Longmont City Council candidates were asked to answer a survey on affordable housing by the East County Housing Opportunity Coalition, or ECHO, — a nonprofit organization that educates, informs and trains East Boulder County residents about local affordable housing needs, according to the website.
On the site for the survey, ECHO announced that any candidates not represented did not return the questionnaire.
The following are the answers provided by each candidate along with the questions asked. To keep each entry short the responses are broken up by candidate through a series that will be published throughout the week.
Marcia Martin
1. What is your 10 year vision for affordable housing in Longmont?
Longmont will have a stable inventory of rental and for-sale housing stock at all (sensible) affordability levels so residents can progress through their lives matching their style and size of residence to their present needs. Most deed-restricted rental stock will be subsidized and permanently affordable. Deed-restricted for-sale housing should be kept to a minimum, because it is difficult for working families to build wealth in deed-restricted properties. Instead, we must emphasize styles of market housing that do not appeal to the well-to-do past a certain point in their life journey. Edgy, urban neighborhood-centered high-density multifamily buildings will appeal to young singles and couples but the value will be in the neighborhood more than in the dwelling. The transition to suburban life will appeal to some but not all. Well designed transit options will have led to a large reduction in automobile use in the city center.
People who work in Longmont will be able to find homes in Longmont if they choose. We know that reducing commuting reduces traffic congestion, improves air quality and the quality of life in home-centered urban areas such as Longmont should aspire to become.
A well-managed housing inventory will result in fewer families under 110% AMI being housing burdened. Well-to-do families and individuals who choose to housing burden themselves are on their own. It’s a wealth-building strategy that we should not try to control. The banking industry may decide to do so based on outcomes they observe.
A relaxation in Longmont’s current restrictions on building height – except in certain areas such as the Main Street Corridor and historic neighborhoods, can help. Good candidate areas for lifting height restrictions are the eastern and southern edges of the city. Everyone’s view of the Front Range should be protected; views of Weld County oil fields and Boulder open space, not so much. High-frequency low-cost transit options will tie these outlying high-density areas to the city center and to primary employment centers.
2. Longmont has a goal of achieving 12% affordable housing by 2035. Is this the right goal? What concrete proposals would you add to city policies to meet or exceed that goal?
I don’t think it’s enough – or rather, the proportion may be right but 2035 is not soon enough to get there. I also believe that in this volatile and inflating housing market, a category of housing not included in Boulder County’s 2017 assessment (from which that 12% by 2035 goal was derived) must be considered. That is the “Middle Tier” of houses accessible to families earning between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income.
Of Longmont’s roughly 35,000 households, 60% are owner-occupied. Essentially all the single-family households here have had their prices escalate out of that (hard to quantify) range. A quick look at Zillow shows all of 21 listings under $400,000. This includes 2 manufactured homes and a vacant lot. Seven single-family homes. That’s not enough, and the shortage is driving the prices of suburban and historic property out of proportion to any rational assessment of value. One solution is to greatly accelerate building infill multifamily housing, both affordable and middle-tier, to take price pressure off suburban housing. Innovative new forms of modular and pre-fabricated housing are at least part of the solution. I’m looking for high-density solutions, not “tiny homes,” which are a special solution for special needs.
CHFA advises us, according to Longmont’s housing staff, that our greatest needs are in the under 30% and 80-100% AMI bands. The former can be addressed by the revitalization of the Longmont Housing Authority, which has pledged (to Council, informally) 2000 new units over the next 3 years. It’s possible we may exceed that.
Longmont’s IZO was designed to incentivize (by their not incurring obligations to build or fund affordable units) the construction of this middle-tier or “workforce” housing. We are failing to build enough because projects that address these needs are getting bogged down in the city permitting process. I believe this is due to our failure to reconcile our land-use codes with the city’s new density requirements. The city must give priority to rooting out these discrepancies. Additionally, individual contributors in permitting and engineering must be accountable for too many iterations through the process. Last Tuesday I moved that any residential project that includes affordable housing that takes longer than 12 months to receive a permit must be reviewed by the City Council. The motion passed 5-2 with Rodriguez absent and Christensen dissenting. Councilmember Peck argued in opposition but changed her position when it became clear that four votes in favor were present.
I believe that the bottlenecks are mainly internal to the city. After all, what possible incentive could a developer have to foul up the process when they’re losing money every day? Occasionally an error, or a new employee, will cause an issue from the developer’s side. But the systemic slowdowns must be in the code, or in city processes, or in counterproductive metrics on city employees.
3. What changes would you make to the inclusionary housing ordinance in Longmont, if any?
Staff has been denying residential proposals that exceed the 12% affordable requirement the opportunity to negotiate Voluntary Alternative Agreements because of a wording quibble in the existing ordinance. Staff has been directed to propose an amendment to the IZO to explicitly qualify proposals that exceed 12% for added incentives and VAAs. Additionally, some incentives, such as parking reductions, must be applicable to all units, not just affordable ones, or at least to all middle tier and affordable ones.
Other changes under consideration:
- There’s a proposal to change the rules on land donations that I oppose because it’s insanely complicated and encumbers nonprofits other than the City who receive land donations. I favor giving credits for land donations based on market value of land, either developed or raw, and ending the transaction there. No coming back to the developer based on how the recipient uses the land.
- The proposed additional incentives described above must be kept simple and NOT contain provisions that would further delay the permitting process. If a VAA uncovers a discrepancy between land use code and IZO, then the code reconciliation must be considered separately from the VAA, with no time dependency that slows down the permit application. Time is of the essence here.
- Specific rewards that can be granted by staff or Council (via VAA) for exceeding the IZO mandate might include lot width reduction, height bonus, and parking variance. Horizontal development professionals confirm that street facing lot widths as low as 30 feet are not too narrow to accommodate horizontal infrastructure.
4. Will you proactively promote more affordable housing at transit stops designed to get people out of their cars, including greater density at those locations?
Yes. Transit-oriented urban design was overlooked in the last land-use code revisions. I support higher density allowances in transit zones (e.g. 3 blocks either side of a transit route) as well as fewer parking requirements, especially for studio and one-bedroom units. Other design enhancements include incorporating “taxi stands” (for ride-hailing services and VIA) into street revisions as we reclaim asphalt as vehicle ownership declines. The trick is in gradually enhancing transit-oriented features and improving transit itself to give people the comfort to abandon driving. Nobody thinks about car ownership in Brooklyn or Utrecht, but Longmont must make that transition by well-choreographed baby steps.
5. What does smart growth mean to you, and how would you ensure that all new developments are “smart”?
I like to think of smart growth as high-density urban design where people are encouraged to think of the neighborhood, rather than just the condo or apartment, as home. This means retail and food service mixed use, walkability, and gathering places. This reduces auto trips, fosters community, and improves the air quality and general health.
There’s also an opportunity with infill work to incorporate “smart city” innovations via the Internet of Things. This can include noise and speed monitoring, optimized traffic signals, signage accessible to the vision and hearing impaired, and more. Negative interactions with law enforcement can be reduced by these means, without reducing public safety or invading individual privacy with video recordings (just license-plate snapshots when triggered by sound or lidar).
Envision Longmont (comprehensive plan) takes the first steps toward these goals. So does the reconciling land use and building codes with the IZO and modern principles of Urban Design.
6. What do you understand about the history of racism that has led to People of Color owning less property, and thus having less wealth than white people? What policies would you actively support to make up for years of racism in housing policy?
This is not a subject I have studied deeply, but Longmont has neighborhoods that were built at a time when redlining was a dominant practice. During that era, assessors overvalued properties in neighborhoods owned by People of Color, and undervalued properties in White neighborhoods. I have several times asked for assistance with determining whether this is still a factor in property tax assessments in Longmont, but not received any response. If firm evidence that discriminatory assessment practices from past eras have propagated down to the modern era, then that could be used as a reason for adjusting assessments in the targeted neighborhoods now. This would help property owners in these areas by reducing their tax burden, especially to counter rising property taxes due to the Gallagher repeal – striking a blow for social equity by allowing the disadvantaged populations to begin accumulating wealth at a better rate.
If Colorado gets its act together on Public Banking, one use of a future Bank of Longmont would be to grant favorable financing to affected demographics who are income-qualified for home improvement, again helping disadvantaged families increase their wealth.
7. Do you think neighborhood opposition should be able to derail development projects that are consistent with the pre-approved goals and values of the City? Please explain.
No! Instances of systemic racism aside, property must be considered as an investment. Just as there are no guarantees that stocks and mutual funds will only appreciate in value, so there are no such guarantees that property values will monotonically increase. No institution can guarantee a homebuyer that their neighbors will properly maintain their home, or that market trends will not render their neighborhood unfashionable, or that 20 year old city plans will not finally be realized, causing their street to be widened, narrowing the city right-of-way that they’ve thought of as their yard or increasing traffic in front of their house. These are investment risks. So are zoning changes necessary to keep the city vibrant and the housing stock adequate to meet the needs of the community.
8. Do you see a role for the City in limiting vacation rentals and investor-owned property as a way of keeping housing costs down? Please explain.
Longmont now has some limited controls in this area. Specifically, we limit vacation rentals OF investor-owned property. This is intended to maximize the amount of rental space available to permanent residents of Longmont. I do not favor repealing these statutes at present, but I also do not favor expanding the restrictions. A property owner ought to be able to determine how they use their property. We need better data on the outcomes of these restrictions elsewhere. Do they really keep more rentals available to residents? Or do they cause rental property owners to exit the market in frustration with the restrictions, shrinking the rental inventory in favor of more owner occupied housing. I don’t know the answer, but I think we should try to learn. I do not accept “preserving the character of the neighborhood” as a reason to enforce restrictions of this sort. See above: property is an investment. I classify Auxiliary Dwelling Unit restrictions in this category. Allowing Rental ADUs anywhere there’s sufficient land to accommodate them increases density and improves the ability of homeowners to maintain their own property and stay in their homes. Design standards must be enforced, but not to the point of making ADUs impossible to get approved. I believe there should be incentives for ADA accessible ADUs, whether owner-occupied or rented.
9. Would you support lifting the state statute banning rent control. __NOT YET__. Explain.
It’s better if market forces can be made operable to maintain a balance of property prices – the “ladder” of housing stock. Deed restrictions of any kind tend to knock rungs out of the ladder. Witness Boulder, where there is mandated affordable housing and wildly expensive luxury housing, and very little in between. Further, rent-controlled areas such as New York City create almost as many problems for tenants as they alleviate. Yes, the number of housing-burdened residents is reduced, but landlords place draconian requirements on tenants, income-qualifications are very rigid, and changes in tenants’ life circumstances are not allowed for. In this seller’s market, it’s not a good time to implement rent control because property owners hold all the power. It’s too easy for them to simply cash out – producing the opposite of the intended effect.
10.Is there a role for local government in enforcing Colorado’s warranty of habitability laws? ____yes ____NOT NOW. Explain.
I researched the idea of Longmont licensing landlords, requiring them to disclose their inventory, and conducting periodic inspections, the period depending on the age and previous observed condition of the property. The City Staff initially quoted a very low cost for implementing this, so I supported the direction to look into it.
But again, landlords object very strongly to this, and we’re in a market where they hold most of the power. Further, we have little evidence that our corporate landlords are not essentially self-policing and maintaining their property in service of their own interests. I should also add that not every builder opposes rental licensing, somewhat to my surprise.
I have never lived anywhere without licensing before. In St. Louis, where there are real slum landlords, it’s needful. In Longmont, I had two reasons for being interested.
- We need a much better understanding of our rental inventory and the needs of the resident population than we have. A successful licensing program would provide this.
- Many tenants are afraid to complain to their landlords, for fear of losing their lease at the end of the current term. I thought inspections would help keep a basic level of habitability in place.
Fearful of the unintended consequences of licensing, the Longmont EDP has offered to research and report quarterly to the City Council, via data mining the public records, Longmont’s rental inventory. Landlords welcome this practice as much as they resist the idea of licensing. It’s perhaps a better solution. I favor giving this idea a year or two to see how it works.
Similarly, the City leadership is convinced (maybe by my constant nattering and escalating the cases of dissatisfied and distressed tenants, or maybe by some other factors), that the city’s outreach to our tenant population is sadly lacking. It’s nothing more than a promise at this point, but the City has recognized the need to step up education on tenants’ rights and available services, and make dramatic improvements in the city website to put lodging a complaint against one’s landlord, as well as requesting other services, front and center.
Both of these solutions should be cheaper than licensing, not give landlords an excuse to raise rents, not penalize “good” landlords who maintain their property and keep good relationships with their tenants. In conclusion, this not the time for Longmont to implement licensing and enforce habitability via inspections, as opposed to in response to tenant complaints. For now, we need to make it much easier for tenants to complain, especially for non-English speakers and those who work long hours and can’t use the phone during working hours.
11. Would you support changing height restrictions to create more affordable housing? __ _yes ____no. Explain.
Height restrictions need to recognize Longmont’s aesthetic positioning on the Front Range. Zoning needs to cover height restrictions everywhere, taking into account the elevation of the property and the elevation of properties to the east as well. Longmont already can grant height bonuses in service of affordable housing if the building height does not conflict with other height restrictions such as protecting the historic districts.
12. Would you support a program to create deed restricted accessory dwelling units? ___ yes ___ no
If yes, what would you do to make this happen in our community? If no, why?
In Boulder, property classifications cause a residential property to be reclassified as commercial if an ADU is added to the property for rental purposes. Unintended consequences to this have disincentivized the use of ADUs in that city. I prefer to avoid over-formalizing the process. Simple incentives for accessibility and affordability should be sufficient.
13. Would you support changing single-family zoning to allow for more homes? ____ yes ____no. What commitment would you make to ensuring this happens, and in what time frame?
Longmont has already begun making changes to encourage infill with duplexes and triplexes. Many cities have eliminated single-family zoning in favor of something like mixed-use residential in service of creating more workforce housing, and Longmont can, too. One of Longmont’s most prestigious neighborhoods, Prospect, included ADUs, Duplexes, and live-work combinations in its initial design. It’s cool enough that the area became more costly than expected, but subsequent implementations of this kind of urban design will not be seen as novel.
I am presently pushing on several fronts for Longmont to obtain better data about our rental inventory, nuances of our land use code w/r/t density and infill housing, and a better analysis of the shortfall in the housing supply at each tier. I prefer to be in receipt of this information before promoting a massive zoning rework. Based on this data and post-pandemic experience, I expect it may be necessary before the end of my upcoming Council term, which will end in 2025.
14. Would you take a leadership role in persuading council to use American Rescue Plan Act dollars to land bank, or help mobile home park renters purchase their homes? _____ yes ____no
HB21-1201 clarifies the rights of tenants to organize for the purchase of their park if it comes onto the market, and defines something of an oversight role for the containing municipality. Further, Longmont has in the past loaned money to nonprofits to preserve affordable housing. Whether the restrictions on ARPA funding will permit this to happen in the timeframe for using the funds is more problematic. But I support the concept in principle.
15. Would you support procurement policies in housing that create a preference system for minority and disadvantaged businesses? ___x__ Probably ____no. Would you take a leadership role on this? X__If appropriate __ no
I assume this question refers to the Longmont Housing Authority (or Development Authority, if it is reconstituted now that considerable new construction is on the horizon).
According to HUD regulations Section 3, revised March 25, 2021, it is appropriate to establish such policies. I am uncertain whether the policies are established by the Housing Authority, the Council, or the Development Authority. In either of the first two cases it would be up to the City Council (acting as the LHA board of directors) to establish the policy.
16. Should our city create an eviction legal defense program like the one in place in Boulder? ____ yes _____no If not, what other means do you see for addressing the needs for supporting renters in our community?
It’s far preferable to stop landlord-tenant problems before they reach the courts. Longmont has free landlord-tenant mediation and a number of sources for rental assistance and mental health counseling. I am in discussions with the staff about making it much easier to file a habitability complaint with the city, as well as to find the rental assistance services and make an appointment with a mediator. We want to strengthen these services to provide lightweight case management for landlords with problem tenants. If it comes to eviction, a Longmont mediator will accompany the tenant to the eviction hearing.
