September 03, 2005
Planning Commission Recommends Moratorium!
On Thursday evening the Planning Commission passed a motion to send a recommendation to City Council to set a 9 month moratorium on new PUD construction to study the impact of new development on all aspects of livability in South Haven.
Citizens in favor of this idea and who have a vision for the future of South Haven will now be called upon to act. The first order of business (no small task) will be to try and get The City Council to agree and act on the idea. Currently it is not on the agenda for Tuesday's meeting, so I presume it will be at the September 19th meeting. As usual, email, letters and appearances at the podium are recommended if you want to be heard on the subject.
But the work can begin whether The Council decides to play along or not.
A friend writes:
I think it could start in either of 2 ways. The best way would be for it to start under some official authority. The city council (preferably) or the planning commission could pass a resolution to start a study. The topics in the moratorium motion could be expanded and fleshed out. The planning commission could then set up a public meeting with a structured agenda to get public input on areas of concern. After that, the commission could perhaps proceed with study groups for various areas. The internet can certainly be used heavily for information and ideas as a lot of other communities are dealing
with exactly the same issues. I think e-mail among the PC members on this subject is a good idea. I think I would wait to see what the council's reaction is to the moratorium and then see if the PC wants to take the lead, if necessay.
The second way would be for citizens to organize a study group and come up with recommendations if the PC or the council doesn't take the lead.
Food for thought.
Posted by Elaine at September 3, 2005 11:07 AM
Comments
Correct me if I am wrong here; for about the last 10 – 15 years thousands of units of condominiums have been approved by South Haven city and township. Only a small fraction of those approved site plans have actually been built – perhaps 150 to 200 – over ten years. The economy was very good for most of this period. Many of the units built were high-end market – waterfront.
Why weren’t the other approved plans/units built? I think it is simple economics: A prominent local realtor has said the local real-estate market can absorb at most about 20 to 30 new condo-units (away from the lake) each year. This means that the SH real-estate market would probably over-saturate if a fraction of the current (or past) proposed units were built.
What would happen if 100 condos (>5% of currently proposed) were somehow built next year? I think prices/values for condo housing would plummet. If someone wanted to make the mistake buying a below or flat-market property, wise bankers would not want the mortgage. Banks would also not want to fund more new condo construction when the market is already saturated. No markets studies would be needed.
My biggest concern with a moratorium: SH desperately needs quality affordable housing. I am proud that affordable housing is SH Township’s highest planning priority. Smart developers like Steve Goforth are working hard to build new single-family housing in South Haven for under $150K. They know that the best way to keep building and development costs down is with condos or site-condos.
The ridiculous irony of the proposed moratorium is that expensive, sprawling, suburban-type homes are not being criticized. Developers could continue to build all the fancy 4000 square foot “executive homes” they wish.
South Haven township planners have worked very hard for many years to encourage new, affordable housing in South Haven. A moratorium seems certain to be counter to many things we as a planned community are working for.
Todd
Posted by: Todd Heinrich at September 4, 2005 12:05 PM
It's great that we are all starting to think about what it all means. Together we can noodle it out.
Communication is key. I am glad to have the township weighing in.
I have to disagree with some of Todd's assessment. For starters, affordable housing needs affordable land. Land near the lake and close to town is never going to fall into that category.
One purpose of the moratorium is to coodinate WITH the township to provide proper planning
for all income levels. Perhaps together we can facilitate a balanced, diverse community with access and livability for all.
It is not an issue that persons with financial means to build their dream homes are doing so. They have worked hard all their lives to create their wealth and they have every right to enjoy it. Criticism of what they choose to build is offensive, even a kind of bigotry. One home, furthermore, does not have the unpredicatable, perhaps detrimental effect on a community that 1000, virtually overnight, can have. This vast and quick development is what the moratorium is about.
The purpose of the moratorium is to assess livability conditions for all residents. It's about infrastructure, density, property values, small town charm, water views, parks, property taxes. It's about trying to bring a year-round quality to South Haven, jobs, residency, restaurants, shops, culture.
None of the proposed condo PUDs in South Haven are priced at under $300,000, most are in the $500,000 area...NOT affordable housing. This challenges livability, property values, infrastructure, all the above. Furthermore, the lack of a rental ordinance will permit these apartment properties to become more illegal rentals overnight.
The reason the moratorium targets PUDs is because they have the ability to create massive numbers of
homes without knowing the impact. Most of these will be built with little infrastructure improvement, plans for beaches, etc.
They also get their taxes captured by the DDA so the services they will rely on (schools, hospital, library, college, etc) get ripped off to boot.
The moratorium idea is simply this: we need a plan. We need preparedness. We need the community to come together and feel like our City Council is in touch with the residents. We need all the smart, caring, passionate residents to come together with ideas.
That's why I am for it.
Posted by: Elaine at September 4, 2005 12:12 PM
IMO the real estate market will regulate the type of explosive growth that concerns moratorium backers.
If I understand correctly, the proposed objectionable condos will be priced at $300K to over $500K.
At that price range the argument that a moratorium would have the desired effect - to limit too many new units - weakens further yet: How many non-lakefront condos in that price range are sold in SH each year? 20?
So the worst-case scenario is a developer building 20 such units in that price range in a given year. Would a developer expect to get 100% of the market share in that category? Of course not.
South Haven is too small a housing market to absorb the kind of construction that moratorium backers are trying to limit.
A moratoruim may likely have an un-intended effect - to promote non-condos: more sprawling, expensive single-family housing.
Todd
Posted by: Todd at September 4, 2005 03:19 PM
Yes, the possibility is exactly that: In the case of overdevelopment, the real estate market WILL regulate the market by depressing current values.
But I truly think the issues are more about South Haven being a small town, geographically. Many 1000s of additional souls pouring into the town for 8 weeks of summer every year has South Haven at a breaking point. At some point we need to limit entry and/or close the doors, so to speak, if water capacity, sewer capabilities, water pressure, electrical grids, streets and beaches are stressed beyond their ability to serve. This is what is being experienced: water bans, electrical outages, sewer backups. Current residents want answers.
There are also unprecedented demands for increased heights and densities. The greed to develop needs to be balanced against the traditional rule of law and the desires of residents who have lived under this law for generations. They like a low-rise community and believe that it's the very charm of it. It's why residents love it and why tourists love it.
There is just so much room. PUDS concentrate density in small areas, individual homes do not. The only thing it's about, it seems, is making huge development dollars on small properties. Zoning and planning is needed to manage this.
Consensus needs time and talk.
Posted by: Elaine at September 4, 2005 05:31 PM