Whoa. What a HUGE effort to write up such a detailed report. I must admit it took three sessions to finish reading!
I like hearing about the progress on specific projects. I am sorry to hear about all of the delays with Lyon Landing.
Just out of pure curiosity...
1.) Can you tell me more about the 25 applicants for the 14th home at Maloney Heights. Did they all meet the minimum standards for AMI, credit worthiness, and ability to repay? Even if say half of them were qualified, what stood out about the "winning" applicant? Also, what was the final price and how much was the silent-second mortgage?
2.) I would also love to hear more about the 40 homes built by HFHCC thus far. How many have turned over to new owners? What was the average length of ownership? Have there been any issues with new owners defaulting on their loans?
3.) Did you see that the Department of Commerce Housing for All Planning Tool is recommending COPA build 2143 homes in the next twenty years with 84% for people making less than 80% of AMI? What are the implications for our community?
4.) Lastly, COPA is leaning into ADUs and multi family (e.g. there were 3x as many building permits compared to single family homes last year). This style of building means PA is focused on creating vastly MORE rental properties (despite already having a very high 46% of existing housing stock already as rentals). What does this building shift mean for COPA and HFHCC?
1) No, not all 25 met Habitat Criteria, I believe the final qualifying applicants was narrowed down to about 4 or 5. Some withdrew their application, some turned in incomplete applications, and some did not meet the minimum credit criteria.
The determining factor is usually need – if all qualify, and all are willing to partner with Habitat, the need usually tips the scales to choose 1 applicant over another
2) 38 homes completed – 4 are under construction (slight correction to my numbers, apologies!)
5 homes have been sold on the open market; Habitat did not exercise its first right of refusal to buy back the homes. Habitat must pay the Fair Market value, then assess what it would cost to “recycle” the home for another family. Habitat has to have the cash on hand to purchase back the home at FMV, which was not the case for these 5 homes.
None of the 38 completed homes have been foreclosed on, i.e., Habitat Clallam has a zero foreclosure rate, and nationally Habitat for Humanity has a less than 2% foreclosure rate.
Outside of this, I don't have specifics for length of ownership, but one can deduce that information roughly, considering only 4 have re-sold, as I understand it.
3) Nonprofits are filling in the gap, but nonprofits cannot do it alone. For-profit builders must be incentivized to build affordable housing. For example, a developer sets 20 or 25% of a new development for affordable housing, and they are given tax credit incentives for FMV homes they are building.
Habitat Clallam has 91 homes in the pipeline – permitting through jurisdictions is a challenge, building permits and impact fees are a barrier to keeping development affordable. Not to mention increased building restrictions through codes and environmental regulations.
The need numbers from COPA sound reasonably accurate, but I do take issue with such a high percentage supposed to service those under 80% AMI; this is just not sustainable, even when working with great organizations like HFH. We know the private market cannot build this profitably. I've argued that it's a bit pointless to include something we don't have a plan to be able to execute. Non-profits will likely need to lead the charge, but it would require SIGNFICANT investment, and frankly anything substantially lower than 80% is probably not in HFH's wheelhouse.
4) The private sector is reacting to the need for housing. Steve Luxton is doing some great work in this arena. But it does seem to be leaning toward rentals. Affordable rentals definitely help our economy, but lasting home ownership is a more powerful tool. I think this speaks to the challenges of the private sector trying to fill the gaps in affordable housing. HFH will continue to focus on 80% AMI (or up to 120% for a portion of Lyon's Landing).
I think we need to grow our region economically to empower more of our citizens to be able to afford the basics, like housing. The City and County need to get very creative to ease the cost burdens on construction, but unfortunately the state has tied their hands in a lot of ways, with their push toward higher energy efficiency standards (which do not pay back the expense in lower energy bills to the point that it's even a long-term profitable venture).
Whoa. What a HUGE effort to write up such a detailed report. I must admit it took three sessions to finish reading!
I like hearing about the progress on specific projects. I am sorry to hear about all of the delays with Lyon Landing.
Just out of pure curiosity...
1.) Can you tell me more about the 25 applicants for the 14th home at Maloney Heights. Did they all meet the minimum standards for AMI, credit worthiness, and ability to repay? Even if say half of them were qualified, what stood out about the "winning" applicant? Also, what was the final price and how much was the silent-second mortgage?
2.) I would also love to hear more about the 40 homes built by HFHCC thus far. How many have turned over to new owners? What was the average length of ownership? Have there been any issues with new owners defaulting on their loans?
3.) Did you see that the Department of Commerce Housing for All Planning Tool is recommending COPA build 2143 homes in the next twenty years with 84% for people making less than 80% of AMI? What are the implications for our community?
4.) Lastly, COPA is leaning into ADUs and multi family (e.g. there were 3x as many building permits compared to single family homes last year). This style of building means PA is focused on creating vastly MORE rental properties (despite already having a very high 46% of existing housing stock already as rentals). What does this building shift mean for COPA and HFHCC?
Hi Steve, got some answers back from HFH:
1) No, not all 25 met Habitat Criteria, I believe the final qualifying applicants was narrowed down to about 4 or 5. Some withdrew their application, some turned in incomplete applications, and some did not meet the minimum credit criteria.
The determining factor is usually need – if all qualify, and all are willing to partner with Habitat, the need usually tips the scales to choose 1 applicant over another
2) 38 homes completed – 4 are under construction (slight correction to my numbers, apologies!)
5 homes have been sold on the open market; Habitat did not exercise its first right of refusal to buy back the homes. Habitat must pay the Fair Market value, then assess what it would cost to “recycle” the home for another family. Habitat has to have the cash on hand to purchase back the home at FMV, which was not the case for these 5 homes.
None of the 38 completed homes have been foreclosed on, i.e., Habitat Clallam has a zero foreclosure rate, and nationally Habitat for Humanity has a less than 2% foreclosure rate.
Outside of this, I don't have specifics for length of ownership, but one can deduce that information roughly, considering only 4 have re-sold, as I understand it.
3) Nonprofits are filling in the gap, but nonprofits cannot do it alone. For-profit builders must be incentivized to build affordable housing. For example, a developer sets 20 or 25% of a new development for affordable housing, and they are given tax credit incentives for FMV homes they are building.
Habitat Clallam has 91 homes in the pipeline – permitting through jurisdictions is a challenge, building permits and impact fees are a barrier to keeping development affordable. Not to mention increased building restrictions through codes and environmental regulations.
The need numbers from COPA sound reasonably accurate, but I do take issue with such a high percentage supposed to service those under 80% AMI; this is just not sustainable, even when working with great organizations like HFH. We know the private market cannot build this profitably. I've argued that it's a bit pointless to include something we don't have a plan to be able to execute. Non-profits will likely need to lead the charge, but it would require SIGNFICANT investment, and frankly anything substantially lower than 80% is probably not in HFH's wheelhouse.
4) The private sector is reacting to the need for housing. Steve Luxton is doing some great work in this arena. But it does seem to be leaning toward rentals. Affordable rentals definitely help our economy, but lasting home ownership is a more powerful tool. I think this speaks to the challenges of the private sector trying to fill the gaps in affordable housing. HFH will continue to focus on 80% AMI (or up to 120% for a portion of Lyon's Landing).
I think we need to grow our region economically to empower more of our citizens to be able to afford the basics, like housing. The City and County need to get very creative to ease the cost burdens on construction, but unfortunately the state has tied their hands in a lot of ways, with their push toward higher energy efficiency standards (which do not pay back the expense in lower energy bills to the point that it's even a long-term profitable venture).
That's for the questions, Steve! I've reached out to HFH to compile some information and will follow up once we have it. Stay tuned!