Time To Explore Alternatives

Nov. 11, 2016

Traverse City voters have decided they’d like a say before any buildings taller than 60 feet are erected. Now we’ll see who can file suit the fastest claiming this is an illegal intrusion on zoning.

This all started because a developer wanted to put a nine-story building hard against Front Street. The proposal included the obligatory parking and some affordable housing units. What ultimately morphed into a charter amendment was opposition to that structure at that location.

Now we’ll await what will likely be multiple rounds in court.

There is a fairly simple, at least partial, solution. A majority of voters don’t want new 100-foot buildings downtown or that close to the bayfront. City leaders, who should be at least somewhat responsive to the will of those voters, could rezone those areas to remove all doubt for future developers.

The requirement of no more than 60 feet on Front Street stepped down to 45 feet on the blocks closer to the water would do the trick. No exemptions, no exceptions, no special-use permits.

If the charter amendment passes legal muster, nothing will have changed except the additional no-exceptions 45-foot rule. If the amendment is tossed, the city has still responded to the voters’ wishes to maintain the character of their downtown.

The new urbanists would be appalled by such decisions. They will predict, as they did during the campaign, the demise of the city’s growth and success if we can’t make downtown build up.

It seems unlikely the lack of taller buildings on Front Street will substantially harm our future. Nor does it seem likely workforce or affordable housing downtown will be our savior.

The unfortunate reality is downtown Traverse City is the worst possible place to develop affordable housing. Land on which to build is scarce and unpleasantly expensive. There isn’t property that can be easily converted to housing. Buying and demolishing already-existing property adds another layer of initial cost. Add in the logistical complications and the additional costs of downtown construction.

Somebody — the developer, banks, financiers, investors, all of the above — has to spend millions just to get started. The only way they can add affordable housing to the mix and make the project pencil out is with tax breaks. They can’t build without subsidies, and they certainly can’t rent below market rate without more subsidies.

We can’t even guarantee affordable workforce housing will be used by the downtown workforce. Qualifying for such housing will be based on income, not place of employment. It’s theoretically possible not a single unit of affordable housing constructed downtown will be used by someone working downtown.

The lawyers, doctors and other professionals working downtown, who have real careers, don’t need subsidized housing. The folks working 30 hours a week for $9 or $10 with no benefits, not an atypical circumstance in restaurants, boutiques and specialty stores, are likely to be searching for better opportunities they might not find downtown.

The new urbanists believe in a dense urban core with work, entertainment and shopping in close proximity to housing people can afford. That fills their mantra of creating livable, sustainable communities.

All very reasonable and rational, especially if you’re starting a community from scratch. Changing the character of a place that has already been sustained through a civil war, two world wars, a major depression and numerous recessions during a 170-year-long run might not work as well.

People don’t typically move to this part of the world seeking the quintessential urban experience. What the urbanists call suburbanism — an insult they hiss through clenched teeth — plenty of people call the American Dream. They want a yard where their kids can play, some room to roam, maybe even the extravagance of a few trees and some birds. There is a lifestyle expectation here that will resist social engineering to the contrary.

Providing affordable housing is an extremely laudable goal the pursuit of which by our city commission is commendable. Forcing it downtown not so much.

Instead of asking taxpayers to help foot the bill for downtown housing, perhaps we should expand our horizon to two or three or four miles beyond the urban core. Land is cheaper, logistics are simpler, construction less worrisome, and tax breaks are still available for the developer if so inclined.

Greater taxpayer subsidies for BATA to enhance routes that best serve commuters and other incentives for alternatives to singleoccupancy vehicles bringing people in to work makes more sense than taxpayer subsidies for downtown housing.

Downtown is the least practical and most expensive place for affordable housing. And taxpayers aren’t thrilled with the idea of subsidizing housing in the most expensive neighborhood in town.

We know what we don’t want. Now would be a good time to start exploring alternatives so we can find something we do.