RECENT COMMENTS
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Yvette Cannon on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
crd on Power Outage on the Hill
Late 2017 target date for Citadel of Hope
09/12/2016 7:45 AM by John M
Plans call for a total of 52 units between the renovated Citadel building, which would house 12 units, and the two new apartment buildings, the largest of which would feature a paneled façade broken up into sections along the length of Jessamine Street between Venable and Carrington streets.
That building would house 36 units, and an additional four units would be included in a clubhouse and leasing building on the other side of the Citadel along Venable Street.
An existing former gas station building at the corner of Venable and Tulip streets would remain, and the development would be served by a 52-space parking lot enclosed within the property.
52 units of low income housing. How is this not the projects similar to Mosby Court just down the street? 50% of average median income for the area is very low. I thought we’re trying to get rid of concentrated poverty in this area? This goes against that completely
@StevenJ
50% AMI for a single person in the Richmond metro area is about $25,000, more than double the average household income of Mosby. Folks working full-time for $12/hr would be able to live here, while reagan’s “welfare queens” wouldn’t.
miguel,
Frustrating to see you reference a derogatory term like “welfare queens”. I’m happy to discuss with you in private why it can be counterproductive to the community to use that type of label. God bless you man.
The Better Housing Coalition constructs and manages excellent housing; I would be happy to have them in the neighborhood. I do not see in the article anything about 50% or below of AMI–where are you getting that number? This is a LIHTC project, and therefore would provide decent housing to people and families with incomes between 60% and 80% of the AMI, which would be more accurately serving moderat income residents. Some units might have project-based Section 8 (which would allow residents with <50% AMI), but that is really hard to secure because it is so limited.
@Jason S
I believe Miguel is being facetious when he used the term “welfare queens.” Remember that term was bandied about years ago by the Political Right to paint all female welfare recipients as fraudulently bilking the system and living lavish lifestyles. It’s similar to the rampant voter fraud ‘rumor as fact’ that keeps circulating. Many jobs only pay $10-$12.00 an hour, regardless of race or educational level achieved.
@jason s
I apologize if the quotes didn’t convey the sarcasm.
I too believe this appears to be further concentrated poverty. I have always read that you want at least a third of the residents to be at least market rate.
I think the plans for this building are improving somewhat architecturally but the fact that there is no affordable home ownership component or mixing of incomes is very very disappointing. I thought BHC was supposed to be a leader in the deconsentration of poverty in Richmond!? Building this one block away from Mosby makes no sense.
That said, I would love to see more BHC affordable homes built here with a mix of affordable and market rate rentals. The BHC mission is a good one and they are a great organization. They are missing the mark on this one though.
I strongly encourage anyone who is concerned about the Citadel’s current features to attend the CAR meeting on September 27th at 3:00 pm in the 5th floor conference room at 900 E. Broad (will link to their webpage below) and voice your concerns. If you can’t make it to the meeting write a letter! CAR’s mailing address is:
Secretary to the Commission of Architectural Review
900 E. Broad St., Rm. 510
Richmond, VA 23219
If you are concerned about this development in any way I implore you to email BHC CEO Ms. Greta Harris at g.harris@betterhousingcoalition.org and BHC VP of Planning & Evaluation Ms. Lynn McAteer at lynn.mcateer@betterhousingcoalition.org with your concerns.
I am awaiting confirmation from BHC on the AMI levels for units before composing an open letter to Cynthia Newbille which I hope to post on CHPN for signatures (since it’s an election year I’m hoping she’ll feel compelled to respond).
Thank you all for being engaged in our community!
http://www.richmondgov.com/CommissionArchitecturalReview/index.aspx
Juliellen – LIHTC projects require that either 20% of units be reserved for families that make less than 50% AMI or 40% be reserved for families that make less than 60% of AMI. The remainder are permitted to be market rate. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-Income_Housing_Tax_Credit)
BHC already has affordable homes for sale in the neighborhood, and in fact started in the neighborhood that way years ago.
LIHTC projects allow for mixed incomes, it just may be that they are not mid-high level professionals. Some examples of occupations that could qualify for this housing would be:
Administrative assistants $35,000
Police/sheriff officer $38,500
Licensed practical nurse $34,000
Social worker $33,342
Medical records clerk $26,000
Construction worker $28,900
Restaurant worker $19,323
Home health aide $17,000
Deconcentration of poverty requires a regional focus, not a neighborhood one.This affordable housing (not “public housing”) project is one of many, and we can expect more, throughout the city and region that provides more choice for where people live. How many full time workers at $10-12/hour (like me) can afford to live in the hip urban districts anymore? Not many. its about expanding options everywhere
@urbanist. I appreciate your thoughts on this topic. I think your occupation/income list above brings some good perspective to this conversation. I have to politely disagree with you however on the deconsectration of poverty as a strictly regional issue and not a neighborhood issue. I think it’s more of a people issue. When someone lives in a large complex like one of Richmond’s housing projects there are immediate social stigmas that come with living in those neighborhoods that can influence the occupants self identity. Often the ability to move out of a building or complex and into a more traditional neighborhood can be a great source of dignity for a person. Did that person change because of the move…probably not. But their outlook and self respect sure did. That is why when we build affordable housing the type of structure, demographics and how the new project relates to the surrounding neighborhood is so important because all of those factors impact the residents in powerful and deep ways.
That is why I think this project misses the mark. One huge building/community is built and offered only to the lower middle or low income bracket so none of the residents get to interact with people of different economic conditions.
Residents drive into an interior parking lot then walk through a long and potentially dark corridor to get to their unit. Maybe they see a neighbor in the corridor or parking lot maybe not. Neither area is a great area to interact. (the addition of the playground is huge!).
The building design and strict affordable housing requirements has not been well liked or embraced by the community at large and so consequentially I fear that this could further alienate residents.
Again I love what BHC is trying to do here but I honestly think they need to start over and put the dignity of the occupant and their relationship to their community as the focal point and build everything around that focus.
@Urbanist
Strange, I received an IDENTICAL list of “examples of occupations” from BHC’s Lynn McActeer in response to my concerned email (a quick google search doesn’t produce any such list). Where are you getting paid $10-12 an hour I wonder? Maybe you should take it up with your employer?
P.S. I’ll be happy to forward the email of said list to anyone skeptical about my claim.