DOCSLIB.ORG

21St Century Sros: Can Small Housing Units Help Meet the Need for Affordable Housing in New York City?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
21St Century Sros: Can Small Housing Units Help Meet the Need for Affordable Housing in New York City? 21st Century SROs: Can Small Housing Units Help Meet the Need for Affordable Housing in New York City? Eric Stern and Jessica Yager Feburary 20, 2018 furmancenter.org This research does not represent the institutional views (if any) of NYU, NYU School of Law, or the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. 21st Century SROs: Can Small Housing Units Help Meet the Need for Affordable Housing in New York City? By Eric Stern and Jessica Yager1 Introduction Single-room occupancy housing (SROs) used to be a readily available affordable housing type in New York City. SRO units typically consisted of a private room with access to full bathroom and kitchen facilities that the renter shared with other building occupants. While this form of shared housing was common in New York for much of the city’s history, during the second half of the 20th century, most SROs came to serve as “housing of last resort—the safety net at the bottom of the market providing shelter for the poor and near-poor.”2 Criticism of SROs mounted and led to laws banning the construction and discouraging the operation of SROs.3 Many SROs were subsequently converted to other forms of housing, resulting in the loss of thousands of very low-rent units in the city. Today, the city faces a significant housing affordability crisis. In this context, it is worth considering whether the city needs an updated housing model that helps meet the need SROs filled in the last century. Here we analyze the benefits, risks, and challenges of reintroducing small housing units (self-contained micro units and efficiency units with shared facilities) in order to shed light on whether and how a new small-unit model could help meet the demand for affordable housing in the city today. Previous NYU Furman Center research examined the challenges to developing compact units (micro units and accessory dwelling units) in five cities: New York; Washington, D.C.; Austin; Denver; and Seattle.4 We found that regulatory challenges, such as density and parking regulations; financial challenges, including issues obtaining traditional financing; and community opposition all contribute to the difficulty of constructing these types of units. In this new report, we go further to consider the costs of building small units and the barriers that small units face in New York City, in order to answer the question whether small units can help to meet the needs of the city’s low-income, single-person households. In our first section below, we provide an overview of the potential demand for smaller, cheaper units, and describe the smaller, cheaper units currently in the housing stock in New York City. In our second section, we explore the economics of building smaller units. We compare the per-unit cost of building and operating micro units and efficiency units with shared facilities (which collectively we call “small units”) to the costs for traditional small studio apartments. To do this, we analyze three unit types: a 300 square 1 We are very grateful to Vicki Been, Mark Willis, Allex Desronvil, and Traci Sanders for their assistance with this project. We thank Winston Beekman, Amy DeHuff, Lila Nojima, and Caroline Peri for their excellent research assistance. We thank the J.P. Morgan Chase Foundation for its generous support of this research. The full list of experts with whom we consulted in conducting this research is in Appendix D. 2 Brian J. Sullivan & Jonathan Burke, Single-Room Occupancy Housing in New York City: The Origins and Dimensions of a Crisis, 17 CUNY L. Rev. 113, 117 (2013). 3 Id. at 122-23. 4 NYU FURMAN CENTER, COMPACT UNITS: DEMAND AND CHALLENGES (2014), http://furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_CompactUnitsResearchBrief_13AUG14.pdf; Vicki Been, Benjamin Gross & John Infranca, NYU Furman Center, Responding to Changing Households: Regulatory Challenges for Micro-Units and Accessory Dwelling Units (Working Paper, 2014), http://furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_RespondingtoChangingHouseholds_2014_1.pdf. 1 foot micro unit with a self-contained kitchen and bathroom; a 225 square foot efficiency unit with a private bathroom and shared kitchen; and a 160 square foot efficiency unit with a shared bathroom and a shared kitchen. We also explore the financing barriers that may limit the production of such apartments in New York City today. In the third section we document the major regulatory barriers to construction of small units. Finally, we conclude by considering what actions New York City might take to encourage the development of such units, if it determines that is a policy goal. I. The Case for Smaller Units If small units translate to cheaper units, they may be helpful in cities facing affordable housing crises. New York City has a large population of single person households, and many of them are paying unaffordable rents; some of these individuals may be interested in living in small units if rent levels were lower than what these individuals are paying for their current housing. There are also people who could benefit on a temporary basis from an increase in the supply of small (and more affordable) units. This population includes temporary workers, adults in a period of life transition (e.g., following a change in marital status), and new arrivals to New York City such as recent immigrants and recent college graduates. Finally, small units may also be a way to meet the needs of some New Yorkers currently in homeless shelters (more than 20,000 without children),5 living in illegal units (estimated at around 100,000 in 2008),6 or coming out of the criminal justice system.7 It is impossible to say, exactly, who in the city would be willing to live in a smaller, cheaper unit. In this section, we attempt to shed some light on the possible demand in the city for small units, and on the existing housing stock that helps meet this need. Ultimately, both analyses suggest that there may be unmet demand for small units if those units can provide well-maintained housing at relatively low rents. a. Many Single New Yorkers Struggle to Pay Their Rent. Over the past several years, the Citizens Housing and Planning Council (CHPC) has helped spark interest in creating smaller housing units for non-nuclear families. They found that in 2010, 47 percent of New 8 Yorkers over the age of 25 lived with neither a spouse nor a partner. More recent data show that as of 9 2015 there were approximately 1,012,000 single adult households in New York City (33% of 5 NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES, DAILY REPORT (Dec. 15, 2017), https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dhs/downloads/pdf/dailyreport.pdf. (On file with authors). 6 CHHAYA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CITIZENS HOUSING AND PLANNING COUNCIL, ILLEGAL DWELLING UNITS: A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NEW YORK CITY (2008), http://chhayacdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/Illegal-Dwelling-Units-A-Potential-Source-of-Affordable- Housing-in-New-York-City.pdf. 7 In 2015, 5,720 people formerly living in New York City were released from the New York State Prison system. NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RELEASES AND DISCHARGES FROM INCARCERATION REPORT (2015), http://www.doccs.ny.gov/Research/Reports/2016/Statistical_Overview_2015_Discharges.pdf. 8 Citizens Housing and Planning Council, Carmel Place, New York’s First Modular Micro Building, Stacks First Unit (May 20, 2015), http://chpcny.org/2015/05/carmelplace. 9 Data cited as 2015 comes from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey or IPums. These data are period estimates and should be interpreted as a measure of the conditions during the whole range. 2 households),10 759,075 of which were renters.11 As of 2015, 58 percent of single-adult renter households (over 436,000 people) in New York City were rent burdened (paying over 30% of income on rent), six percentage points higher than the overall city average.12 Thirty-three percent, or over 250,000 people, were severely rent burdened (paying over 50% of income on rent).13 Figure 1 reports the income levels of rent-burdened New York City single-adult households in 2015. While some of these households had income in excess of area median income (AMI) in 2015, which was $60,400 per year, approximately 85 percent had income at or below 80 percent of AMI ($48,350 per year). Just under half of all rent-burdened single-person households had income less than 30 percent of AMI ($18,150 per year). For lower-income households, being rent-burdened can be particularly punishing because it means that a household has little money left over after paying rent for other life expenses, like food, clothing, and medical care. Thus, some rent-burdened low-income renters may be interested in living in a smaller unit if that would reduce their housing costs. 10 U.S. Census Bureau. Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder (B25011). 2011-2015 American Community Survey. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov. 11 Sarah Flood, Miriam King, Steven Ruggles, and J. Robert Warren. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 5.0. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2017. https://doi.org/10.18128/D030.V5.0. (Analysis on file with authors). 12 Maxwell Austensen, et al., State of New York City’s Housing & Neighborhoods in 2015, NYU FURMAN CENTER (May 9, 2016) http://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/NYUFurmanCenter_SOCin2015_9JUNE2016.pdf; Sarah Flood, Miriam King, Steven Ruggles, and J. Robert Warren. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 5.0. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2017. https://doi.org/10.18128/D030.V5.0. (Analysis on file with authors). 13 Sarah Flood, Miriam King, Steven Ruggles, and J.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 155, SUBDIVISION of LAND
    Chapter 155, SUBDIVISION OF LAND [HISTORY: Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Warren County 2-24-1981. Amendments noted where applicable.] GENERAL REFERENCES Planning Commission -- See Ch. 36. Building construction -- See Ch. 76. Road names and signs -- See Ch. 142, Art. I. Zoning -- See Ch. 180. ARTICLE I, General Provisions § 155-1. Purpose. A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish certain subdivision standards and procedures for all the unincorporated areas of Warren County, Virginia, as provided for by the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. B. These articles are part of a long-range plan to guide and facilitate the orderly, beneficial growth of the community and to promote the public health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare. More specifically, but not in limitation, the purpose of these standards is to provide for: (1) The change that occurs when lands and acreage become developed for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. (2) Protection for the purchasers of lots to assure that they are buying a commodity that is suitable for building and use. (3) The avoidance of placing an unreasonable burden on the county to provide educational services, water and sewer services, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal and other public services or the necessity of an excessive expenditure of public funds for the supply of such services. (4) The coordination and beneficial design and maintenance of both public and private streets. (5) Control of subdivisions or building sites in floodplain areas of streams and drainage courses and in unsafe land areas. (6) A distribution of population and traffic which will tend to create conditions favorable to health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Affordable Housing Lease Addendum HOME And/Or NHTF Assisted
    Affordable Housing Lease Addendum HOME and/or NHTF Assisted It is possible that the unit for which you are applying has been assisted with federal funds and is governed by the HOME Investment Partnerships Program 24 CFR Part 92 or the National Housing Trust Fund Program (NHTF) 24 CFR Part 93, as amended. The HOME program requires that in order to be eligible for admittance into this unit, your total household annual income must be at or below 50% of median income (very low- income as defined under 24 CFR Part 92). The National Housing Trust Fund program requires that in order to be eligible for admittance into this unit, your total household annual income must be at or below 30% of median income (extremely low-income as defined under 24 CFR Part 93). If your unit is initially designated as a HOME unit and after initial occupancy and income determination, your total household annual income increases above 80% of median income (low-income as defined under 24 CFR Part 92), you will be required to pay 30% of your adjusted gross monthly income for rent and utilities, except that tenants of HOME-assisted units that have been allocated low-income housing tax credits by a housing credit agency pursuant to section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.42) must pay rent governed by section 42. If your unit is initially designated as a NHTF unit and after initial occupancy and income determination, your total household annual income increases above 30% of median income (household is no longer extremely low income), you may stay in your NHTF assisted unit.
    [Show full text]
  • What Affordable Housing Programs and Initiatives
    WHAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES DOES THE DISTRICT OFFER? DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Inclusionary Zoning Affordable Housing Program (IZ) sets aside a percentage of affordable rental or for-sale units in new residential development projects of 10 or more units as well as rehabilitation projects that are expanding an existing building by 50 percent or more. Households interested in purchasing or leasing an IZ home must take the IZ orientation class with one of DHCD partner community-based organizations and complete the online registration form. For more information, please visit the following link: www.dhcd.dc.gov/service/inclusionary-zoning-affordable-housing-program • The Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF) is a special revenue fund administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The HPTF provides funding for the production and preservation of homes that are affordable to low-income households in the District in a wide variety of ways. The primary use of the fund is as “gap financing” that enables housing projects to have sufficient financing to provide affordable housing. The fund also provides other forms of assistance including: - pre-development loans to assist nonprofit housing developers in getting low income housing projects funded; - financing for site acquisition to provide locations to build affordable housing; - funding for the rehabilitation of single family homes. Since 2001, the HPTF has helped produce over 9,000 affordable homes for low income District residents. For more information, please visit the following link: https://dhcd.dc.gov/page/housing-production-trust-fund • The Home Purchase Assistance Program (HPAP) provides interest-free loans and closing cost assistance to qualified applicants to purchase single-family houses, condominiums, or cooperative units.
    [Show full text]
  • Formerly Single Room Occupancy
    ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Marcia L. White Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 1· 1CJ. · 1-D Date sent to Council: 1. 2,, l£:l . 10 TO: Salt Lake City Council Chris Wharton, Chair SUBJECT: Revised Transmittal re: Petition PLNPCM2018-00066 - Shared Housing Zoning ------+e-x-t-A-11:i:fillEi-n.1ents--E-feHRe1:.iy-t-i-t-leEl---&i-ng-le--R00rn-Geeu13ane-y- E-8-RGj-'I=e*t'-Amendments-J1-------------'- STAFF CONTACT: Ashley Ogden, RDA Project Manager (formerly Principal Planner) (80 I) 535-7207, [email protected] DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached ordinance, which has been revised in response to feedback received during the City Council public hearing held on April 23, 2019, a meeting with local housing advocates held on Octa ber 22, 2019, and direction received from the Council during the November 19, 2019, work session. BUDGET IMP ACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a follow up briefing memo to the existing transmittal package for this proposal and includes the following updated infonnation: On March 19, 2019, Planning Division Staff briefed the City Council on a Mayor-initiated proposal to amend sections of the Zoning Ordinance to better define Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing and determine appropriate locations within the City for the use. Proposed amendments included changing the existing definition of SRO Dwelling, expanding the number of zoning districts that pennit SR Os, and creating qualifying provisions for the use. The Council held a public hearing on April 23, 2019, where numerous residents with differing views provided comment: some expressed concerns with the potential negative impacts of SRO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.S LC .GOV P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Subdivision Planning and Design: Analysis, Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography
    Sustainable Subdivision Planning and Design: Analysis, Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography Issues in Urban Sustainability No. 7 __________________ by David R. Van Vliet 1994 __________________ The Institute of Urban Studies FOR INFORMATION: The Institute of Urban Studies The University of Winnipeg 599 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg phone: 204.982.1140 fax: 204.943.4695 general email: [email protected] Mailing Address: The Institute of Urban Studies The University of Winnipeg 515 Portage Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3B 2E9 SUSTAINABLE SUBDIVISION PLANNING AND DESIGN: ANALYSIS, LITERATURE REVIEW AND ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Issues in Urban Sustainability No. 7 Published 1994 by the Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg © THE INSTITUTE OF URBAN STUDIES Note: The cover page and this information page are new replacements, 2015. The Institute of Urban Studies is an independent research arm of the University of Winnipeg. Since 1969, the IUS has been both an academic and an applied research centre, committed to examining urban development issues in a broad, non-partisan manner. The Institute examines inner city, environmental, Aboriginal and community development issues. In addition to its ongoing involvement in research, IUS brings in visiting scholars, hosts workshops, seminars and conferences, and acts in partnership with other organizations in the community to effect positive change. SUSTAINABLE SUBDIVISION PLANNING AND DESIGN: Analysis, Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography Issues in Urban Sustainability 7 David R. Van Vliet Institute of Urban Studies 1994 ii PUBLICATION DATA Van Vliet, David R. Sustainable Subdivision Planning and Design: Analysis, Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography (Issues in Urban Sustainability; 7) ISBN: 0-896023-00-2 I. The University of Winnipeg.
    [Show full text]
  • Urbanistica N. 146 April-June 2011
    Urbanistica n. 146 April-June 2011 Distribution by www.planum.net Index and english translation of the articles Paolo Avarello The plan is dead, long live the plan edited by Gianfranco Gorelli Urban regeneration: fundamental strategy of the new structural Plan of Prato Paolo Maria Vannucchi The ‘factory town’: a problematic reality Michela Brachi, Pamela Bracciotti, Massimo Fabbri The project (pre)view Riccardo Pecorario The path from structure Plan to urban design edited by Carla Ferrari A structural plan for a ‘City of the wine’: the Ps of the Municipality of Bomporto Projects and implementation Raffaella Radoccia Co-planning Pto in the Val Pescara Mariangela Virno Temporal policies in the Abruzzo Region Stefano Stabilini, Roberto Zedda Chronographic analysis of the Urban systems. The case of Pescara edited by Simone Ombuen The geographical digital information in the planning ‘knowledge frameworks’ Simone Ombuen The european implementation of the Inspire directive and the Plan4all project Flavio Camerata, Simone Ombuen, Interoperability and spatial planners: a proposal for a land use Franco Vico ‘data model’ Flavio Camerata, Simone Ombuen What is a land use data model? Giuseppe De Marco Interoperability and metadata catalogues Stefano Magaudda Relationships among regional planning laws, ‘knowledge fra- meworks’ and Territorial information systems in Italy Gaia Caramellino Towards a national Plan. Shaping cuban planning during the fifties Profiles and practices Rosario Pavia Waterfrontstory Carlos Smaniotto Costa, Monica Bocci Brasilia, the city of the future is 50 years old. The urban design and the challenges of the Brazilian national capital Michele Talia To research of one impossible balance Antonella Radicchi On the sonic image of the city Marco Barbieri Urban grapes.
    [Show full text]
  • Club Rio Rancho Golf Course Charrette Report
    CLUB RIO RANCHO GOLF COURSE CHARRETTE REPORT July, 2017 Prepared For: Prepared by: The City of Rio Rancho Consensus Planning, Inc. 3200 Civic Center Cir NE, 302 Eighth Street NW Rio Rancho, NM 87144 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Scope and Purpose 3 Background 5 • Introduction 5 • Case Studies 6 • Site History 8 Methods 9 • Overview 9 • Introductory Meeting - April 21 9 • Charrette – May 5 10 • Charrette Results 11 • Charrette Follow Up – June 9 17 Next Steps 19 • Property Owner 19 • Stakeholders 19 • City of Rio Rancho 19 • Critical Elements of the Master Plan 20 • Final Notes 20 Appendix A: Meeting Sign-In 21 Sheets Appendix B: Meeting Notes 25 Page 1 Page 2 Scope and Purpose Once a hallmark of the City of Rio Rancho, Club Rio Rancho struggled financially in the 2000’s before finally closing in 2016. Degrading conditions and concern from local stakeholders caused the City to take an active roll facilitating a conversation and charrette in the Spring of 2017. Consensus Planning was hired to facilitate this dialogue among stakeholders in order to develop potential solutions for the site. Club Rio Rancho shut down its North 9 in land use alternatives. Following this 2013, eventually closing its doors entirely charrette, Consensus Planning was to in December of 2016. Since that time the explore these potential alternatives, future of the course’s roughly 260 acres combining them into land use plans, has been a topic of heated debate for and providing analysis regarding how the property’s owners, local residents, these alternatives might progress into city staff, and potential developers.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Room Occupancy Uses
    City Council Report City Council Meeting: March 26, 2019 Agenda Item: 7.A To: Mayor and City Council From: David Martin, Director, City Planning Subject: Introduction and Adoption of an Urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance Regarding Single-Room Occupancy Uses Recommended Action Staff recommends Council introduce and adopt an urgency interim zoning ordinance to prohibit Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) uses citywide on an interim basis in order to prevent the proliferation and over-concentration of SRO uses that are not 100% Affordable Housing Projects or certain specialized housing uses such as emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing. This urgency interim zoning ordinance would allow for study of revised development standards, land use regulations, use classifications, and additional requirements related to physical design or amenity plans, for SRO uses in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Executive Summary Over the years, City staff, decisionmakers, and community members have had numerous discussions regarding housing development in the City and how to create effective housing policies, programs, and regulatory tools to address the need for more development of a variety of types and sizes of housing options. In particular, a need has been identified for development of new affordable housing and supportive housing, and market-rate multi-family projects near transit, in order to offer attractive and feasible opportunities for a range of individuals and families to live in Santa Monica. The Downtown Community Plan was adopted by Council on July 25, 2017. Framed as a “housing first” approach, it envisioned a robust mix of housing types serving a wide range of household sizes and income levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Your Planned Community Need Subdivision Approval? By: George Asimos As Originally Published As a Special to the Legal Intelligencer, PLW, April 20, 2009 ______
    Does Your Planned Community Need Subdivision Approval? By: George Asimos As originally published as a Special to the Legal Intelligencer, PLW, April 20, 2009 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ GEORGE ASIMOS, an attorney and partner with Saul Ewing, has practiced transactional real estate and land use law exclusively for more than 20 years. He represents developers, telecommunications companies, industrial operators and other land owners in acquiring and obtaining project approvals from municipal boards and commissions in matters relating to zoning, subdivision and land development. Asimos works out of the offices in Chesterbrook, Pa., and Harrisburg, Pa., and can be reached at [email protected]. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ With the case of Frank N. Shaffer Family Limited Partnership v. Zoning Hearing Board of Chanceford Township, the Commonwealth Court has shaken up the world of planned community and condominium practitioners as it has addressed, for the first time, the question of whether the Uniform Planned Community Act (and by reference the Uniform Condominium Act) supersede the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code subdivision requirements. Here is how the case arose. The Shaffer Family Limited Partnership owned 25 acres of vacant land. In June 2005, the partnership applied for a building permit for a single-family
    [Show full text]
  • Bankrupt Golf Courses: an Historical Analysis And
    BANKRUPT GOLF COURSES: AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIES FOR REPURPOSING by BLAKE JEFFREY CONANT (Under the Direction of Ron Sawhill) ABSTRACT More than 800 golf courses have closed since 2003 and approximately 1,000 to 2,500 are projected to close in the next decade. Many of these courses are repurposed as high-end mixed-use development, high-density residential, or big-box development. The sustainable benefits the golf course once provided either diminish or leave completely. As our countryʼs 21st Century needs shift towards food, water, and energy security, bankrupt golf courses can offer repurposing opportunities to plan for those needs. The goal of golf course repurposing should be to provide similar or greater sustainable benefits as the golf course once did. Understanding how that land can be sustainably repurposed is vital for local communities, environments, and economies to thrive in the 21st Century. This thesis will offer suggestions, strategies, and solutions for repurposing bankrupt golf courses that have yet to be implemented in the United States. INDEX WORDS: Golf, Golf Architecture, Golf Course, Golf Course Development, Land Use, Sustainability BANKRUPT GOLF COURSES: AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIES FOR REPURPOSING by BLAKE JEFFREY CONANT Bachelor of Fine Arts, The University of Montana, 2009 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2013 © 2013 Blake Conant All Rights Reserved BANKRUPT GOLF COURSES: AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIES FOR REPURPOSING by BLAKE JEFFREY CONANT Major Professor: Ron Sawhill Committee: Katherine Melcher Gary Green Tom Doak Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2013 DEDICATION For my mother, Margaret, who always gives me encouragement, support, and love.
    [Show full text]
  • SRO Tenants: Know Your Rights
    SRO Tenants: Know Your Rights WHAT IS A SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY BUILDING? A single-room-occupancy (SRO) building is usually a hotel or rooming house with rooms that do not have both a kitchen and a bathroom within the room. MOST SRO HOTELS ARE RENT-STABILIZED • Rent increases are regulated by law • Services (maid service, cleaning) may not be reduced NEW RESIDENTS CAN BECOME PERMANENT, RENT-STABILIZED TENANTS New residents can become permanent tenants protected by the Rent Stabilization Law by living in the hotel for 6 months or more OR by asking for a lease in writing. You do NOT have to get an actual lease to become a Permanent Tenant -- you only have to ask for one. Permanent Tenants or anyone who has lived there more than 30 days in a row CANNOT be evicted without a Court order and warrant. WHAT NEW RESIDENTS SHOULD KNOW • You do NOT have to leave the hotel after 21 days. • You will be protected by the Rent Stabilization Law IF you ask for a lease for 6 months or more. • You may ask for a lease at any time (even after living at the hotel for only 1 day). • MFY Legal Services has easy-to-use forms and can help you ask for a lease if you have not already done so. • Once you have lived in the hotel for 30 days in a row or have asked for a lease, you CANNOT be evicted without a Court order and warrant. WHAT PERMANENT TENANTS SHOULD KNOW • Permanent tenants have a right to stay in their rooms at the rent- stabilized rate without being charged more than the legal rent.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing Planned Communities Is a Clear Statement of the Design Issues That Are Critical to Creating Livable and Well-Designed Planned Communities
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT DESIGNING PLANNED Th e compositional form of most planned communities defi nes their development struc- ture. Th ey became popular because of development problems that arose under traditional zoning and subdivision regulations, which did not originally include this concept. Th e zoning ordinance regulates land uses and lot sizes. Th e subdivision ordinance regulates DESIGNING PLANNED street and block layouts and requires developers to provide public infrastructure such as streets, sewers, and other utilities. Th ere is a gap here. Neither ordinance gives designers or developers the fl exibility to design a planned community that includes common open space, resource protection, and better and varied design. Th is book shows how to design COMMUNITIES planned communities that overcome these problems. “Designing Planned Communities is a clear statement of the design issues that are critical to creating livable and well-designed planned communities. Professor Man- delker draws on his long experience with planned community and land use regula- tion to explain the meaning of good design for planned communities. He shows how design concepts for planned communities can be translated into effective de- COMMUNITIES sign guidance by local governments. Examples of design standards are provided from comprehensive plans, design guidelines, design manuals, and planned community regulations. Throughout Designing Planned Communities, the reader is taken through the complex problems of design regulation to an eff ective design program that can create planned communities in which we want to live. Planners and lawyers will be interested in what Mandelker has to say about the design issues facing a growing number of planned communities throughout the country.
    [Show full text]