This Discussion channel is currently closed.

Many low to middle income individuals and families who live and/or work in Davidson are unable to purchase or rent a home in town because both home prices and rents are very expensive.  The purpose of this proposed policy is to provide that applicants who live or work in town will be given priority when applying for affordable housing over others who do not have the same connections to town.  This preference will be applicable to housing units built through the Town’s affordable housing program, Town owned homes, and projects that receive a subsidy from the affordable housing (PIL) fund. 

 

DRAFT POLICY:

RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A LOCAL HOUSING PREFERENCE POLICY FOR THE TOWN OF DAVIDSON 

WHEREAS, the Town of Davidson has an affordable housing program that provides housing for individuals and families earning between 50% and 120% of the area median income; and 

WHEREAS, many low to middle income individuals and families who live or work in town cannot afford to live within the town limits; and 

WHEREAS, the Town of Davidson Board of Commissioners wishes to establish a preference for housing applicants who live or work in town. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Commissioners for the Town of Davidson as follows:  

1. First priority will be given to an eligible household with a member who lives and works in town.

2. Second priority will be given to an eligible household with a member who lives or works in town. 

3. The priorities are to be applied to housing units developed pursuant to the town’s inclusionary housing requirements, housing units owned by the town, and housing units that receive a subsidy from the town’s affordable housing fund.  

For purposes of this policy, an applicant will be determined to live with the Town of Davidson if the applicant has lived in the Town of Davidson for three consecutive months or longer. The applicant must produce proof of residency in the town.  This evidence can be a deed, lease, rental agreement, rent receipt, utility bill, or other documentation that indicates residency. 

For purposes of this policy, an applicant will be determined to work in the Town of Davidson if the primary place of employment for at least one member of the applicant’s immediate household is located in the Town of Davidson. If an applicant does not have a fixed place of employment (e.g., delivery personnel, repair persons), but spends at least 50% of his or her time in the Town of Davidson, the applicant will be determined to be employed in town.  

The preference policy shall be applied at both initial occupancy and subsequent sale or rental of affordable housing units.  

This policy is effective as of the date it is adopted.  

Do you think the Town of Davidson should move forward with a Local Housing Preference Policy?

8 Responses

Default_avatar
Donna Pollack 17 days ago

I do think the town should move forward with the Local Housing Preference Policy with the 2 changes: 1) the period of time a potential applicant lives in town should be at least one year. 3 months is much to short a time frame. 2) I don't think a utility bill is enough to prove residency.

3 Votes
 
Default_avatar
Rodney Graham 16 days ago

Davidson is increasingly not diverse. Of the roughly 1400 voters who have registered in Davidson the past 4 years, 93% are white, and only 4% are African-American. It seems that one way to diversify Davidson is to encourage people to move here from communities that are more diverse. This proposed policy means that applicants for affordable housing are likely to be coming from a pool of people that is already lacking in diversity. Let's open up Davidson to people who are more racially diverse than what we have now. Thank you.

0 Votes
 
Default_avatar
Steve Hall 16 days ago

I’m really glad this is being looked at. I’m very disappointed when I hear things like school teachers and first responders can’t afford to live in the communities they serve. Is Davidson’s policy modeled after another city’s efforts? I’d love to hear how it worked there and why. Would be interested in hearing where it didn’t work and why as well. Rodney Graham brings up a good point, but my preference would be to apply this policy to people who are invested in the community as a priority. Ultimately, to what scale does this program have to occur in order to make an impact?

1 Vote
 
Default_avatar
Gardner Roller Ligo 16 days ago

I support the Local Housing preference in concept and philosophy. I do think that a 3-month residency requirement is too short a time to fully qualify as a Davidson residency and hope to see that expanded.

2 Votes
 
Default_avatar
EDMUND BERGAN 16 days ago

Adverting to Rodney Graham's comment, we have here an unavoidable conflict between two worthy policy objectives. I agree with the choice made by the Commissioners and, with one exception, the particulars of the proposed resolution. In this regard, I agree with those comments suggesting that the residency requirement, where applicable, be extended to one year.

1 Vote
 
Default_avatar
Susan Beaumont 16 days ago

I support the policy including verification of residence as described & 3 month residency requirement.

0 Votes
 
Default_avatar
Barbara Randolph 15 days ago

I do think this policy is an important step. Subsequently, I hope collaboration can happen with Town Government, after the upcoming election, that helps to strategize for the future how to address low income/affordable housing in the areas of a) preserving existing affordable rental units, b) protection for residents who wish to remain in their neighborhoods to age in place, c) inclusion by ensuring a share of new development is affordable, d) a view toward revenue generation, specifically, harnessing growth to expand financial resources for low income/affordable housing, e) creating incentives for the development of affordable housing, and lastly f) facilitating the acquisition of land for affordable housing.

1 Vote
 
Default_avatar
Eric Giangiordano at November 02, 2019 at 12:15am EDT

I generally support this policy amendment - if a community is going to tout its virtues, IMO those should be reasonably afforded to persons already established within/contributing to that community (for min. 12 months) rather than lieu of potential displacement at expense of new residents - noting that an ideal community still needs to be recognized and capable of welcoming/accommodating persons of all walks of life. As far as "racial diversity", assuming that non-residents pursuing AH program assistance are more racially diverse seems arbitrary to say the least - there are numerous socio-economic factors involved, particularly in a town/area like Davidson. As alluded to in the 2017 UNCC Housing Needs report, a few key factors to facilitate more population diversity and less historically-rooted segregation, is the need for today's area home builders' to embrace (a) adding more housing diversity and (b) strategically diversifying such housing locations thru-out Town.

0 Votes