07-28-1997 EDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7-25-1557 0: 10AM FROM MSP REAL ESTATE. INC. 612 336 4565 P. 14 • • $179,941. Data available for sales in the ties adjacent to low-income and very . low- single-family area immediately adjoining income family housing was expected. the Brookhaven low-income units were an- However,there was no evidence of this.'In-. alyzed from 1988 to the present:The North- stead the evidence showed market values ern Illinoi ` LS reports that sales for the consistent with property not adjacent to the first 9 months of 1993 for attached single- low-income units,and values rising at rates family how l average listing price consistent with the community as a whole. of $107,490si ari '4ayerage sale price off° A dampening effect on investment in new $102,756,or 96%of the asking price.Sales ` development in the'immediate area was for the first 9.rnonths of 1994 for attached also expected. There was no evidence of single-family houses had an average listing this either. Instead developers are con- • price of $109,675 and an average sale strutting and are selling good-quality, amount of$105,402.This is an increase of single-family housing right,next door to 2.6%in sale price.Data'available since X988 very low-income buildings. • II for sales of aownhouses in the area immedi- This study was designed as a market . ately adjoining the subsidized low-income 'analysis,not as a statistical regression anal- • ±ti units and similar units not immediately ad- ysis.However,a statistical regression anal- joining were analyzed. The single-family ysis, "Relationships between Affordable i. Low-and very houses bordering the low-income complex Housing Developments and Neighboring have not turned over,at least since 1988. Property Values,"conducted by Paul Cum- low-income The sales of the townhouse units close mints and John Landis,of the Institute for housing do not to Brookhaven were comparedwith sales Urban and Regional Development of the of siflnilar'units away from the low-income University of California. at Berkeley, automatically housing, all in Phase I of the townhouse reached similar conclusions for a variety of i er the value ofdevelopment.There are four different unit low-income housing types.Although they tots models with different layouts and sizes. did'not specifically address the issue of • finding Units with the A layout'away from density,the authors concluded: ' f` Brookhaven ranged°from a loss in value of poorly y deslgtted, poorly maintained,and 0.89% to an increase in value of 2.93% on poorly managed projects can.affect neigh- '' development or an annual basis in contrast to a 1.67% in- ` borbood property values-regardless of crease for an A unit adjacent to— the' whether they are afrordabl a or market-rate' • prevent siiccesLs�_ jConversely welldesigned,wail:managed, Brookhaven•units. Increases for B:units and welin projects should not of market away from Brookhaven ranged from 1.84% feet neighborhood property values,regard. development to 9.76% annually. Increases for C units less of whether they are affordable or mar- ranged from 0,89.% to 3.07% away from ketratei around it. Brookhaven; a C unit facing Brookhaven From au appraiser's viewpoint, the showed ari increase of 1.38%per year The conclusion must be that low-income and only D unit sale away from Brookhaven very low-income housing does not auto- showed a 2%annual increase in contrast to maticany lower the values of surrounding a 2.5%increase in a D unit facing the low- denti development or prevent sue- income units.These figures show that re- cessful market development around it. sales of townhouses .directly facing the apparently,a>development must fulfill Brookhaven low-income apartments reflect certain specific conditions before the con- Increases in value consistent with those lore- elusion can be reached.'Ph t,there must be ported by the Northern Illinois MLS and good planning on the part of both the coon with comparable sales of similar units in motility and the developer.The projects re- Phase I of the adjacent market townhouse viewed were well coordinated with sur- i development that are not directly adjacent rounding densities and uses,and natural • • to the low-income housing. .rid manmade buffers were used to good effect at all four sites.Second,there must be CONCLUSION - good construction quality and design.The 9 developments reviewed fit in with the ••• A dampening effect of 3% to 5%.on the , surrounding community; there were no . market values of residential property val- "public-housing red" doors in sight. The 7. Poul Cupvningiand tobtaLairdia,"tdadauEups:between Affordable Housing Developments atid3Vaigbbdeing Property Val- ' nee working Papaf°399;University et California at 8erkoloy,kodettia for Urban and Regional Development,September 1993, 17. i