SMALL COMMUNITY HOUSING SCENARIO
Dear Rural Missourian: Several months ago, I was asked to talk with a group of interested citizens in a rural Missouri town. The group was made-up of a banker, the mayor, community development extension specialist, real estate agent, and others who were in the process of developing affordable housing. Much like the situation you describe in your area, they couldn’t attract builders to build in the town. Farmers wanted to sell the farm and move to the city but no housing was available -- literally none, NOT ONE HOUSE!! So ...the banker got creative and was willing to lower interest rate on a few pilot projects hoping they would spawn an interest among builders.
One of their innovations included manufactured housing. Because of the deteriorating quality of building materials in “stick-built” construction, the manufactured housing industry seemed a logical alternative. Their concern was about the public perceptions of this type of housing and particularly how it looks. The manufacturer’s representative (who by the time I arrived on the scene was also a member of the local committee), did a very soft-sell -- he could because his product was exactly what they needed. The committee also looked at buildable sites -- within town -- the mayor was right there ready to condemn whatever they deemed appropriate to obtain city water, sewers, and electricity with a very low property cost. This wasn’t even necessary because there was a sufficient number of abandoned or terminally vacated buildings in town on which their owners owed back taxes. As I recall, the back taxes were waived or put to bear on the demolition of the structure(s) on the property.
None the less, a number of key players were assembled to attack this problem with the idea that their efforts would be the spark for other flames to ignite. I haven’t been in recent contact with these folks. But, I am certain they were headed in the right direction. All the major stakeholders in the housing process, (i.e., financial, real estate, government, community, etc.), are asked to “give” a bit -- to take a slightly smaller piece of the initial housing pie -- with the hopes of obtaining larger slices of the future housing pies. This coalition building enterprise is very time consuming and frustrating if people don’t “buy into it” or are reluctant to get involved. I am convinced, though, that this is the most logical way to proceed.
Less expensive homes in the current market usually mean lower profits for builders -- that’s not much of an incentive for them . . . and that’s why they are more interested in building more expensive homes. There are ways of shaving off some cost if “cost” is examined in the “lifecycle” costing perspective. Once again, if any of these innovations or suggestions require builders to alter the way they have been doing things, most will be reluctant without some financial safety net insuring them against potential failure.
I wish the solution were more technical and less people-oriented. However, most of the inexpensive technical solutions to affordable housing have been implemented long ago. The genuine high-impact innovations in this field lie in the area of human resource mobilization -- changing people’s attitudes and presenting them with a vision or a plan for action. I am not sure if this town’s option is THE BEST answer to this problem...but it certainly is worth investigating.
To develop a community housing program, one must assume there is a need for better housing: that such an effort is important to community growth: and that the community would give it support. Discussion concerning the planning and development of the housing program for the community should include the following:
David L. Hill, Community Deveopment Specialist