Sycamore (SICKamore?) Village selling fast

[300miles]

And on toxic land no less!

Are you implying the land is not safe to live on?

[winfield31]

Are you implying the land is not safe to live on?

the land & subsurface soil was removed in its' entirety , then the 3-4 houses that were there (new builds) were taken down as they were stripped & not with the "new" plan for that area.....the soil issues were remediated & declared safe.............

[Michele J]

Many activists use Sickamore Village as our "display" on just how much properties are subsidized and how backwards it is to be building new houses when there are 20K+ vacant houses in the city and we are shrinking everyday...
Even HUD the biggest poverty pimp has refused to put any money into Sickamore Village because they were the original funders and are still owed millions.
It wasnt 4 houses built it was 3. The land was sold rather cheaply during a tax auction or foreclosure sale a few short years prior and then the city bought it for 4 or 5 times the amount it sold for( someone got rich)
3 BIG & Beautiful center entrance colonials amongst some small boxy newbuilds along Jefferson...go figure..
They were never completed because soil samples were not done prior to building MJPeterson the builder blames the city & the City blamed them.
The houses sat unfinished for years..ultimately we made a deal with MJPeterson and paid them off ( they owned the land and Sickamore Village could not of been built around them and the soil needed to be remediated)
So the city bought them for somewhere between 250-400k from MJPeterson and spent over 1.3 million to remediate the soil and about 25k to 30k to demolish the houses.
So... we have spent probably close to 2 million dollars.
Yes only a few houses will be "subsidized but I believe tax credits( empire zone etc) will be available.

Hey.. Maybe I should run for Mayor after all...

[winfield31]

Many activists use Sickamore Village as our "display" on just how much properties are subsidized and how backwards it is to be building new houses when there are 20K+ vacant houses in the city and we are shrinking everyday...
Even HUD the biggest poverty pimp has refused to put any money into Sickamore Village because they were the original funders and are still owed millions.
It wasnt 4 houses built it was 3. The land was sold rather cheaply during a tax auction or foreclosure sale a few short years prior and then the city bought it for 4 or 5 times the amount it sold for( someone got rich)
3 BIG & Beautiful center entrance colonials amongst some small boxy newbuilds along Jefferson...go figure..
They were never completed because soil samples were not done prior to building MJPeterson the builder blames the city & the City blamed them.
The houses sat unfinished for years..ultimately we made a deal with MJPeterson and paid them off ( they owned the land and Sickamore Village could not of been built around them and the soil needed to be remediated)
So the city bought them for somewhere between 250-400k from MJPeterson and spent over 1.3 million to remediate the soil and about 25k to 30k to demolish the houses.
So... we have spent probably close to 2 million dollars.
Yes only a few houses will be "subsidized but I believe tax credits( empire zone etc) will be available.

Hey.. Maybe I should run for Mayor after all...

good homework/research Michele............

[kernwatch]

To watch this scenario on the heels of the long-festering Hickory Woods fiasco in S Bflo feels as if Bflo never learns.

The biggest city tax auction of abandoned properties (currently 4580) in Bflo history looms on Oct 20-22, but this is how urgently needed housing funds are squandered, repeatedly.

http://artvoice.com/issues/v7n40/new...council_report

Minding the business of the people
• The controversial Sycamore Village project reported offers to buy its first six houses, at prices ranging from $201,765 to $212,348. If that sounds like a lot for a new-build at the corner of Sycamore and Jefferson, bear in mind that estimates of the cost to build each house range from $400,000 to $600,000 each. That high number is due to the cost of environmental remediation of the property, not to mention tearing down and landfilling the houses that had been built there prior to the remediation.

The Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency reports that nine of the 10 houses planned for the project’s first phase are near completion, and six of the nine houses in the second phase are likewsie close to finished. The third phase comprises six more houses, all priced similarly to those six that have received offers.

Before the sales can be approved, the Common Council must hold a public hearing That hearing takes place on October 14 at 2pm in Council Chambers.

[cookie]

bear in mind that estimates of the cost to build each house range from $400,000 to $600,000 each. That high number is due to the cost of environmental remediation of the property, not to mention tearing down and landfilling the houses that had been built there prior to the remediation.

From where did those estimates come from? It looks as if someone is saying that is the cost to Buffalo taxpayers, however didn't the remediation and other costs come from State and Federal funds? (Yes, I know the State and Federal money represents taxpayer funds also, but that would make the cost to BUFFALO residents quite a bit lower?)
And the question still remains, what does someone wanting to invest in a home have to do with the auction? People with jobs and families seldom have the time to wait for a house to be rehabbed, they need something move-in ready. How many homes in the auction are move-in ready and in the investment range of the people buying in Sycamore Village?
Again, the other alternative is for them to look outside the city.

[kernwatch]

Here is the latest on Sycamore Village from BfloRising.

It is always interesting to see how tolerant folks are of government's spening massive amounts of taxpayer funds to benefit relatively few, as 100's of the city's neighborhoods continue in steep decline.

Happily for politicians & developers, the painful reality of a city auction of 4580 (4700?) city properties looming on Oct 20-22 is apparently viewed by most as having no connection to such incredibly costly but 'glitzy' projects.

http://buffalorising.com/story/sycam..._a_success#sca

Sycamore Village Is A Success And A Failure
Today, 12:31pm By Jeff Brennan

This project is both a success and a failure. Both productive and counterproductive. I like it and I hate it. And most comment posters are right regardless of their take... reason being there are lots of sides to this story. It completely depends on so many factors, some of which have no definitive proof. Therefore we must rely on speculation, judgment, experience and opinion for much of the basis of the argument for or against.

Sycamore Village (SV) is/will be a success because it proves there is a market and demand for something of this nature in the city and even in some areas of the East Side. Some people only want to buy new housing - there is no denying that. It gives hope to struggling neighborhoods and to city residents in general that all is not lost in this city - it is a place worth caring about and investing in with a hopeful future. And as we have learned in recent weeks, confidence in an economy is one of the most important fundamentals to its success.

SV is failure because the demand in the market is artificially created with massive subsidies for "market rate" development. Those two terms are mutually exclusive. If there was truly great demand for this type of thing beyond a small number (like maybe these 25 for example) the private sector would be doing it already. But once the total cost per unit of this development is determined, there is no doubt that it will be way beyond what the true market would support.

The city is shrinking and has been for half a century. It has not yet stopped and once it does we will still have TENS OF THOUSANDS of vacant housing units NO MATTER HOW FAST we try to tear them down (because everyone agrees that the city will never have the money to keep up with the rate of abandonment). While the people that move into SV won't be leaving houses behind that are destined for abandonment, the cycle of additional abandonment is perpetuated since the city housing market is burdened ON WHOLE by additional oversupply. The least desirable units and/or units with owners that have the least ability or interest to keep up with the up-shifting of tastes even at the lowest income levels will give up. This leads to a cycle of disinvestment by more than just the least capable owners or the least desirable units. Entire streets of decent viable housing is affected by just a few extra vacant properties. It is not always about the quality of the construction. Blocks with low grade housing can be stable while whole blocks of well built Victorians can be blighted as is the case in this city in many places.

It can be argued that a subsidy is needed in the early stages of anything new to demonstrate the viability. SV could do that but I would argue that this has been done thousands of times for subsidized new-builds over recent decades and the results tend to be more subsidized new builds. I hope I am wrong and this changes that paradigm, since the money is already spent.

We don't know for sure if this was/is/will be a wise investment of public dollars. I am skeptical based on the track record of city leaders these many decades that it will pay for itself. On the other hand, sometimes the public funds in any given project CANNOT be used for any alternative and so it is a matter of spending them here in this way or another city/state will spend them somewhere else. Don't know how much of the subsidy for SV falls in that category. Hopefully that will be forthcoming.

In the end, I doubt we will see a rush to reproduce projects like this in the city WITHOUT more government subsidies. The problem is whether such public policy is efficiently using VERY SCARCE housing development money. If subsidizing new construction quickens the pace of abandonment of existing neighborhoods, which history has shown us it does, then we all lose. Weakening existing neighborhoods and the private homeowners who have investments there by adding to the housing glut in Buffalo is not good public policy. If the private sector does this on its own (i.e. hollow out existing neighborhoods by offering something more in demand) then it is hard to argue against the merits of that even though it will be sad to see old neighborhoods in decline.

Strengthening the troubled but salvageable neighborhoods should be the highest priority, since that is where people have already invested. Undermining those neighborhoods by subsidizing the housing oversupply only hurts the tenuous economic situation of the existing property owners. Spending any subsidies for new construction should be limited only to times when that pot of money cannot be spent on renovating existing homes by statute. There is an opportunity cost to chasing different priorities with not enough staff but that is another topic. Even if the cost of renovation is more than new construction, building new is only the right economic choice if the costs of the additional blight and abandonment are factored into the cost of the new-builds. That would include burdens to the city and the populace such as these costs: underutilized infrastructure (thereby increasing the incremental infrastructure costs), increased fire and police costs, demolition costs, maintenance, and hard to measure things like risk, liability, fear, quality of life, etc.

I like Colin don't trust city officials to make the wise choices, only the popular ones

[cookie]

Still no answer on the subsidy question, but I did find out some other interesting info. The "subsidy" from BURA on the market value homes only exists until such time as the home is sold. When the new owner gets their (non-subsidized) mortgage, BURA recoups those funds.
Of course how many more can or will be sold now that the mortgage meltdown is in full swing, who knows...

[Michele J]

Empire zone tax credits fall in the "subsidy" line in my book though.And I think Sickamore village is in a designated empire zone.

[CSense]

First-time home buyers, regardless of income, automatically get a $7,000 subsidy on the purchase price of the house. Cops/teachers/fireman get $10,000 (no need to be first timers).

This is a POS development. This is only shuffling of the chairs on the Titanic. The problem is not new builds it's where, why and how the project is being planned and developed.

This only creates more strain on the city. If such a development had occurred adjacent to a thriving neighborhood (Main-LaSalle II, Buff State, etc) this would have been a success.

Furthermore, the total amount of subsidies and improvements needed to create a sustainable neighborhood totally removes all benefits (and then some) from the ultimate purpose, city viability.

[cookie]

Empire zone tax credits fall in the "subsidy" line in my book though.And I think Sickamore village is in a designated empire zone.

So the Developers were getting subsidies, not the 10-11 buyers of the properties, is that it?

I think I'm getting it, slowly. Maybe. When I read subsidy, I read --> money to low income families for down payments and stuff. That's what had me puzzled when there were only 4 "subsidized" homes.

[CSense]

So the Developers were getting subsidies, not the 10-11 buyers of the properties, is that it?

I think I'm getting it, slowly. Maybe. When I read subsidy, I read --> money to low income families for down payments and stuff. That's what had me puzzled when there were only 4 "subsidized" homes.

Let's bare the facts out...

The Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency (BURA) is the developer. It has hired a builder (Lamparelli) to construct the homes. The City of Buffalo paid for the construction of the new street (Sydni Lane) along with various improvements (sewer, water, utlities, curbs, sidewalks, etc) to Jefferson and Sycamore (millions). In real life, those cost are borne by the homeowner, in this case the city swallowed it all.

The BURA paid for the purchase and demolition of three previous homes along with remediation and site prep costs (millions). In real life, those cost are borne by the homeowner, in this case the BURA swallowed it all.

On top of those subsidies, the city is allocating, via city taxes, both a $7,000 and $10,000 purchase price subsidy. Also, HUD allocates closing cost assistance ($10,000) through the American Dream Downpayment Initaitive (ADDI).

On 6 homes, the BURA will give an additional $100,000 subsidy for those buyers deemed low-moderate income.

Furthermore, via Empire Zone designation, anyone buying a home is given tax exemptions.

You make the call, does this sound like good housing development policy?

[Michele J]

[QUOTE=CSense.

Furthermore, via Empire Zone designation, anyone buying a home is given tax exemptions.

You make the call, does this sound like good housing development policy?[/QUOTE]
CSense;STOP sounding like me! lol...

[kernwatch]

Here is an update on Sycamore Village by ARTVOICE editor Geoff Kelly.

It would be good if informed citizens attend the meeting to raise questions about the incredible costs of such a project, which is primarily attracting Bflo residents from other neighborhoods.

http://artvoice.com/issues/v7n40/new...council_report

Common Council Report by Geoff Kelly
Minding the business of the people

• The controversial Sycamore Village project reported offers to buy its first six houses, at prices ranging from $201,765 to $212,348. If that sounds like a lot for a new-build at the corner of Sycamore and Jefferson, bear in mind that estimates of the cost to build each house range from $400,000 to $600,000 each. That high number is due to the cost of environmental remediation of the property, not to mention tearing down and landfilling the houses that had been built there prior to the remediation.

The Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency reports that nine of the 10 houses planned for the project’s first phase are near completion, and six of the nine houses in the second phase are likewsie close to finished. The third phase comprises six more houses, all priced similarly to those six that have received offers.

Before the sales can be approved, the Common Council must hold a public hearing That hearing takes place on October 14 at 2pm in Council Chambers.

[WestCoastPerspective]

First-time home buyers, regardless of income, automatically get a $7,000 subsidy on the purchase price of the house. Cops/teachers/fireman get $10,000 (no need to be first timers).

This is a POS development. This is only shuffling of the chairs on the Titanic. The problem is not new builds it's where, why and how the project is being planned and developed.

This only creates more strain on the city. If such a development had occurred adjacent to a thriving neighborhood (Main-LaSalle II, Buff State, etc) this would have been a success.

Furthermore, the total amount of subsidies and improvements needed to create a sustainable neighborhood totally removes all benefits (and then some) from the ultimate purpose, city viability.

Are you against suburban new home development too? Afterall, the region is losing population. Or is only Buffalo on the Titanic?