Parity in Practice Shared Equity Scenarios in Parkside and St

Parity in Practice Shared Equity Scenarios in Parkside and St. John Valley In Collaboration with the Greater Portland Community Land Trust May 2015 University of Southern Maine: Muskie School of Public Service CPD 603: Planning Workshop Liz Bissonnette, Sam Brend, Nathan Broaddus, Larissa Crockett, Garvan Donegan, Amy Geren, Sandy Gilbreath, Ken Gross, Adam Higgins, Rochelle Wehrfritz Special Thanks, Yuseung Kim, 교수님 Table O Contents Executive Summary 1 A Historical Retrospective of Affordable Housing in the City of Portland, ME 2 A History of Parkside 6 Painting a Picture of Parkside and St John Valley 8 Stakeholder Input 18 Real Estate in Parkside 21 Four Scenarios 24 Social Enterprise & Shared Equity Housing: 33 Community Gardens 37 Financing Non-profit Community Housing in Portland, Maine 38 Appendix: B-2 Zoning 50 Appendix: R-6 Zoning 57 Appendix: Community Land Trust Models 66 Appendix: Ground Lease Agreement 69 Appendix: Resale Formula 80 Appendix: Results of the 2011 Comprehensive CLT Survey 84 Appendix: Finance 87 Executive Summary Sam Brend n January of 2015, the Planning Workshop class at housing situation in both Parkside and in Portland as a Ithe Muskie School of Public Service began work- whole. ing on a project in collaboration with the Greater Utilizing the information uncovered during the Portland Community Land Trust (GPCLT, formerly first half of the semester, the second half of the work- the Machigonne Community Land Trust), a new shop generated four scenarios of potential housing non-profit housing organization in Portland, Maine. opportunities for the GPCLT. In order to create a The goal of the research was to look at the Parkside range of possibilities we looked at the possibility of neighborhood and a section of St. John Valley neigh- single-family home ownership, mixed-use rental units, borhood in Portland, Maine in order to assess the po- condominium ownership and cooperative ownership. tential for the creation of shared-equity housing in that For these scenarios, real locations within the Parkside area. The focus area of Parkside and St. John Valley, and the St. John Valley neighborhoods were examined is a unique area in Portland in that a larger percent- closely to create the most realistic estimates. These are age of low-income residents live there as compared to only to be used as examples and we do not suggest the Portland as a whole. In addition, over 50% of Parkside GPCLT should pursue these specific locations without residents live alone, and Parkside has a larger percent- extensive research into the properties. For each of age of minority residents as compared to Portland as a these scenarios, construction costs were estimated whole. It is also notable that since the 1970’s Parkside using RSMeans software—an industry standard— has been fighting the stigma of slumlords and crime. which used construction cost averages for the greater In the first half of the semester, our class split Portland area. Target eligibility of resident income was into two teams, one focusing on researching Parkside included for each scenario using Parkside average specifically, including the history of Parkside, commu- incomes as well as Cumberland County average nity input, demographic information, and real estate incomes. Stewardship considerations were addressed and affordable housing. The other team focused on for each scenario, focusing on the legal documents and housing policy in Portland in general, including procedures that are necessary for effective management history of affordable housing in Portland, city policies of each property. Finally, one team researched the regarding affordable housing, models of shared-equity financing climate in the Portland area, and developed housing from other cities and input from city officials several potential financing mechanisms that may be and other notable housing stakeholders. From this useful for the GPCLT as their organization continues research, a composite picture was painted of the to grow. ,1. erected too close to each other, and the lack of fire- A Historical proof materials. Another driver for affordable housing in the city of Portland was the concern for public Retrospective of health. Workers and immigrant families were packed into poorly built and overcrowded tenements located Affordable Housing in the on narrow and twisting streets. With little access to city services (e.g. sewer, water) and the prevalence of City of Portland, ME housing farm animals, the conditions contributed to Garvan Donegan high rates of disease and mortality. Explaining Port- land’s slum problem in 1915, a public nurse found “Tenements huddled in narrow, dirty alleys” bearing “broken windows stuffed with rags and where there was not a room in the housing which lived fewer than he City of Portland has a long history and evolu- four persons and often persons who considered them- Ttion of affordable housing policies and programs; selves lucky to be huddled up on a mattress at night a narration to present day that reflects our values and instead of stretched on the floor.” This would begin an beliefs about society, concerns of sprawl and com- era (when progressive reforms at the turn of an era in munity preservation, and the relationship of housing which turn of the century progressive reforms began to and the natural environment. The broader context of promote fire codes, building codes, and zoning ordi- Portland’s affordable housing scene has often been that nances (Baumann, 2003). of reactionary approaches to affordable housing crises throughout different periods, brought on by factors In many ways, the City of Portland led the way ranging from increasing land values, decreasing hous- for Maine’s surrounding communities and regional ing stock, and policy shifts dating back to the urban landscape in planning and zoning. At the end of renewal period of the New Deal era. Historically, World War II, American families got into their new Portland’s affordable housing efforts have been located automobiles and the great migration to the suburbs in Portland’s East End and East Bayside districts and and countryside began and, to this day, has not ended. were exemplified by multi-family and 3-unit structures From 1950 to 1960, the City of Portland lost 5,000 that have traditionally been the vanguard of affordable people, and surrounding towns gained 13,000. The and workforce housing options. However, with a de- initial response of the federal government was urban crease in multi-family structures and an increase in the renewal—in part an effort to get rid of substandard cost of Portland’s housing stock, affordable housing housing (Baumann, 2003). options have continued to shrink. Additionally, these (1) Development Pressure and Access to Af- issues have been exasperated by fiscal zoning, or the fordable Housing Stock: Loss of Housing, Cultural, ‘fiscalization of land use,’ where distortion occurs in and Community Assists land use planning due to local land use decisions being made on a policy basis that emphasizes increasing tax In the early 1950’s the newly created Slum revenues while discounting community benefit factors, Clearance and Urban Redevelopment Authority such as affordable housing needs. highlighted Bayside as a target area. In 1958 the Authority demolished the Portland’s Little Italy I History of Affordable Housing in Portland neighborhood, a portion of which was in what we now Leading up to the Great Fire in Portland, the refer to as East Bayside, thus destroying 92 dwellings Maine State Government and Maine municipalities and 27 small businesses. Another 54 dwelling units had not been actively involved in managing housing were demolished for the Bayside Park urban renewal issues; with much of Maine’s plans being adopted and project, an area that now includes Fox Field and adapted from Massachusetts State Government hous- Kennedy Park public housing. The first phase of the ing policies. This changed with the growth of urban Kennedy Park was built in 1965. Several streets were areas in the 19th century, one of the primary concerns truncated in an attempt to limit access to outside being fire safety. Portland’s Great Fire of 1866 was of traffic. The leveling of Franklin Street began in 1967; such devastation, in part, due to buildings being 100 structures were demolished and an unknown ,2. number of families relocated or were displaced (AIA to the urban milieu of the neighborhood and its Sustainable Design Assessment Team (SDAT), 2011). residents. Specifically, the 2002 ‘Sustaining Portland’s Also removed and fondly remembered are the Grand Future’ set goals to encourage increased housing Trunk Railroad Station, the Falmouth Hotel, and the density and affordable housing – all specific to Port- Portland Post Office at Exchange and Middle streets. land’s urban core. Here, the city’s chief policy objective Among other projects, urban renewal brought low-in- was to “Ensure that an adequate supply of housing was come housing developments at Kennedy Park in the available to meet the needs, preferences, and financial Bayside area in 1964, with more units built in subse- capabilities of all Portland households, now and in the quent years; Munjoy South, a housing development at future.” Another important outcome of Portland’s Mountfort-Congress-Fore streets, and Franklin 2002 Comprehensive Plan was the application of an Towers, a high-rise apartment building for senior Affordable Housing Tax Increment Financing pro- citizens. gram, which the city modeled after the Department of Economic and Community Development’s (DECD) The Franklin Towers and the associated economic development tax increment financing pro- Franklin Arterial project, in many ways, has become gram1. the poster child for both poorly thought-out urban renewal projects and haphazard planning, as it effec- Concurrently, the City of Portland Housing and tively segregated the community and built over exist- Community Development Five Year Plan (2010-2015) ing housing, community, and cultural assets.

Load more