AATA, YMCA, and affordable housing

Oct 2 15:00 UTC 2003

The Ann Arbor YMCA is moving to a new facility, to be built at the site of
the old Tech Center.  The new facility, though, won't have the 100 units of
single-adult affordable housing that the old has.  AATA would like to buy the
old site, raze the existing facility, and build a larger transit center there.
AATA has said it will sell air rights to a dveloper to put something on top
of the transit center, but they're not interested in getting into the
affordable housing business (reasonable; they're a transit authority).  If
the housing disappears, though, the Y will be fined for violating conditions
of a settlement that requires that housing to exist; this fine will prevent
them from being able to move.  The City may block the sale of the old facility
to AATA for this reason.

So, what can be done to allow the Y to build their new facility, AATA to build
*their* new facility, and the affordable housing situation to be, at worst,
kept stable?

response 2 of 32:

Oct 2 17:08 UTC 2003

I never knew the details of the agreement, but a couple of simple options
are: the YMCA can change the design of their new building to include the
agreed-to housing, and the YMCA can operate the suggested housing addition
at the transit center.

In the past few years, something like three new residential complexes
have been built along Main and William.  The new building at State and
Washington is to include housing, too.  Adding a housing component to
a new building at Fourth and East William wouldn't be that difficult;
finding someone to operate it may be.

Hmm... Unless I've totally lost track of who is doing what, the new
homeless shelter on West Huron is just about complete.  Maybe the folks
running that endeavour could be persuaded to operate something at one
(or both) of the Y's locations.

response 4 of 32:

Oct 2 22:11 UTC 2003

Which is the YMCA more interested in: paying the penalty for violating the
agreement, or finding a way to maintain the agreement?

response 6 of 32:

Oct 3 15:06 UTC 2003

Well, let's see.  Where to start.

Right: the AATA is a transit authority and would be in serious legal trouble
using taxes collected for tranist to manage, operate, or own housing.

Wrong:  AATA offices are an integral part of the bus facility.  There is no
way to separate the "office" uses from the bus uses.  So there is nothing to
sell.  And it would be a move in the wrong direction to separate the bus
supervision from the buses themselves.  And it makes no sense to move any
office operations from a lower cost location (just nort of Eisenhower, and
east of State) to a higher cost location (center city Ann Arbor).  

Wrong:  "Just up the price"  The Y tried to sell the site for $7 million
several years ago.  They got no takers: it is overpriced at that level.  

The only buyer who even made an offer was the AATA at $5 million.  During the
due-dilegence period the AATA discovered that there was asbestos in the old
building that added a significant amount to the cost of tearing down the
building.  The AATA offer had not included asbestos abatement costs.

The AATA lowered its offer by the amount of additional cost.  The Y declined
to sell the property at that price.  Negotiations ceased.  

This spring the Y (which had based its capital fund raising plan on getting
the full $7 million from the site) returned to the AATA with a request to sell
them the property for $5 million.  No one else in the intervening years had
been interested in the property.  

The AATA made a new offer several weeks ago.  I can tell you that it was
significantly less than $5 million.  A couple million less.  

The offer is now in the hands of the Y and its board.  The offer does not
include the AATA paying the loss-of-housing penalty that the Y will incur.

If the Y agrees to the AATA offer, the City of Ann Arbor has the
right-of-first-refusal at that price.  They can buy the property at the price
the AATA is willing to buy it for.  And then put up any housing/mix-use
property that they want.

About the 100 units of housing.  That housing is SRO, single-room-occupancy
housing.  The local not-for-profit that builds/buys/manages most of the low
income housing in Ann Arbor is Avalon Housing.  They will not manage SRO: it
is no longer considered adequate housing for even the worst off citizens. 
They are not interested in partnering with the Y or the AATA to replace what
currently exists.  

I cant spend more time right now on this item, but there's more to the story.

response 8 of 32:

Oct 3 15:57 UTC 2003

Blocking the sale.  

The city cannot block the sale of private property.  The Y can sell its
property to anyone it wants at any price it can get.  

However, because the Y asked for City money to expand its building some years
ago, it must repay that loan when it does sell.  The Y can get the loan
forgiven by continuing to operated low-income housing for the number of years
it agreed to, or by repaying the remaining loan balance in cash.  

In addition, the agreement allows the City the right-of-first refusal when
the property is sold.  Who ever makes an offer knows that the City can take
the property for that amount of money if they wish.  

response 10 of 32:

Oct 3 16:11 UTC 2003

A capital expenditure the AATA isn't interested in.

Well, they're legally forbidden to use their tax money for anything but
providing
transportation services.  They'd quickly be slapped with a tax-payer
lawsuit if
they used their money to build housing.  Interested isn't the question.  

The city could use its tax money to build the housing if they wanted.
They already have a Housing Authority, and run a number of single family
homes, townhouse, and apartment developments.  The city so far feels it is
not a good use of their tax money to build housing on this site.

response 12 of 32:

Oct 3 20:01 UTC 2003

I'm a former council member with an "urban meddling" degree who can't get
politics out of her system.  I volunteer for this stuff.

response 14 of 32:

Oct 5 03:50 UTC 2003

Keep tuned.  The City may actually exercise its right-of-first-refusal.

response 16 of 32:

Oct 5 21:38 UTC 2003

I'm not sure where that response came from.  Nobody here is saying
shelters aren't needed and a necessary public service.  That I know of all
of Ann Arbor's shelters, both day and night, are in the downtown area. 

But if it makes you feel better to think we are all selfish and
uncaring rich folk, go for it.  It's part of Ann Arbor's mission. ;-)

response 18 of 32:

Oct 11 12:28 UTC 2003

slynne is absolutely right.  One of the reasons some of the council members
are acting a bit crazed right now is that the Y site(s) are in places where
these marginal folks are already accepted.  They can't see any other spots
in Ann Arbor where neighborhoods won't bitterly oppose this kind of housing.

"This kind of housing" is NOT for the homeless.  These units require a regular
monthly income, paid on time, for single adults who can function well enough
to cook, shop, pay bills, etc.  

response 20 of 32:

Oct 11 13:36 UTC 2003

You know. When I was a kid, I was on a swim team. The Highland Park 
YMCA swim team as a matter of fact. The scary low income folks at the 
Ann Arbor Y have nothing on the people who used to stay at the Highland 
Park Y. The way the Highland Park Y dealt with the mixing of 
populations - children and scary mentally ill residents was to provide 
supervision. There was always an adult staff member in the lobby. 

The Ann Arbor Y does this too. I used to go there when I lived in Ann 
Arbor. It never struck me as a place where it would be unsafe to take 
kids for lessons or daycare or whatever. But of course, the low income 
people there are perceived to be a huge threat by the somewhat 
sheltered affluent parents in Ann Arbor who are used to all kinds 
of "diversity". You know, the kind of "diversity" where most people are 
very well off, most people are white but there are some pretty good 
Indian restaurants in town and maybe some fashionable homosexuals. I 
see your point that it is bad business for the Y to have actual low 
income, sometimes mentally ill, folks in any kind of public space where 
they might come into contact with regular people. 

response 22 of 32:

Oct 11 13:40 UTC 2003

One thing that Ann Arbor has going for it is that there still are a few 
people around who really do care about having real diversity in town, 
which includes low income folks. 

response 24 of 32:

Oct 11 23:07 UTC 2003

I wonder what they were thinking when they chose to get into the low 
income housing business. Surely they had to know that the granola moms 
would never want their kids anywhere near someone with a mental 
illness. Maybe they honestly didnt consider that. 

Anyhow, I am surprised that Avalon isnt interested in providing this 
kind of housing. There is nothing wrong with single rooms like the Y 
has especially for short term situations. And trust me, as a person who 
worked with the mentally ill population, there is often a need to put 
someone up for just a month or two. The Y was considered a very 
valuable resource indeed. It had a lot of advantages. 

I can appreciate the Y's desire to get out of the low income housing 
thing since it is the sports/recreation side that brings in the most 
money. And, I think that those kinds of things are very valuable for 
the community. 

I just think it stinks that people in Ann Arbor pretend to be really 
caring and pretend to value "diversity" but then can so easily turn 
their backs on people who are different than they are, who are poor or 
mentally ill.

It is one of the reasons I am glad I live in Ypsi and also why I have 
mixed feelings about the way Ypsilanti is gentrifying. I mean, as a 
homeowner, I like the increase in value to my house. I like all the 
trendy shops that are opening. I am worried that folks will start 
getting uptight about trivial things like things like the mentally ill 
or group homes which so far are tolerated in Ypsilanti. 

Maybe the solution is to build some low income Y type single room 
housing in Ypsilanti.