Comments on: Condo Fees and the Pitfalls of Preventing Displacement http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/12/condo-fees-and-the-pitfalls-of-preventing-displacement/ Race, Class, The District. Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: guest http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/12/condo-fees-and-the-pitfalls-of-preventing-displacement/#comment-1298 guest Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:23:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=12918#comment-1298 this is not true. I am an ADU owner in DC and I pay full condo fees. I believe all of the ADU owners in my building pay full fees.  this is not true. I am an ADU owner in DC and I pay full condo fees. I believe all of the ADU owners in my building pay full fees. 

]]> By: AMK http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/12/condo-fees-and-the-pitfalls-of-preventing-displacement/#comment-1117 AMK Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:22:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=12918#comment-1117 It's already set up that way. They aren't paying the full fees, they are paying a portion of them. It’s already set up that way. They aren’t paying the full fees, they are paying a portion of them.

]]> By: OneCity http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/12/condo-fees-and-the-pitfalls-of-preventing-displacement/#comment-1116 OneCity Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:46:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=12918#comment-1116 Actually, in some of these building, the affordable owners are up to 25% of the building or more. I'm all for this arrangement if everyone in the building can agree. However, once the condo association takes over control of the building, the City has no say what the association does. Also, this arrangement has been tried in other cities, like Boston, mandated by the city itself, and there have been issues...resentment from market-rate owners, problems selling units, etc... Actually, in some of these building, the affordable owners are up to 25% of the building or more. I’m all for this arrangement if everyone in the building can agree. However, once the condo association takes over control of the building, the City has no say what the association does. Also, this arrangement has been tried in other cities, like Boston, mandated by the city itself, and there have been issues…resentment from market-rate owners, problems selling units, etc…

]]> By: Anon http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/12/condo-fees-and-the-pitfalls-of-preventing-displacement/#comment-1114 Anon Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:29:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=12918#comment-1114 Just make the condo fees the same as the ratio of what they are paying for  the unit compared to the market value.  So if they're paying half the market rate for the condo, they pay half the condo fees.  The number of affordable units in these buildings is small, so the difference in income to the property won't be very large.   Just make the condo fees the same as the ratio of what they are paying for  the unit compared to the market value.  So if they’re paying half the market rate for the condo, they pay half the condo fees.  The number of affordable units in these buildings is small, so the difference in income to the property won’t be very large.  

]]> By: Anacostiayogi http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/12/condo-fees-and-the-pitfalls-of-preventing-displacement/#comment-1113 Anacostiayogi Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:55:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=12918#comment-1113 So the Realtor, homeownership agencies and banks never forewarned these folks of the inevitable rising fees? That is usually the first caveat for most first time condo  homeowners?   Wouldn't an education about condo fees PRIOR to purchasing better serve the affordable buyer, market rate condo owners and the real estate agents? Why is this a surprise? Why didn't anyone give the affordable buyer a comprehensive view of what condo fees mean for the duration of homeownership?  Someone dropped the ball and now we are right back at square one. I find that these "displacement" mechanisms usually keep people in cycles of dependency instead of giving them the information and analytic tools to  decide if they want to buy into a condo association that values rooftop dog parks over low condo fees.  From renter to  homeowner to foreclosure back to renter, the cycle continues. So the Realtor, homeownership agencies and banks never forewarned these folks of the inevitable rising fees? That is usually the first caveat for most first time condo  homeowners?  

Wouldn’t an education about condo fees PRIOR to purchasing better serve the affordable buyer, market rate condo owners and the real estate agents? Why is this a surprise? Why didn’t anyone give the affordable buyer a comprehensive view of what condo fees mean for the duration of homeownership?

 Someone dropped the ball and now we are right back at square one. I find that these “displacement” mechanisms usually keep people in cycles of dependency instead of giving them the information and analytic tools to  decide if they want to buy into a condo association that values rooftop dog parks over low condo fees. 

From renter to  homeowner to foreclosure back to renter, the cycle continues.

]]> By: OneCity http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/12/condo-fees-and-the-pitfalls-of-preventing-displacement/#comment-1110 OneCity Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:00:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=12918#comment-1110 This is a very pressing issue right now. As someone who works in affordable homeownership, I'd like to add that an alternative to permanent subsidy from the City would be for the City to allow affordable owners to get out of the situation by peeling back to 20 year resale restriction and allowing folks to sell to others in higher income categories. This is especially important for owners who have extremely high condo fees. Another solution would be for the District to allow these owners to rent out their units at a price that covers their monthly unit costs. And as far as the condo fees, perhaps the City could allow affordable owners to dip into their restricted equity specifically to pay for part of their condo fees. Another note, the ADU program would probably be more successful if the District focused only on all affordable unit buildings (there are many of these) in gentrifying areas, or buildings where the affordable owners are over half of the building and all of the owners understand the mixed-income situation they are living in. I personally don't want a ghettoized city, and the previous suggestions would make sure that doesn't happen. The current situation is one where many lower income people can't afford "affordable" condos in the long term and are resented by higher income folks in their building; and if the City doesn't do anything to address the situation, these affordable owners will be displaced. This is a very pressing issue right now. As someone who works in affordable homeownership, I’d like to add that an alternative to permanent subsidy from the City would be for the City to allow affordable owners to get out of the situation by peeling back to 20 year resale restriction and allowing folks to sell to others in higher income categories. This is especially important for owners who have extremely high condo fees. Another solution would be for the District to allow these owners to rent out their units at a price that covers their monthly unit costs. And as far as the condo fees, perhaps the City could allow affordable owners to dip into their restricted equity specifically to pay for part of their condo fees.

Another note, the ADU program would probably be more successful if the District focused only on all affordable unit buildings (there are many of these) in gentrifying areas, or buildings where the affordable owners are over half of the building and all of the owners understand the mixed-income situation they are living in. I personally don’t want a ghettoized city, and the previous suggestions would make sure that doesn’t happen. The current situation is one where many lower income people can’t afford “affordable” condos in the long term and are resented by higher income folks in their building; and if the City doesn’t do anything to address the situation, these affordable owners will be displaced.

]]>