Apologies about the long post, but I have been thinking a lot about the
the NextStl piece and have some some mixed feelings about it.
On the one hand, I am persuaded that Lux Living (and their other incarnations/names) at best have shady business practices, but may be violating their contracts/the law and hoping to keep a low enough profile to get away with it. I have never rented from them, but I had a friend who did years ago, and while she was moving out they actually rented her apartment to someone else despite her having rented it for that month and still having stuff in the apartment. It culminated in a very awkward interaction when she tried to open the door and found it chained from the inside by someone now living there. Not good! I don’t think we should take all the reviews on the apartment review websites as verified facts, but based on the anecdotal report of my friend, I have no trouble believing that their only goal in apartment management is maximizing profit at their tenants expense. I also think they have shown that they are willing to twist laws and customs to their benefit regardless of underlying principles. The
reincorpration of the Commercial DeBaliviere Place Association to basically serve as a front to interfere with a competing development across the street, even if not illegal, is certainly unethical and against the spirit of the law.
What I have trouble with, though, is using the development process as an extra-judicial means to punish people/developers/corporations for prior actions and allegations (especially those not proven in a court of law) that are not directly related to the proposed development. It would be different if they were partnering with the city on some sort of public-private development, but this is an entirely privately-funded development. I may be dreaming here, but I think the city would be much better served by a predictable, rules-based development process where objective and public criteria advance are used to approve/deny developments. I think such a process would be less prone to abuse. If our current building codes, tenant rights, inspection protocol, etc are not sufficient, then we should get sympathetic aldermen to write legislation to address the concerns, not apply different ad hoc standards to some but not all developers.
LuxLiving is not requesting tax incentives for the FPSE property, but I agree that there should be some sort of clawback provision if the city provides tax incentives for a building that is then sold (or even rented) at a level that makes the financial need for the initial incentives questionable. If you think of tax incentives as the city's way of investing in the property, the city be able recoup more profit from the investment if it is more profitable than the numbers initially suggested.
Starting on an area where I somewhat agree with the piece, the most concerning claim to me is that the buildings themselves might not be structurally sound. My friend actually lived in the building that had the
partial collapse (though ~10 years ago). Based on their track record, I totally believe they defer maintenance to maximize short-term profits. I think they should be cited when they violate code, and prosecuted if someone is hurt as a result of their negligence, as any other property owner should be. As far as their new builds go, I think they should be required to be built to code, but other than that, I don't think there should be special requirements made of them specifically. The complaints cited by tenants in the article (ineffective soundproofing, shoddy cabinetry, single-paned leaky windows) seem like things that should be rectified at the city's direction if they are code violations, addressed by moving rent into escrow if they are lease violations, or left to the tenant to decide if the pros outweigh the cons of renting in the building when it is renewal time; hopefully bad reviews on apartment websites provide something for prospective renters to think about. The article states that "The city should not accept new apartments regardless of the quality." I agree, but would add that unless the city is providing financing/incentives, it should allow code-compliant buildings to be built. That the buildings are sometimes sold to outside investors does not strike me as a problem. If the investors overpay for the properties because they were not built to last despite them meeting the city's code specifications, it seems like a problem for the investors, and the city should require them to maintain the building to code but otherwise let them make their own investment decisions and do their own due diligence. The argument that they sometimes quickly sell their buildings also seems to undercut the argument that they are poor managers--if they don't manage their apartments well, they we are better served by them selling buildings to better managers. I don't think that it is terrible that "the City is also stuck with buildings owned and operated by out-of-state investors." We should want investment in our city, including out-of-state investment; this is different than a passive investor sitting on a crumbling building. Again, we should enforce the code, and adjust the code legally as needed, but not to punish out-of-state investors specifically, but to encourage property maintenance and public safety.
A number of complaints seemed like they should be adjudicated between the tenants, the management, and the private market, like " piles of trash in the hallways, ongoing security issues, tech problems with the electronic keys that leave residents locked out of their own home, heating/cooling issues, broken elevators, and pests like roaches and mice. Current and former residents lament that amenities boastfully advertised by Lux are often available only during the first few opening months, but become unavailable or are removed over time. Multiple reviews complain that the gyms often lack proper cleaning supplies, and the provided internet is undependable, often slow, but also mandatory to use." If there are areas where they are violating city laws/codes, then the city should enforce them, but I don't see a role for the development process in checking internet speeds or gym supplies. Maybe tenants need more/better tenant protections in city law? Random inspection of units by the city? Otherwise, I think it is an area where we can let current tenants decide if they are getting their money's worth, or not.
Some of the issues raised in the article I totally disagree with:
- I found the AirBnB section distracting (and a moot point regarding the FPSE site as they are apparently deed-restricted, not sure if the same is true of the Optimist proposal). I am not opposed to AirBnB at all, and I would favor pretty broad latitude in letting people do what they want with apartments/condos they own, rent, or manage. I think we focus too much on controlling uses, which leads to a lot of weird incentives, convoluted zoning codes, and opportunities for entrenched interest to try and shape markets to their advantage, and instead we/the city should be more outcome-focused. If the choice to rent out units as AirBnB is causing a specific problem, then that problem should be dealt with the same way the city would deal with that problem from someone with a year-long lease or an owner-occupied property, otherwise let them be.
- "[T]he City has not confirmed that they are even aware that these apartments are being used as de-facto hotels." I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence--is the claim that they are running AirBnBs but not paying the appropriate taxes on them, or that the author could not get confirmation of taxes paid from available city records? I thought AirBnB directly collected the city taxes and remitted them to the city, but I could be mistaken. If this is a problem, it seems like it ought to be addressed through city enforcement, not by banning AirBnBs.
- "Parking becomes an issue as the building cannot accommodate the needs of Airbnb guests, then on-street parking becomes overwhelmed as well, affecting the surrounding neighborhood." I was surprised to see this on an urbanist blog! I would much rather see us remove parking minimums than require residences and businesses to provide parking above and beyond what they want to offer as a service rolled into the price. If someone wants to build a car-optional apartment building or hotel, and thinks the market will support them, I say let them.
I also think the "donations to politicians" part is a bit off the mark. Of course they donate to politicians they want to influence! Pretty much everyone who donates to a politician/party/cause does so because they want the recipient to agree with them, or they are highly confident the recipient already agrees with them and should be in a place of power to enact policies related to their area of agreement. I think the best way to combat the role of corporate/private donations from influencing city government/development decisions in city government is to have a rules-based approach that doesn't allow for vague things like character to be an important deciding factor. While I think there is plenty to suggest that Lux Living's character is poor, it is not always clear cut, and allowing non-germane factors to work themselves into the approval process seems more likely to grease the wheels of cronyism, pay-to-play, kickbacks, etc., than a process that is clearly laid out in advance and limited to objective criteria.
). I'd also rather see the historic buildings on Arco and Oakland rehabbed instead of demolished. And no incentives!
happy to be known as the curb hugger - among other things. 