RECENT COMMENTS
Alphabet Land on Bourne calls for removal of Confederate statues and monuments
Chris Harnish on Bourne calls for removal of Confederate statues and monuments
Rick McGeorge on Bourne calls for removal of Confederate statues and monuments
Cedar Street development to be addressed at the next Union Hill meeting
March 11, 2010 4:26 pm by John M
The Union Hill Civic Association meets Wednesday, March 17, at 7PM at the Church Hill Photography Studio (2314 Jefferson Avenue). Among the topics to be discussed are: 1) Proposed development of 1900 – 1904 Cedar Street consisting of two, five story buildings with 185 rental units with both enclosed and surface parking. The project involves demolition of the existing 58 units on that site and takes advantage of VHDA Low-Income Housing Tax Credits for 100% of the project.Presentation to be made by Ron Hunt of Genesis Home Manager, LLC.; 2) CARITAS project with Cedar Street Baptist Church: March 27; 3) Public safety update.
ABOVE: Jefferson Townhomes
What’s wrong with building houses here?
It is difficult to become truly wealthy offering the poor “houses” to live in. To really get over, you have to stuff’em into towers like this.
Why must all the new development in the area be low-income?
Call me an elitist and say what you will but low-income developments usually bring in the wrong element. All people who live in low-income areas are undesirable but, per capita, these areas generally have higher instances of prostitution, drugs, and crime in general. This neighborhood is not going to get any better if the city keeps allowing all this low-income housing to be built in the area. I’ve been here for over 6 years now and the theft out of my yard in that period of time is ridiculous. It’s not my next door neighbor stealing from me, it’s the unemployed folks who live in low income housing… Someone even stole my American flag off my front porch for God’s sake.
Sorry..the 3rd sentence should read “NOT all people who live in low-income areas are undesirable but…”
It is my understanding that the initial concept for the development was not 100% low-income, but that there were problems arranging financing. The new proposal is what it is to be able to get low-income tax credits.
The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program is really a misnomer. It should be called a Moderate-Income Housing Tax Credit, because the rents are out of reach for many low-income people unless the development includes rental subsidies, which are extremely difficult to come by these days.
I wouldn’t be concerned about a LIHTC project near my neighborhood (there is one down the street-getting fixed up). In my experience, they are typically well-managed and well-maintained because the investors and VHDA demand it. VHDA is very strict on quality construction, and in order for the deals to work for the investors, the rents are really not very low.
Okay…that makes sense.
Do we really even need additional housing in the Union Hill area though? There is already so much vacant property (townhomes, houses, apartments, condos) in Union Hill, Church Hill, and the surrounding area. I just don’t understand why developers keep building more and more. It’s the same way with the condos all over town. Why keep building and adding to the vacancies? Tne again, I’m not a developer so maybe I’m not thinking correctly…just seems like we have too much already.
The Union Hill Civic Association sent the following letter earlier this week to Ron Hunt of Genesis Homes Manager, LLC after learning of the proposed project through phone calls to VHDA:
Mr. Hunt:
We understand from speaking with contacts at VHDA that your proposal for a 185-unit development comprised of two, five story buildings at 1900 – 1904 Cedar Street in Union Hill was submitted on or before January 28, 2010 (their deadline), and that your final tax credit application package is due by the 12th (this Friday). The preliminary project description is attached to this email for reference.
The City, in the person of CAO Byron Marshall, has until April 1, 2010, to submit a letter of support for your proposal. It is our hope that the City will refrain from submitting a letter of support for this project, until such time as the surrounding community has had ample opportunity to review the project, provide input, and see such input reflected in the ultimate plans. The neighbors of Union Hill deserve the opportunity to review and comment on a development of this size and scale, in addition to providing comment on the proposed demolition of 58 existing housing units. To date, neither has occurred.
From what we understand of the VHDA competitive scoring process, this concentration of tax credit housing receives 0 out of 20 points, because it is their policy to discourage such density and to favor mixed-income development. That has also been the policy of the Union Hill Civic Association and we anticipate it will be so in the future. We encourage access to housing, goods, and services for people at every stage of life, but do not want a return to the failed urban planning models of the past.
We look forward to your first presentation of this project to our civic association on March 17th at 7:00 p.m. and hope that you will provide a copy of your most recent plans to us, before further submission to VHDA.
Union Hill Civic Association
Tripling the concentration of subsidized housing is not in the best interest of those who receive section 8 vouchers or of the surrounding community. This has been the hard-learned lesson of 60’s era urban renewal. Why does the city want to regress to this? Does there need to be increased affordable housing opportunities? Absolutely. But not by building subusidized housing en masse. I can only hope that there are opportunities here for moderate income families as well. Perhaps quality construction and downtown views will counteract the stigma of living in a largely section 8 building?
Thanks for the information Matt. Looks like I’ll be attending the 3/17 meeting.
There can be a huge difference between “affordable” and “Section 8” housing. Affordable housing can mean a $180,000 unit and sure, it could also mean Section 8. The landowner may be learning a hard lesson in controlling its message here if in fact this is not Section 8 housing.
Agreed. The term “affordable” could mean many different things. Does anyone have any reliable information as to what the developer truly has in mind?
Even if it’s not section 8 housing, but only low-income housing, you won’t see any MCV nurses/faculty, professionals of any type, or anyone like that living there anytime soon – and that’s where Union Hill is headed. From what little I know about LIHTC, the developer is committed to keeping the property 100% occupied with low-income housing tenants for a long period of time (10years+).
As someone that provides Section 8 rentals, I am certainly all for providing affordable housing to people. But not 185 units crammed together in high rises. We do it by putting people in renovated single family homes and duplexes.
From a developer’s point of view, obtaining LIHTC will make the project incredibly more attractive, no doubt. But I can’t see anyone in the surrounding community supporting this project and that’s something the developer should take into account.
#8 Matt Conrad- can you please post where the Union Hill Civic Assn. meeting on the 17th will be? I’d be interested in attending and learning more about this proposed project.
Happy to: 7:00 pm., 2314 Jefferson Avenue at Church Hill Photography.
Whenever in doubt, check the Union Hill Civic Association website:
http://www.unionhillrichmond.org
Juliellen, the meeting will be here:
Church Hill Photography Studio (2314 Jefferson Avenue)
Hi y’all, the studio is at the corner of N 24th & Jefferson Ave, same intersection with E. Leigh. We’re across 24th Street from the Family Supermarket. We have off-street parking for the first 8 or so cars…then it’s parking on the street.
I need this apartment i am pregnant, & can pay extra. thank you, Brandi Lawson