Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Push for affordable housing

Real estate tax eyed for funding

By John Rebchook, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 24, 2008 at 9:10 p.m.

Text size  

More Real Estate

More stories »

Affordable-housing advocates are seeking enough voter signatures for a constitutional amendment that would create a housing investment fund.

A nonprofit group called the Colorado Housing Investment Fund Coalition is supporting Initiative 103, which calls for a 4-cent real estate transfer tax on every $100 of value on the price of a house to fund affordable housing.

That translates to $80 on a $200,000 sale or $400 on a $1 million real estate sale.

Because the TABOR Amendment, which limits tax increases to individuals, specifically prohibits new or increased transfer taxes, a constitutional amendment is necessary, real estate officials said on Tuesday.

David Zucker, principal of Zocalo Community Development, favors the increase, which would raise an estimated $38 million a year.

"We're in desperate need of workforce housing for people making $30,000 or $35,000 a year, or $15 or $17 per hour," Zucker said. "These are people who are not destitute, but form the spine of our businesses and our retailers," Zucker said. "We cannot thrive if these people cannot afford a decent place to live."

Currently, 38 states have similar funds, according to the coalition, which argues the fund would provide an economic stimulus.

According to the earlier Colorado Housing Trust Fund Impact Report, a $26.5 million fund will produce 3,400 affordable housing units, create 3,200 jobs, generate $334 million in economic activity and provide $26 million in annual tax revenues, half of which would go directly to local government.

Pat Steadman, a campaign consultant for the coalition, said in two weeks the group already has received 20,000 signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. They need about 76,000 signatures, but are shooting for 130,000.

"We feel very confident bringing this to the voters," Steadman said. "Housing is more in focus today than in the past."

rebchookj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5207

Comments

  • June 25, 2008

    8:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    smith writes:

    We already have workforce housing for people who make 30-35k a year: it's called Capitol Hill

    The same people who complain we need more affordable housing, complain when housing prices fall to affordable levels. The best way to have affordable housing is to build a larger supply of homes

  • June 27, 2008

    10:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    leeca3 writes:

    Simply creating a larger supply of homes is missing the point entirely. Your economic model makes sense on the surface: More homes = more supply thus lowering prices. Sure. But what you fail to consider is the fact that a large portion of people needing affordable housing work in places that are simply out of their price range. (Eg., a retail worker in downtown denver with a family in Adams County). This creates traffic congestion, strain on families as commutes grow, etc.

    Simply building more homes in unaffordable areas doesn't work. The state needs a fund like this to give incentive for builders, cities and other entities that may provide housing to actually build in high-rent districts. The economics are simple on this as well: No incentive for builder = no affordable housing in expensive areas.

    This is a bigger problem than you might think and I hope you end up supporting this initiative like I will.

  • June 28, 2008

    12:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    knr writes:

    We need to examine why high priced areas are high priced. Often times it is government imposed limits that cause price increases as the supply and demand equation is not allowed to move to balance. Zoning, minimum property lot sizes, mandatory parking requirements, building moratoriums, and bureaucratic delays all contribute greatly to the cost of housing by reducing the number of housing units or increasing the baseline price of replacement/new housing stock. Perhaps the government should examine all these issues before asking the taxpayers to create yet another bureaucratic program that will operate ineffectively and subsidize the few companies who look to this pool of money as their private cash cow?

  • July 6, 2008

    8:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Prairiechix writes:

    "Zoning, minimum property lot sizes, mandatory parking requirements, building moratoriums, and bureaucratic delays all contribute greatly to the cost of housing"

    Government actions cannot be blamed for the lack of low cost housing, although it's a convenient whipping post. Planning requirements are pretty minimal in most CO communities, and after all, zoning is important to prevent rag-tag development. The fact of the matter is that housing exists in a for-profit environment and builders must make profit. To develop low cost housing that would be affordable when sold requires a subsidy to cover the gap between the actual costs and the final purchase price. It makes good sense for governments to develop policy mechanisms to fill this gap. We would all benefit from having lower income people in adequate affordable housing and less homeless people on the streets or in inhumane shelters.