 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
|||||||||
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
 |
|||||||||
 |
||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
| |
|
|
||||||||
| |
||||||||||
| |
||||||||||
| |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Island News
September 7 , 2006
By Tom Ratzloff
Affordable housing on Daniel Island has been controversial since the Charleston City Council approved a general outline of the Affordable Housing Plan on Oct. 30, 2001, "over the objections of petition-wielding residents who questioned both the concept and the details of the plan," according to a Charleston Post & Courier story.
The Affordable Housing Plan was developed out of agreements that were reached back in the early 1990s, shortly after the island’s annexation to the City of Charleston in 1991. The Guggenheim Foundation, which then owned the island, hired a team of New York architects and planners to develop Daniel Island’s Master Plan. Guggenheim Foundation President Dr. James A. Hester had definite ideas about how the island should be developed. Hester embraced the ideas of the "New Urbanism" movement in architecture and urban planning, and he had a deep personal appreciation for the natural beauty of the area, having lived in Charleston as a boy. According to news reports at the time, Hester wanted a plan that would incorporate environmental preservation with humane urban design, and include a variety of housing options for people at various income levels. The housing would include affordable housing for the island’s middle and lower-income workforce. City officials, including Mayor Joe Riley, agreed with these concepts.
A summary of News & Courier reports at the time and a review of source documents explains the process. The Guggenheim Foundation created the Daniel Island Development Co. to develop the island. The Daniel Island Master Plan was approved by the City Council in 1993 and a comprehensive Development Agreement was executed in 1995 (pursuant to a 1991 Memorandum of Understanding). The agreement called for Daniel Island Development Co. to sell 20 acres to the City of Charleston for affordable housing. It was also to use 10 percent of its profits to set up a fund with the Trident Community Foundation to support affordable housing and minority and small-business development, and to help ease any negative effects on low- to moderate-income areas near Daniel Island. The 10-percent-of-profits pledge was nullified in 1997, when the Guggenheim Foundation and the Daniel Island Development Co. sold 3,000 acres to The Daniel Island Co., a new company headed by Frank Brumley. (The Daniel Island Development Co. dissolved, never having made a profit because of high costs in putting in roads and other infrastructure.) Brumley re-negotiated the 10-percent pledge, agreeing that 5 percent of profits would go to the fund, and reaffirming the commitment to sell 20 acres to the city.
The 2001 Affordable Housing Plan calls for the developers to sell 20 acres to the city at cost for scattered site affordable housing (as previously pledged), and states that the developer’s goal is for 5 percent of all residential units built to be affordable to low and moderate income families. With 4,500 residential units planned for Daniel Island, the 5 percent would equal 225 affordable housing units.
The plan calls for three programs to provide affordable housing to families earning up to 150 percent of the area’s median income (AMI), defined at the time as $46,300 for a family of four: A Home Ownership Program would target families with incomes of 80 percent ($37,050) to 150 percent ($69,450) of AMI , with a goal of 75 single family homes or attached townhouses, priced from $175,000 to $225,000. A Rental Housing Program would target families with incomes ranging from 60 percent ($27,780) to 80 percent ($37,050) of AMI, with a goal of 75 subsidized units. This rental housing could consist of units in townhome facilities or in small scale multifamily facilities (duplexes or triplexes) scattered throughout the community. Each facility should also include non-subsidized units. And finally, a Multifamily Rental Housing Program would provide housing for individuals and families whose income is less than 60 percent ($27,780) of AMI. The plan calls for 75 units to be developed and set aside for such families, utilizing the low-income housing tax credit program. The plan calls for integration of these units in such a way that they are not identifiable as low-income units, by developing 200 to 300 multifamily rental units in several locations and including the 75 subsidized units in them. Qualifying families would pay rent equal to about 30 percent of their monthly income. The units would remain available to qualifying families for 30 years for the housing tax credits.
Of course, the development of Daniel Island was well on its way by the time the Affordable Housing Plan was adopted, and controversy had already erupted about affordable housing. In 2000 and 2001, the Daniel Island Company, working with the non-profit Humanities Foundation, came up with a proposal for a 190-unit multifamily facility to be located adjacent to the Town Center, including 76 Affordable Housing Units that would be rented to families with incomes at or below 60 percent of AMI. However, in March 2001, the South Carolina Housing Finance Authority did not award the necessary low-income housing tax credits for the project.
Subsequently, in February 2005, another project was announced, this one a 72-unit affordable housing development on Daniel Island Drive at Seven Farms Drive. This project drew sharp criticism from the Daniel Island Neighborhood Association, which charged that residents had not been adequately informed of the project before it was announced. DINA objected to the fact that the project concentrated the units in one place, and charged that the project violates the Affordable Housing Plan. The organization filed suit, claiming zoning violations and that no traffic study had been done for the project, as required by city ordinance. DINA recently voted to drop those lawsuits.
DINA was again critical when the Parkside Condominiums development was announced in April 2006. The 84-unit development is a joint venture of the Daniel Island Company, Trammell Crow Residential (TCR) and the Charleston Bank Consortium (CBC), and will be located on the Blakeway Street, on property behind the new Daniel Island Elementary and Middle School. The 2- and 3-bedroom units will be offered at below-market value, between $220,000 and $250,000, and targeted to first-time homebuyers making between 100 and 150 percent of AMI. The minimum family income, for a family to be able to afford the units will be $55,000 to $60,000. Those who qualify will receive assistance in the form of an interest-free second mortgage that will offset the down payment. The loan will not come due until the unit is resold. In addition to the condominiums, TCR will be building 28 identical units within the Parkside Condominium development for the City of Charleston’s Housing Authority, which will offer them as rental units to families making 80 to 150 percent of AMI. Rents are expected to be $1,050 to $1,200 per month.
DINA members again complained that they had not been apprised of the plans or consulted beforehand, and criticized the plan for putting all the units together rather than scattering them around the community. The plan received city council approval, however, and is going forward. DINA President Tim Callanan recently met with Daniel Island Co. President Matt Sloan to iron out some of their differences, and DINA members voted to withdraw their lawsuit against the Humanities Foundation Project. That project, also, is going forward.
The Humanities Foundation Project almost fulfills the Daniel Island Company’s obligation to provide 75 units of multiple-family rental units for people whose income is less than 60 percent of AMI (72 units are included in the plan). Parkside Condomiums, due to be completed by mid-2007, will fulfill the requirement for 75 home ownership units for people making 80 percent to 150 percent of AMI. The 28 rental units within the Parkside development partly fills the 75-unit requirement for the middle bracket, people making 60 percent to 80 percent of AMI. That leaves 52 rental units and 3 multi-family units still to be built. Asked where those units would go, Sloan said he had no ideas at this time.
