Editor’s note: Tim Meaney, local resident and attainable housing proponent, offers some constructive ideas for addressing the neighborhood concerns raised by Meat in “Emma Doesn’t Live Here Anymore.”
I’ve been thinking about the essay, Emma Doesn’t Live Here Anymore ever since a friend called it to my attention several days ago. What is intriguing is that it appears to define the dilemma of our local housing situation – a choice between teardowns at one end of the spectrum and the negative aspects of low-income rental housing at the other end. Comments in the essay and by other readers suggest developers are the source of both situations. This is an interesting observation, but not the issue I want to pursue here.
I get a sense that the author of Emma is not thrilled by the prospect of either alternative – teardowns or indiscriminate rentals – occurring in his neighborhood. But given the choice between a teardown and a rental, he’ll take a teardown as the lesser of two evils. Perhaps other readers of this thread feel similarly.
But maybe this provides the beginning to a possibly fruitful discussion. By pointing up these two alternatives, has this essay framed the issue for us? If these two apparently less-than-desirable situations comprise the extremes –- teardowns vs. potential slum situations –- are there middle-of-the-road alternatives that, in the author’s words, would help retain the “original charm” of homes like Emma’s and, by extension, preserve the character of Downers Grove neighborhoods?
The hope expressed for a makeover by Armando Montalongo and his Flip This House crew is one solution, but admittedly an unlikely one. And it would solve the problem for only one house in one neighborhood. What about all the others?
I suggest that readers consider what some realistic middle-ground alternatives might be, if there are any. I’m no expert in this area, but here are three discussion-starters. While they may not be workable, they may help to get readers’ creative juices flowing:
Idea #1. What if a local social services group were to team up with local Realtors to screen potential renters? Criteria would be candidates’ judged potential to succeed if given a chance. This scenario might include a rent-to-buy option.
Idea #2. What if an organization were to buy endangered, moderately-sized homes like Emma’s, fix them up and then sell them to middle-income families? Organizations like this exist. The Community Housing Association of DuPage (CHAD) is one that is active in our county.
Idea #3. What if a group of neighbors were to form a partnership and contribute funds to buy Emma’s place (or a home like Emma’s), fix it up, and rent or sell it? At minimum, they could likely obtain a tax deduction from depreciation while they held the property and/or split the profits from the eventual sale.
These are just ideas, and they may or may not be applicable to Downers Grove. The objective is to start a serious conversation that produces some real world approaches in this forum that a) help preserve our neighborhoods, b) offer workable alternatives to teardowns, and c) prevent our neighborhoods from taking a downward turn.
It would be ideal if several realistic scenarios could be generated by the contributors to DGReport and then presented as recommendations through the village’s Total Community Development program (TCD3). The village is encouraging all types of local groups to submit community-related ideas and concerns as part of the TCD3 effort. Preservation of the original charm of older homes and of neighborhood character is a goal worthy of representation in TCD3.
So: Any ideas?
First of all I want to say that I respect Mr. Meaney and his views. We have had very respectful and meaningful discussions about the Downers Grove housing climate. However, our views on the housing climate in town differ a bit.
I think we need to take a collective deep breath and let the free market bring the real estate market back into balance. You have to remember that the reason we are in this mess is that too many lenders made Fannie and Freddy backed loans throwing the free market out of whack. The rest of the housing slump has been caused by unscrupulous lenders who made too many loans to people with out qualifying their creditworthiness or just plain took advantage of people. I believe that the government and other agencies medaling with the free market is a massive contributing factor to the real estate markets demise.
Mr. Meaney,
“Idea #1. What if a local social services group were to team up with local Realtors to screen potential renters? Criteria would be candidates’ judged potential to succeed if given a chance. This scenario might include a rent-to-buy option.”
There are fair housing statutes that regulate how you can screen potential renters. According to most state laws: You can not screen based on Color, Race, Sexuality, Religion, Sports loyalty, Handicap or challenged, Elderliness or Familial status. I can with some degree of certainly sat that if someone really wants a rental unit and they get denied and they fit any of the before mentioned attributes, litigation may follow. I understand where you are going with it but it will have a hard time flying. Rent to own is a path to home ownership so I do agree with that part.
As for Idea 2, you know that I don’t agree with the CHAD idea because it is unfair across the board. Lending should be fair for everyone not just people who fit certain criteria.
Idea 3, I have no real comment on at this time. I don’t know how it would work unless it was purely charitable.
I really think Downers Grove is attracting vibrant, diverse and decent people to our town for the most part. Just because a few unsavory individuals move next to MEAT doesn’t mean that the town is losing its appeal.
Tim-I’m glad you enjoyed the piece, and I’m flattered you took the time to pen a thoughtful reply. Thank you.
Actually, I have no issues with teardowns, nor do I view them as an extreme on the housing spectrum. Some residents see it as sacrilidge, I see it as progress driven by market forces and a symptom of a healthy and thriving community. It’s simple economics. Emma’s lot is worth 500 to 600k (remember, it’s a double lot) so what sensible developer would ever purchase the property just to turn around and leave Emma’s dated and crumbling bungalo in place-cosmetic improvements or not?
Conversely, what sane home buyer would pay that same 500-600k for what amounts to a fixer upper that would try the patience of Bob Villa, Saint Francis de Sales and the entire staff of Extreme Makeover?
As I wrote in the original piece, I think people attach sentimental values to ‘teardown’ properties in they’re own neighborhoods when they should see them for what they really are, outdated and obsolete. Her home meant something special to her, but Emma does not live there anymore. I wish she did.
I’m uncomfortable with the affordable (attainable) housing cause. It’s a boat that carefully hugs the shoreline of an island called Socialism, never straying to far from the coast but never pulling into port. It troubles me and I don’t support it.
Until the day that an Attainable Housing Program can finance and orchestrate a way for me to move my family to Hinsdale (3 bedrooms minimum and preferably walking distance to the Lane School) then I’ll never be a proponent.
Prior to purchasing here in Downers Grove I owned a modest townhome in a small northwest community, prior to that I rented. To this point we’ve worked hard and we’ve been fortunate (god bless). Perhaps someday we may be able to consider in-town Naperville or Clarendon Hills. Maybe not. Either way I would not take a great deal of personal satisfaction by attaining (no pun intended) that goal through a ‘social program’ or government hand out. If it’s what I want I’ll get there on my own thank you very much, and if I can’t I won’t. Most likely I won’t. I can live with that, we can’t all live in Laguna Beach.
You want to live here but can’t afford it? Live there until you can.
But as I wrote, where we are now is in-between, and in-between sucks like a Dyson. As to your suggestions, if me and my neighbors could actually afford to buy the property ourselves and create some kind of ‘neighborhood fiefdom’ then we wouldn’t be living here in the first place. Besides, I have trouble collecting for the beer fund at the block party much less a house.
(kidding guys.
I’m open to any suggestions as you are, but it all smacks of futility to me. Ultimately what your asking for is to push back or stall property values artificially in order to open the market for homeowners who couldn’t otherwise afford to live here. Housing has lost its luster for sure, but it’s never going to be 1979 again no matter how far we slide back.
The lesson of my piece (my intended lesson anyway) is that it’s not the house that makes the neighborhood, it’s the person(s) living in it. Do I want to support an initiative that would essentially provide a path for the current renter’s of Emma’ old place to someday own it?
Bring on the bulldozer.
In Oak Park they have a lot of minimum standards that need to be met for the condition of rental properties and you have to have a bedroom for each person/child. So a family of four has to rent at least a 2 bedroom etc. I don’t know what DG has on the books, if anything. There are of course lots and lots of good renters who respect the property and are invested in the neighborhood. The only good answer to hideous neighbors is to hope they move…..