Love the consent agenda (Item 1), they bury a half-million of affordable housing expenditures in it with some ‘vague’ ownership names, when you  start googlin’ the shit you get a wide array of fly-by-night attorneys, etc.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the city should contribute to affordable housing  . . . but through legislation & regulation, not tax dollars.

Like I said, just start looking up this crap, sad how some attorneys in town are lining their pockets with our tax dollars to house the poor. Just imagine if the entire $500K went to rent, how many people that would help? But hey, lawyers need a roof over their heads too 🙁

Screen shot 2014-10-04 at 1.13.23 PM

14 Thoughts on “Get to googlin’

  1. Poly43 on October 4, 2014 at 4:34 pm said:

    My over 90 parents live in a independent living retirement community. They, along with many others who live there have been on fixed incomes, mostly social security, for three decades. As you can imagine, getting by month to month is a struggle. They depend on our bus system, both the para and regular bus. But the city is about to make that another financial hardship.

    I spend about 20 hours a week here working so these seniors can make an attempt to have a stable life. I know for a fact a lot of these people had a major cut, at least by their standards, in Sioux Falls Housing money.

    Reading this BS is really disheartening.

  2. rufusx on October 4, 2014 at 8:51 pm said:

    “…..I think the city should contribute to affordable housing . . . but through legislation & regulation, not tax dollars…..”

    WTF… does this phrase even say?

    “contribute” – means provide value ($$$ is how value is measured in this country). Are you talking about subsidies (using tax dollars)?

    “legistation”? Huh? you mean “tax breaks” or “incentives”, or what?

    Oh BTW – whether you “legislate” (create ordinances) to spend tax $$ already collected (subsidies) – or don’t collect tax $$ – they are BOTH expenditures – come out of the budget = spending tax dollars.

    “regulation” – Ummm do we PAY the regulators – or not?

    Good grief.

  3. Educate me on this.
    Is the city cutting a check to the developers/investors to build the structures or are these tax breaks?

    Is this money funneled from a federal grant or is this direct from city tax revenue?

  4. LJL – As I understand it the ‘500K’ goes toward land acquisition and preparation. In other words, the city buys the land and prepares it for a developer. Now how much of that money gets ate up in ‘fees’ is my question. I find it ‘odd’ that each project has a flat rate of 200 and 300K. There is some Federal money used. As for what Rufsux was babbling about, I think the city should only use resources to make it easier for developers to acquire the land and develop on it. I don’t think we need to be in the business of actually being land brokers.

  5. Follow up question: Is there cap on the price of the rental fee the owner can charge in order to receive these funds? In other words; do these funds ensure housing is kept affordable?

    Just ignore rfx, the rest of the world does.

  6. enough of Shape Places and MMM legacy on October 5, 2014 at 6:09 pm said:

    everyone has to wonder what the true intent of what is developing on the south side of Sioux falls as far as how many apartment complexes are hitting Lincoln County, how many frkn walmarts that Jeffy Schmitt and Cooper and of course idiot MMM or 3-M can amass on the inner side of Corridor 100 as it stands now. Do you think they are thinking of EBT refills as it relates to sales tax. If you reward the democrats as MMM is, might as well reward the elephants in the crowd too so they leave it all alone. Wonder why housing permits are down. No wonder anymore they have planned this still according to Soros and his Agenda 21. I’m sure some will say its BS and bitch about it, but think back to last year with hiring SAIC(an IGLCE subscriber as was Sioux Falls until March 2013 when a tax payer painfully made the council painfully aware of it)to document frkn trees to the tune of over a grand a piece to get Govt funding. Don’t you think that the low income of a 1BR apt at 700 is too low, yes it is to everyone such as the developers will want the fed and the state to cough up $1200 or $1400 a month plus welfare, plus make them pay for transit card, $200 a month or more, or if you need paratransit $500 as month or a 1000 per month. Am I far off, wait til they bull doze west soo, a mile either side of Sanford, how about Axtell Park area, I’m sure they can’t wait to turn most of that into parking lot and hotels, toss in a few more apt complexes like the poorly built things are at 85th and Western. I bet they don’t even have sprinkler systems build in to protect occupants???. Urban renewal is upon us now that a zoning ordinance that was supposedly written to protect RS was an actual farce according to planning and zoning, look at the BS at 85th and Minn. who was there first, the RS or the frckn chicken.

  7. I have a 50 year old daughter who has been looking for a three bedroom ground floor apartment in the $600.00 price range for about a month. She needs it to be on the east side and there just isn’t anything.

  8. Dan Daily on October 6, 2014 at 8:27 am said:

    I smell Lloyd Companies involvement. Not only are the sums suspicious but also the vendor names. Land prep should be a developer expense. There’s federal money designated for this. It’s what’s built upscale (affordable) condos downtown. Condos with retail on the first floor. This money should go to soup kitchens or rent subsidies. Better yet, it should be repartitioned to the county. They’re always broke because they are responsible for all social services.

  9. hornguy on October 6, 2014 at 11:22 am said:

    I work for an affordable housing agency – not in South Dakota, but the rules are largely the same from state to state since it’s federal law that governs most of these developments.

    To answer LJL’s question, projects like this are almost always contingent upon the developer receiving some kind of financing assistance at the state or federal level that requires them to limit rent to a certain percentage of Adjusted Gross Income. So without getting into long, involved discussions of the particulars, the short answer is, almost certainly, yes.

    Local governments routinely participate in land acquisition and site development in affordable housing. Eligibility for most state and federal resources for affordable housing requires some kind of local match into the project, be it from city or county government. And the financing structures are often pretty complicated, pulling together commitments from a number of sources.

    As it goes, absent government involvement in providing loans/grants/tax credits, exactly zero units of affordable housing are likely to be built. It’s the tax credits and other financing assistance up front that allow developers and investors to be able to eke out a return. If it weren’t for those programs, no developer or investor would do anything but market-rate.

  10. HG- Totally understand all that, I just think that it is unusual to award the entire $500K to two projects at a flat rate like they did. My curiosity lies in what percentage of these monies is tied up in consulting fees? And much is actually going towards the land and development?

  11. rufusx on October 6, 2014 at 8:07 pm said:

    So – what you’re upset about is that attorneys involved in putting together the complicated system of legal documentation/contracts and so on – want to be paid – don’t just do this work gratis. I see.

  12. anonymous on October 7, 2014 at 6:02 am said:

    I went to the open house at Lloyd’s new Minnesota Apartments on North Minnesota Avenue.

    It is a partnership between Lloyd, Citibank and the taxpayers and billed as affordable housing.

    The rent for a one bedroom based on income ranges from $635-690 a month.

    Tell me how that is “affordable” to all those Sioux Falls workers making $10-12 an hour?

  13. rufusx on October 7, 2014 at 3:16 pm said:

    That’s affordable. Around 35% of income at the rates you mentioned. About the same as a suggested max for a mortgage payment.

  14. Poly43 on October 9, 2014 at 11:49 am said:

    To suggest 35% of gross income is workable for a house payment on a $10 to$12 an hour job is just not right Ruf. Maybe for a fee harvesting credit card marketeer that is alright, but not for Joe Sixpack. Do a complete budget on those numbers and see where it takes you. You will go nowhere, you will do nothing, and you will eat lots of Ramen noodles.

    Rule to live by when figuring house payment. Never spend more than 25% of your income after taxes, especially for this income bracket. That would put this example at anywhere between 400 to 440 a month in payments. And still absolutely no hope of stepping inside t Denny’s palace.

Post Navigation