There is probably another thread this can be merged into but I couldn't find one. Mods, please move if appropriate.

There is a brief article in St. Louis Public Radio about a movement to charge an additional fee when a building has a drop in unit number as part of a renovation: St. Louis is losing multifamily units. Some aldermen want to charge a conversion fee

I am still thinking through the pros and cons and don't have a strong opinion on this yet, though I think the cause-and-effect is less clear than the article implies, and I am skeptical this would result in much change in the plans for these buildings. I am also skeptical that it would result in a big bump in money going to the affordable housing trust, Alderwoman Green's suggestion for what to do with the money. It's not clear to me if this would apply to larger apartment buildings that are being rehabbed or is restricted to 2 families/4 familes.

This proposal seems to gesture towards the problem of disappearing units in desirable neighborhoods, but I don't see it resulting in more units/price points existing in those neighborhoods unless it is paired with a zoning code change that allows/encourages denser development, larger multifamily buildings, etc., over the objections of current residents regarding parking, building height, etc. I am thinking of the push back some recent multifamily housing proposals have gotten that have been discussed on this board (Skinker-Debaliviere, the Loop, Macklind, etc.) that seem to represent modest upzoning and a good way to keep the neighborhood population growing and keep a variety of price points while satisfying people's interest in having more space per unit.

Maybe once we go down to 14 wards the alders will be less interested in micromanaging every development and we will get a more robust executive agency applying more general guidelines. Alternatively, maybe the alders will delegate more power down to the neighborhood level, and we will see more neighborhoods trying to block developments.

I assume many aldermen will still end up spending a significant amount of time running interference on proposed developments of underutilized properties throughout the City. What else is there for them to actually do?

rbeedee wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2021

There is probably another thread this can be merged into but I couldn't find one. Mods, please move if appropriate.

There is a brief article in St. Louis Public Radio about a movement to charge an additional fee when a building has a drop in unit number as part of a renovation: St. Louis is losing units. Some aldermen want to charge a conversion fee

I am still thinking through the pros and cons and don't have a strong opinion on this yet, though I think the cause-and-effect is less clear than the article implies, and I am skeptical this would result in much change in the plans for these buildings. I am also skeptical that it would result in a big bump in money going to the affordable housing trust, Alderwoman Green's suggestion for what to do with the money. It's not clear to me if this would apply to larger apartment buildings that are being rehabbed or is restricted to 2 families/4 familes.

This proposal seems to gesture towards the problem of disappearing units in desirable neighborhoods, but I don't see it resulting in more units/price points existing in those neighborhoods unless it is paired with a zoning code change that allows/encourages denser development, larger multifamily buildings, etc., over the objections of current residents regarding parking, building height, etc. I am thinking of the push back some recent multifamily housing proposals have gotten that have been discussed on this board (Skinker-Debaliviere, the Loop, Macklind, etc.) that seem to represent modest upzoning and a good way to keep the neighborhood population growing and keep a variety of price points while satisfying people's interest in having more space per unit.

Maybe once we go down to 14 wards the alders will be less interested in micromanaging every development and we will get a more robust executive agency applying more general guidelines. Alternatively, maybe the alders will delegate more power down to the neighborhood level, and we will see more neighborhoods trying to block developments

Some additional context on the Chicago bill that Green's is apparently mirroring: 

• It only applies to two specific neighborhoods. 
• It is a pilot program running from April 1, 2021 to April 1, 2022. 
• It applies a $15,000 surcharge for the demolition of single-family homes and two-flats, as well as the mentioned $5,000 fee for each unit lost for anything bigger.
• A development is exempt from the surcharges if 50% of its units are reserved for earners of <60% of the area median income or the demolished building poses an imminent danger. 

I don't think this would work citywide, as there are too many neighborhoods that can't afford to obstruct redevelopment. If certain neighborhoods want to opt-in it smacks somewhat of NIMBYism - adding surcharges on the demolition of single-family homes even when a resulting development adds density (unless 50% of it is affordable). 

5k isn't going to dissuade anybody from converting a two family to a single family, but I appreciate the messaging. It's nice to hear somebody in elected office care about single family conversions. Perhaps this money can be used to incentivize small time renovations of currently vacant multifamily.

^ it’s not but that’s not the point of the fee(green says it’s not really a for deterrence), the money raised could go to keep people in the neighborhood. If we had that fee for the 400 units lost it would be $1,000,000

I could very much get behind using the money raised to help with maintenance and restoration, particularly of it's targeted towards affordable housing. Find the suite spot where it's not a disincentive to conversion, but where it raises the most money. A good targeted tax could be remarkably useful. Five grand sounds like a good starting point. A family member just moved into one such converted unit and I have a couple of friends that own others and are either in the midst of converting or at least considering it. Five grand is a big chunk of change for some of us, but . . . maybe if you don't have the money to pay the fee you could apply for a grant to keep the second unit going as an affordable rental, which would then provide extra income. Sounds like it might be that rare genuine win win.

This bill defies all logic

I think it's a great idea. 

If they tear down 10 single family homes and build a 200 unit apartment building do they get 1.9 mil credit?

Joking.. kind of.

Not sure how much of a difference this really makes but I would guess there are some cases making the units in a building less make sense, so hopefully it’s not a hard rule and there is some leeway if it is warranted.

In Tower Grove South there are blocks where the almost all the apartments have been eliminated due to conversions to single family homes. I think that's bad for a lot of reasons: it lowers density in the neighborhood (almost suburbanizing it), reduces the total number of housing units which pushes up housing prices for everyone including renters & homeowners, less affordable options for tenants. And I also think that two and four family flats are a relatively distinct St. Louis housing type, which is a shame to lose. 

downtown2007 wrote: ↑

May 14, 2022

This bill defies all logic

Care to elaborate? I'm with PeterXCV, I think its a good idea. 

My problem - Megan Green is always the one raising hell about Community Benefits Agreements & other ideas which make it more costly for developers to develop houses/apartments/units.  If you agree that the supply of housing matters to housing prices, which she clearly does with this bill. And you want to keep housing prices in line or lower than inflation in order to make our community more livable.  Than I have absolutely no idea why you would choose to focus your energy on  trying to prevent conversions. Its small fish and likely going to happen anyways. 

Her energy should all be focused on increasing supply.  Why not let someone build a 200 person apartment building in your ward?  Why not a 40 unit condo building?  She consistently makes it harder for developers to do that.  She is the one causing housing prices to rise faster - not developers.  And this bill is small fish compared to actually doing the hard work of reforming/reducing zoning & community input rules that would actually make it better for the people she is supposedly concerned about.

This should have been implemented years ago. The erosion of the missing middle from single family conversions is going to bite us in the ass down the road (not to mention the effect it has on transit lines through undensifying neighborhoods)

Realistically $10,000 isn't going to stop anything from happening. Perhaps something can be implemented that mirrors carbon credit programs. Call it housing credits, if you want to convert a duplex to single family you pay the cost (or part of the cost) of a new unit to a developer of a larger project. Why should the city subsidize these projects when the private sector can do it for them?

^GoHarv, spot on with the Missing Middle housing... these two and four-fams are vibrant  STL neighborhoods' special sauce.  Some also call the existing stock Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing, but since it's been under attack for so long it's getting pretty endangered in the hot zone - it's  basically become gentrification bait.  Also I'll mention that while a ton has been lost, there's a lot left to convert even in TGS and Shaw, let alone in areas like Benton Park West and Gravois Park where conversion activity to high dollar single-family home sales is not as far along but is definitely picking up.  Not really sure how much a $10k fee will tip the scale to preserving multi-fam, but I think it would to some degree and where it doesn't it would collect revenue to help preserve affordable housing in other ways.  

Yeah, I don't know what effect a $10k fee would have other than discouraging cheap conversions (which wouldn't be bad in and of itself). But I am sure that the Garcia Properties of the world will claim this means they'll never be able to do real estate in the city again. 

I don't think this is a smart move:

- It will encourage more renters versus owners. I think a mix of mostly owners is necessary to stabilize neighborhoods. From my observation condos don't sell well. 
- It'll discourage families moving in due to smaller dwellings that are available.
- I think it will discourage smaller developers since they rely on house sales to tackle the next project. 

I have no understanding of how property taxes are calculated. But...assuming no tax incentive, wouldn't a 2 family bring in more total property tax revenue for the city than a single family on the same footprint? So isn't the city forgoing revenue for all of time when it allows a conversion? If that's true, $10,000 seems like a bargain. 

But also, maybe I don't understand how property taxes are calculated.

Also, is there any exception for properties that were previously condemned or uninhabited for years? (I read through it, but didn't see anything other than areas of the city being exempt) Cause if someone wants to save a building that's been empty for 10 years, that's not the same as someone who bought a 4 unit, is kicking out long term tenants, and then converting it to a two unit.

flipz wrote: ↑

May 17, 2022

I don't think this is a smart move:

- It will encourage more renters versus owners. I think a mix of mostly owners is necessary to stabilize neighborhoods. From my observation condos don't sell well. 
- It'll discourage families moving in due to smaller dwellings that are available.
- I think it will discourage smaller developers since they rely on house sales to tackle the next project. 

Encouraging renters versus owners is a good thing imo because: 
1) Tenants have almost no rights compared with homeowners, landlords can do whatever the hell they want. 
2) I dislike having homeowners as neighbors, they're often stuck up and say things like the neighborhood would be more stable without people like me.