Microhousing: Burgess Didn’t Listen
Councilmember Tim Burgess has been sending out an e-mail in response to supporters of microhousing explaining the Council’s vote. Councilmembers often send out these kinds of comprehensive responses, and Burgess’ is mostly in the form of a blog post linked in an e-mail from his legislative aide. Along with comments at the very end of the committee meeting, it is pretty clear from listening and reading Burgess’ comments that missed something. Burgess cites a very long, discursive monologue given by Councilmember Licata (the comments sound like Licata arguing himself to a more politically acceptable position that the one he initially took, which would have committed him to a minimum of 180 square feet for micros) as reflective of his own thinking about minimum room sizes.
Some have expressed concern that mandating in the 220 square foot minimum size will decrease the prevalence of these more affordable units. Arguments that the actions we’ve taken will make microhousing too expensive to develop or less affordable don’t stand up to scrutiny. These units will still rent for much more per square foot than average studio apartments, making them attractive to developers. And the rents will remain at what the market will bear; any marginal increases in development costs will cut into the developer’s profit margin, not be passed on directly to renters. Councilmember Nick Licata argued this line persuasively in committee (in a five-minute explanation).
Matt Gangemi, who did some great posts on small-lot legislation, wrote a great e-mail responding to a key line in Burgess’ blog post:
“And the rents will remain at what the market will bear; any marginal increases in development costs will cut into the developer’s profit margin, not be passed on directly to renters.”
Oh no. Please reconsider the logic in this. Builders build based on profit. If profits are high many other builders will join in to get a piece of the pie, until profits drop to that of other projects. Adding cost to a housing type drops the interest in providing that product, as they could spend their money and effort on other projects (the prime example is exurban housing). The end result is fewer units and higher rents.I understand the desire to fight and tax big developers, but there really is no free lunch. The more expensive and difficult we make it to build, the fewer homes that are built, the more rents go up, and the more we push people out to the far suburbs (emphasis mine).Please keep the discussion going. I think the council is going in a terrible direction but with good intentions.Thanks for listening,-Matt Gangeminot a developer
The legislation, as proposed, would make it impossible to provide a small unit in the format that makes it most useful for the end user.If the goal is to regulate density, then regulate density. Council member O’Brien’s proposal would work out to roughly a density limit of 1/150 in LR3 and 1/230 in LR2 (units /land sf). LR1 already has a density limit for apartments.Enacting a density limit would achieve the council’s stated policy goals while making large parts of the remaining legislation unnecessary. With a density limit in place, there is no need to regulate minimum unit size, both small apartments and congregate housing could be allowed, and there is no need for the land use code to micromanage the interior design of housing units. The outcome is predictable, flexibility is preserved, and individual developers and architects remain able to design housing that best fits the needs of users.
