Affordable, attainable, workforce housing: Fort Collins land use code could define it

Did Fort Collins' land use code update miss the mark when it comes to workforce housing?

We asked that in last week's Coloradoan Conversations because the land development changes raised the question: What are people envisioning when they hear the city wants to encourage development that meets the need for more "affordable" housing?

Do they picture retail or service industry workers who help keep Fort Collins' restaurant scene vibrant and give strength to the local economy? They might make $15 to $18 per hour, less than $35,000 per year, if it's a full-time job.

A single person making that wage makes less than 50% of the area median income. A couple working together still makes less than 80% of AMI, without children.

At these wages, you would qualify for "deed-restricted affordable housing."

Do they think of school paraprofessionals and custodians? Social workers and nurses? Do they picture teachers making a base salary of $48,000 per year? They earn barely above 60% of area median income if they are single.

And they would qualify for deed-restricted affordable housing.

And if they're better off, making 80% of AMI, then they have even fewer opportunities to qualify in a city where the average price of a single-family home is more than $600,000 and average rents are around $1,600 a month.

At that rate, a person needs to make more than $57,000 to be able to afford rent without spending more than one-third of their income on it.

Nobody would dispute these professions help meet important needs in Fort Collins. The community couldn't function well without them. But just how many are unable to find housing in Fort Collins and commute from a farther-away, more financially feasible situation? What are the outcomes when they can live in the city where they work? The answers can help guide land use code changes.

Then there are negative stereotypes associated with affordable housing, unfairly associating it with higher crime, more noise, trash or a reduction in nearby property values.

All of this shows how different perceptions around that word "affordable" can influence how people view the land use code's efforts and how the code can be more specific about the kind of development it wants to promote.

So what should "workforce housing" or "attainable housing" look like? There are different perceptions of what it is.

Bob C. highlights one example of workforce housing. "Workforce housing is meant to be like dormitory-style living. I lived in workforce housing for Xanterra at Yellowstone Park for their resorts. It was a dorm. It was highly affordable and cheap, that's for sure. $400 a month for room and board (in 2014)."

John W. & Judi T. hinted that there could be a broader definition: There "will never be enough affordable housing; focus on essential employees in public and private workforce (nurses, police)."

Joe R. says: "Creating vernacular, such as 'workforce' and 'attainable,' mean nothing. All housing needs to be affordable, to someone, otherwise it shouldn't be built. Workforce housing is a particularly offensive term, as it implies those that fall under that definition are the only folks that work for a living. And what is attainable if it's not affordable?"

One strategy could be to work on housing type, rather than affordability because housing type should, in turn, address affordability.

Margaret H. says: "If the idea is to change the term of “affordable housing” to “workforce housing” to make the term more palatable, that’s a canard. Rather than change land use in old growth neighborhoods, build townhomes and condos as first-time residences. There are many of these types of housing being built on the north and south parts of town where farms are being sold for development. I don’t see the need to invade established neighborhoods with multidwelling land use changes when there is visible construction for smaller first-time residences being built."

The median sales price of a townhome or condo in Fort Collins last year was right at $400,000, compared with $617,700 for a single-family detached home, according to Coloradoan reporting. Still, with interest rates nearly twice what they were last year, more people are still not in a place to buy, even that lower-price option.

But others seemed to indicate it wasn't the vernacular, but a lack of policy, that caused the land use code to miss the mark when it comes to housing affordability.

"Designated workforce housing is very important, but in order for this concept to work, some additional policy or intervention would need to be put in place to make it genuinely designated for the local workforce AND kept at a certain price level," Anne C. said. "If left to just the market (property speculators, real-estate investors), it will continue to be unaffordable to the local workforce. That's a big piece of what is missing in the recent LDC changes if the goal is genuinely affordability."

Mimi K. said: "The problem with the LDC was that it relied on "incentives" for developers to add a very small amount of 'affordable' housing. But it also directly enabled a lot of potentially very lucrative uses to existing neighborhoods that did not include any affordability requirement. There was no guarantee that any affordable housing would be built. As city staff and pro-LDC people claimed, these additional uses were not expected to be widespread. So how could this change possibly make a dent in the supply?"

All of this raises another question: Is it even the city's role to take any actions in order to create attainable housing? And if so, what should the city's role be in helping foster that? Does it belong in the land use code or a different ordinance?

There are many more questions to dig through as the city develops the future of the land use code. Stick with Coloradoan Conversations in the coming weeks as we try to unpack more.

This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Fort Collins land use code could define 'affordable' housing