I'm sorry. Go right ahead. Thank you. I just couldn't click fast enough. I just. I just wanted to make a comment about the idea of social engineering and the negative impacts that it's had in my council district nine. What I've learned over the years is that. Is that whether it was the intention or the an intention. In my opinion, the way that the land at one point of Denver's history was divided and zoned created a big gap in terms of inequity. And and so when I think about the concept of social engineering, I would say that many of the low income neighborhoods in Denver didn't fare so well. And that with the zoning code update, as I said when we went through that, we really zoned a lot of the the parcels in in this city to try to create some equity around the land. Now we're talking about you're saying why are we talking about this? Well, here a simple way that I want to say it is that this revolving affordable this revolving affordable housing loan, in my opinion, will help to hopefully minimize the gap between people living, wanting to get out of poverty and having a job and having the the ability as these units are being built or if they already exist, but not in my council district yet, just they have the ability to have a more equitable life. And by that I mean if, for example, I'm Brighton Boulevard, our hope is to create more workforce housing so that the people that can't really afford to live in some places in downtown Denver for were many of them may have service types of careers. They can actually live very close to downtown and be able to walk if they'd like to, or also the ability to create communities where workforce housing can be part of the tax base and also to create schools and create all of those things in a community where we can see the diversity that Councilman Kinney just talked about. So I would say that social engineering is a very, very strong word in my opinion. And I don't agree that this particular revolving, affordable housing fund creates that kind of community. In my opinion, it helps to minimize the gap that we're all talking about that we have seen created in in the city of Denver. And so I just want to say that for me, in the time that I've served, it's always been about the land and who owns it, who can afford it. And we're just simply trying to have more opportunity for funding to be able to look at workforce housing. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Monteiro, Councilwoman Fox. Yes, Mr. President, I wanted to clarify my perception of what I mean by social engineering, and it's why I voted against the Burke's amendment that he brought for the inclusionary housing. The to me, if you're talking about affordable housing, you want a structure around as many people as you can. You want your money to go farther. And when you try to be sure that you are building it in every economic level throughout the city, you are not going to get as much housing if you are building it downtown or elsewhere. That would be of a high income nature because the land costs are so high. I believe we have a responsibility if we are using the taxpayer dollar to get the most we can. And if what with the issue is housing, then build the most housing you can. And it is not on the land that is the highest real estate in Denver. That is my perspective on that, obviously. I mean, I was just being interviewed earlier today about my impressions between the legislature and here. And one of the biggest things is there there was there were a number of people of different philosophies. And so you could have it wasn't just me against the row here. You had other people who could bring in their experiences and their perspective, and you had a good philosophical discussion about the very basis of policy making. That is what I miss here. I mean, just having some kind of real discussion, not one against many, but many of as far as what. Is our role. Well, how do we get the most taxpayer dollar? Is the benefit that you see from putting affordable housing into extremely high real estate areas. Do you really get the investment out of it that you want from other ways? I mean, there are some philosophical issues that need to be discussed in policymaking bodies that simply don't get addressed at the depth that they should in this body and hasn't since I've been on here. But it was in the legislature, and that's what I see as a big difference and a big lacking. I really want that kind of discussion. The people deserve it. Now, regardless of how you come down and, you know, city council, it's it's no question as to how they're going to come down. But that discussion is one that still should be be happening. So people really have to think about the results of what decisions they make. And so thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to express that frustration, because I consider the very basis of all the policies and decisions we make, not ones that can be decided on assumptive closes, as you would say, if you were in the sales business where you go and you assume the person's got to buy. Now let's talk about the price. You really need to talk about the fundamental basics as well, because those are the elements and the building blocks of public policy. Thank you, Councilwoman. Upon seen no other comments and I'll pause for a second. Madam Secretary, roll call. Five or so in each. I. Lehman i. Lopez Montero. I. Nevett. I. Ortega. I. Rob. Shepherd. Sussman, Brooks. I. Brown. Hi. Mr. President. I count Councilman Lopez. Woman Madam Secretary, please quote the value and now the results. 12 eyes one. Day. Well, one day. 620 has been ordered, published. And, Madam Secretary, can you tee up the last one, which was on final consideration 598 called out by Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Fox, what would you like for us to do with this?