A Near East Lack of Imagination

Thanks to Jeff Bollier with the ONW for his work on the Near East side controversy. To recap the issue:

1. The city has the Near East side marked with a special attention for quality redevelopment with historic preservation a focus.
2. Advocap, a home-owner in the neighborhood, wants to spend roughly $30,000 on developing the exterior of the unit, but has no interest in historic preservation. Being a non-profit organization with limited funding sources, the decision by Advocap was likely based upon affordability, practicality, and feasibility.
3. The city has denied the permits for Advocap to complete the work, stating that the requested repairs do not fit the goals of the near east plan.
4. Some vocal city folks, including fellow bloggers and at least one council rep, are upset because they feel the city has overstepped its authority.

Here is my take:

1. The value of neighborhood re-development is greatly under-emphasized in Oshkosh, and the efforts currently underway are only touching the surface of options and tools that communities use.
2. Maintaining the history of the city and its neighborhoods is highly important, for reasons of cultural value, property value, aesthetic appeal, and historical preservation.
3. The idea behind the efforts to clean up, improve, and preserve the near east neighborhood is valid and a positive approach for the city to take.
4. The city is able to impose region-specific development criteria, as existing building codes simply equal the worst condition that a home can be developed, and do not take into consideration many contingent factors. An example of an area in which specific neighborhood development criteria would exist is along a water front in efforts to preserve and protect water quality and wildlife.

That being said, I believe the following:

1. The city should not be able to deny an effort to improve a property, so long as the improvements fit within municipal code, approved redevelopment plans that detail specific requirements, and the development does not create hazards (such as the above environmental hazard potential).
2. If the city is going to impose aesthetic and other requirements on a certain neighborhood only - to the point that plans not meeting the requirements are denied - they should offer an incentive to help pay for the imposed requirements. (Please note that these options may be available, as noted relatively unclear in the Redevelopment Plan - this assistance has not been mentioned so far in the news coverage nor in conversations I've had. Also, I'm not going to go too far into this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Advocap could qualify for CDBG funds or other redevelopment funds available through the Planning Svcs division of the city).

The possibilities for an incentive available to property owners attempting to meet the region-specific redevelopment requirements are numerous, including:

• The city could work a system in which the increase in property value is reimbursed for a certain number of years. So if the annual taxes increase by $300 as a result of the improvements, these payments could be reimbursed to the property owner for 10 or more years, reimbursing the owner $3000 of the improvement costs.
• The city could implement a system similar to the funding available to landlords for the redevelopment of blighted properties, in which a certain percentage of the improvement costs can be supported with redevelopment funds. For example, if the improvements fit into the redevelopment plan, then the property owner could apply for either: 1. A zero % interest loan, repayable over 10 or so years, in which 10% - 50% of the loan is forgiven upon completion of project; or 2. A targeted grant for the approved improvements equalling the greater of 15% of the project costs or $5000. The numbers can vary, but recognize that at current, landlords redeveloping blighted home rentals can qualify for a loan from the city's HOME Rental program in which upwards of 25% of the project costs are forgiven.

A parallel example of municipal funding can be found in our own state capital, in which the city of Madison provides facade improvement grants to businesses in certain city regions with the goal of "restoring or substantially beautifying, or enhancing the entire facade or elevation of a commercial building "

The examples listed above are just some of the alternatives that could be pursued through the redevelopment efforts of the city. What is required for anything to happen is a new direction for development, in which some dollars are moved out of the development of large complexes on dilapidated land and moved into funds for redeveloping our existing housing infrastructure.

Changing the direction of development to provide assistance to regular home owners would likely only happen with leadership from a unified and informed council, or through the hand of our new city manager. Lets hope in the meantime that the city doesn't give up on neighborhood revitalization, and lets hope that it doesn't take 10 more Advocap-dilemmas for the city to take action.