I have a few observations after reading this morning's front pager: Millions in loans may go unpaid. But first, a case study.
I own a triplex over on Park Avenue. When fully occupied, the rental income produced totals around $1,500.00 per month. My monthly fixed expenses, including mortgage, insurance, taxes, etc come to just under $1,250.00. So when all three apartments are rented, I have around $250.00 left over to put aside for unforseen repairs, yardwork, etc.
Over the past few years, one of the three apartments has either gone unrented for a period of time due to a soft rental market or been occupied by tenants who pay their rent way past the due date, or, in a recent case... not at all for about four months. (I'll get into eviction law at some other time.) So obviously, the key to the financial success of my triplex lies in its occupancy rate and my tenant's ability to pay as agreed.
Same can be said for Greensboro's subsidized housing. Take the example cited in the article of Berryman Square. That project recieved a $765,000 "loan" back in 1993. To date the project has only returned $22.00 to the taxpayers but then we find out why: Their vacancy rate is 16%. That means that about 6 of Berryman Square's 44 apartments are not in service at any one time. And this is confusing. With such a high level of need in Greensboro for low-income housing, why are those apartments vacant? My confusion turns to concern when we realize that those six vacancies represent the extra rental income that should be flowing back to the city's coffers to repay the "loan" so our money can be re-invested.
Then there is Raymond King Apartments. In 1995 we "loaned" the place $802,000. So far only $20,000 has been repaid. Even though only 4 of the complex's 22 apartments are currently vacant, back in September of last year half of them did not have tenants. Again, if there is such a strong demand for low-income housing in the City, why would such a complex be allowed to have half of its inventory lying fallow?
N&R reporters Banks and Williams have done some great reporting on this issue, but I think they can go further.
What is the average vacancy rate of all of Greensboro's subsidized housing stock? How many people are on a waiting list for those apartments? What is breaking down between those two numbers?
The re-payment of millions of taxpayer provided dollars seems to hinge on vacancy rates. If we would require better management our low-income housing stock and make sure they are full and producing income, we might have a much better shot at getting our money back. The only way to ensure this will improve is through better oversight.
9:28:28 AM 
|
