Here's the QCOnline Story about it
(Available for a limited time only)
Instead of sprawling to the West, they hope to sprawl out on Elmore with everyone else. I guess we'll see if 6th ward folks are more accepting of the project. I've said it before and I'll say it again, low income housing isn't bad if its done correctly and managed well. It would also bring a different income level to that area of the city. We'll see what happens.
If the project works fine and there's no trouble out there, and they get spin-off development, I suspect the 2nd ward will be kicking themselves.
31 comments:
I have no problems with the development but the city must set some hard line ground rules first. I believe the city needs to get their housing inspectors back on line though.
I know that the 2nd ward will not kick itself for passingup Pedcor. The city no matter where it is proposed needs to say no because more rentals in this town will devastate us further. Your area QCI will be adversely effected my man. I guess I don't understand why you can't seem to get it. More rentals in a town that is not growing will take all the decent renters away from the marginal areas of town - leaving them with criminals and slums. DUH. Urban planning 101.
Shelly - what are the inspectors going to do? Look at Horizon Homes, Cobblestone Place, and the entire central city, Goose creek, Castelewood. The inspectors don't do much to help these areas. What makes you think they will Pedcor. Say no to this development. We don't need it and we can't handle it - obvioulsy.
We need to get a grip on the tons of low income housing that we already have before we rubber stamp more. Themore low incom e- the less people we attract here, the more crime we have and no one has money to support our businesses. Enough is enough.
Its weird to me that the same folks who say let the market determine things then turn around and worry what new competition will do.
If renters all flock to PEDCOR, the bad landlords will be forced to improve their product or go out of business. You'd have to ask landlord-buddy Lynn, but that's how I was tauught economics works.
It won't hurt the lofts because they already offer a unique, quality product.
QCI, this is how the landlords put it -- they have mortgages on their rentals. So they will rent to anybody that can pay. They stop screening. Stop checking on their tenants. Stop taking calls from concerned neighbors. The landlords distance themselves from their properties, collect the rent, and hope the bad stuff doesn't come after them. Look at changes happening in our community at large and you will see there will be an increasing supply of low quality tenants. Low quality are those people other landlords won't accept. Parolees coming out of an expanded 7th Judicial District transition program. Illegal immigrants without necessary documentation to rent. Those evicted from other rentals. The expanded jail and the families the inmates draw here from elsewhere in the county. Walmart superstores and the low wage workers they employ. I am so concerned that Davenport is desperatly attempting to grow its popuplation. It will say yes to any enterprise that promises new bodies. We are practically openly recruiting low income, low educated, low skill people to become new residents because so few other come and stay. Those who fit this profile need more than they give. Why is the city willing to do this? I don't understand how that helps the city and not just short term real estate development.
I've lived in the Quad-Cities since 1992, and I've rented the entire time. Initially I did so because my job -- for which I had to have a college degree and previous experience -- paid so little I couldn't afford a house. I now make a little more, but not enough to buy a nice house in the currently inflated market.
Again, I point out that I have a college degree and work in an office setting -- a "profession" to most folks -- and can't really afford a two-bedroom house. One of the previous Dispatch articles on the Moline Pedcor development indicated about half those apartments would be targeted to "low- to moderate-income" people making $22,000 to $37,500 a year. That's what starting teachers make, and a whole slew of other "professional" jobs!
We're talking rents of $550 to $765 a month for the "affordable" housing here, folks. That's a heckof a lot of money, at least to me!
This anti-renter attitude is one of the main reasons I'll never buy property here -- I don't want to permanently settle in a community that makes me feel so unwelcome.
If the community wants to transition people to home ownership, it needs affordable rental property to allow people to save for downpayments. Good, moderately-priced rental property attracts the young people a community needs to grow, and makes a community look progressive. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be a label Davenport wants.
to 3:47. So what you're saying is the $550 - $765 rents that Pedcor charges is not affordable. I think that is high too for an apartment. At those prices you can buy an affordable house. I hope you have a change of heart and buy a house here.
$500.0 - $750.00 is not too much a month if the government is picking up any part of the tab.
I believe that this is like comparing apples to oranges. The people who live near this area will not allow the development to become a rundown project. The people who live near Heatherton near where this was originally proposed don't have the connections and no matter how much effort wouldn't have been able to keep it clean. They've been trying to clean up the Heatherton rentals for years with no success. It's all about who you know.
The government is not paying the "tab" on any of it-the investments in any tax credits are just-that investments. The rent is not subsidized unless there is a Section 8 certficate holder involved-not likely in Davenport unless someone who already has one moves-also unlikely because that would make the contribution by the tenant too high. The current formula also considers that 33% of monthly income is the maximum amount a person can pay for rent. There is currently a four year waiting list for Section 8 certficates in Davenport. Developments like PEDCOR are marketed for workforce housing. ONE of the pieces of financing that they are pursuing to make the deal work is Section 42-Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Same as the Alexander projects downtown, The Mississippi Hotel, the new Salvation Army project, and what Chris Ales uses in his projects.
Sounds like there are a few slumlords worried that their good renters will be drawn away to the better projects. Compotision between businesses is good. It will force the slumlords to put money back into their properties instead of milking them.
Yeah, I think that's what some of the opposition is. At the DIPA meeting (Walter Skovronski's answer to the QCRPA...I don't know if they're still around) people were fairly blatant with their fears about PEDCOR. They were worried about competition, not the effect it would have on the 2nd ward.
Concentrated poverty is a bad thing. Belive what you will, but don't let hsitory repeat itself.
No, it will force slumlords to rent to even worse people and further ruin the neighborhoods.
I would add that landlords are worried about UNFAIR competition. It would be interesting to know the percentage of subsidized rental units to all rental units in Davenport. Can you look into that QCI?
It isn't just about competition for the landlords - all of that effects the condition of our older neighborhoods - like your QCI.
I am wondering how it is going for cityview these days - do you know QCI. Are they leased up?
This from Frinks blog. Didnt want you to miss it QCI
The worst rentals in this town are filled with people who could honestly care less. About anything - let alone how the property looks and how the neighborhood is. Landlords run a business and they need to run it well. They are responsible for who they rent to and how they maintain thier properties. The Landlord is ultimately responsible for the place in every way. They have to be the ones to make things okay. Yes - I think the tenants should be responsible, but simply put - what if they are not???? Why should the neighbors of that "business" suffer? What do you propose QCI?
What happens if someone in your building misbehaves? What do you expect of your landlord? How would you feel if they neighbor was dealing drugs and threatening you and throwing crap all over the hallway. What do you think shoudl happen? What is the role of your landlord in that situation? Do you expect them to deal with it? How woudl you feel if you were told to go yourself and talk with the neighbor? Would you? Would you want to? Do you think that it is your role to do so? What if the the landlord told you that it isn't his problem because he isn't responsible? Think about it QCI. This goes on all over this city and we are all getting tired of it.
To 10:41
Amen!!! The blog set it all. Thank to good lord someone is seeing the light.
I expect my landlord to kick out troublemakers, and she does.
That's good property management.
So then - QCI - why then doesn't the same standard have to apply to the rest of us who live by bad rentals? Why are we told that it is out job to deal with the bad landlord's tenants? ITIS the responsibility of the landlord to run a decent quality business and it it their job to deal with tenants and the guests of the tenants who are causing trouble. NOT the neighbors. Period.
I don't want to hear another word about how it is the tenants who are the problem and not the landlord. Who do you think allows the tenants to become the problem. The landlord has control over the tenants and shoudl not expect our citizens to deal with them and accpet the problems. The neighbors should not be expected to address the problem tenants other then telling someone they are a problem.
3:13, I agree with everything you said. I don't know where people are getting the idea that I support bad landlords. I am only pro-good landlord.
3:15, why can't both parties be held responsible for their actions?
Go check out you comments on Frink's blog about landlords not being at fault QCI.
Here's what I said on Frink's blog, at least I think this is what you're talking about:
"Do you not believe that any problems are more the renters' fault than the landlord's?
I am not saying landlords shouldn't be more accountable than they are, but I don't see why renters shouldn't be responsible for some things also."
Maybe I should have put "any" in bold or italics, because I was referring to my believe that there are some situations that are the renters fault. I'll never defend slumlords. Buying crappy houses, slapping a coat of paint on them, and taking advantage of people who can't afford better... its not a good thing. Stuff that's not the tenants fault, ie broken water heater or something... that doesn't need "joint accountability," but something the tenant does wrong, which is not corrected by the landlord... that's both of their faults. Why should only 1 be held responsible?
Keep in mind that this is coming from a renter.
Do you and others honestly believe that the worst tenants will respond to Tenant accountability? You are so niave. The worst and the problem tenants in Davenprot could care less about getting a notice from the city. They toss it on the front lawn with the bag of food they just ate and the beer they just drank. They snuff their noses at the law, the city, the neighbors and the landlord. Tenant or JOINT acct will do nothing to help us with these folks.
Well, I'm hoping they wouldn't just send notices with no teeth. I'd like the worst tenants and landlords to pay fines. If landlords don't pay, they lose their license. If tenants don't have money for fines, community service.
And what happens if they don't do the community service QCI? How does that impact and improve the neighborhoods Exactly?
What's your suggestion then?
E.V.I.C.T.
I would have just assumed that would be part of the process.
You can't assume. Even with action you have to fight for this outcome. It shouldn't have to be this way.
Post a Comment