At the last One Marshall County meeting, in the introductions, we were asked to give one “Fun Fact” about ourselves. I generally hate these things and default to the Christian Easterday story. For some reason that didn’t seem appropriate to this group. I had some time to think about it and decided on this:
I was a general contractor until Culver was having trouble finding an affordable housing/workforce housing developer and I stepped up to fulfill that role. So far I have created 120 housing units in Marshall County with another 14 planned for this year… so I guess I’m a developer!
Honestly, I hadn’t thought about that and it sunk in a bit when I said it. I’ve created 120 homes in Marshall County in the last 7 years! Mayor Listenberger said, you might as well embrace it, you’re a developer. So… I guess I am!
When the Marshall County Community Foundation (MCCF) built their new facility, it was to house MCCF, Marshall County United Way (MCUW) and Growing Kids Learning Center. The building would belong to MCCF. MCCF would continue to operate with joint staff shared with MCUW. Growing Kids would be a rent paying tenant. When it came time to name the building, I lobbied hard for some iteration of MC2. I thought it was a no brainer, since it fit with the joint philosophy of MCCF and MCUW, that the two groups together were more than the sum of their parts, i.e. MCCF x MCUW not MCCF + MCUW. Oh, well… This was one of those cases where what seemed obvious to me wasn’t palatable to others. The building is now known as the Marshall County Philanthropy Center. I’m sorry, but 7 years later, who knows that or refers to that!? We could have had something much more catchy! Ha!
I wasn’t involved at the start of One Marshall County. I do kind of like that name, but I go back to it also being an organization designed to be more than the sum of its parts. Another missed opportunity to use MC2. If I’d been involved at the beginning of Marshall County Crossroads, I would really have hit this hard for them too!
So I’m throwing this out there. Some Marshall County organization or group of organizations should be the first to pick up MC2 and run with it! If your name works in an “E”, even better since you could really roll with all of Einstein’s equation. What group doesn’t strive to be faster than light? Well, I guess there’s always Heinz Ketsup which bragged on being think in their Anticipation commercial. Oooo! Oooo! Maybe MCEDC! They have all three letters in there!
You may not of heard it here first, but I haven’t heard anyone else in Marshall County using MC2. It’s free advice. Run with it!
While I’m not a fan of conformity in everything, I do tend to be a rule follower. Yes or No rules are fairly easy to follow, but so many rules in the real world don’t easily fall into Black & White, but actually fall into gray areas. Even ones that are clearly yes or no, sometimes cause hardships that need consideration. In the world of Zoning, this is the reason for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). When a building or property doesn’t fit neatly in the box laid out by the Zoning Ordinance, the BZA has the ability to inject some flexibility.
This is a recurring topic with the Culver Plan Commission and it came up again in the January meeting. There is always a laudable effort to reduce the load on the BZA, when the BZA is continually hearing similar requests on which it routinely grants variances. There is a whole chapter in the Culver Zoning Ordinance for this. Chapter 8 is titled, “Nonconforming Structures, Lots and Uses” to try and handle this, but there are times that it is still not enough. The Building Commissioner put forth a proposal that a structure should be allowed to be rebuilt on the same footprint without a variance. Again, this is something that is routinely granted. But I don’t think it is something where a variance should be waived.
As with a lot of our government where there are multiple individuals involved, the BZA is often in the business of finding reasonable compromises. The concept of allowing reconstruction on the same footprint is already a bit cumbersome in practice. Often, the reason for wanting to build back on the original footprint is because that allows continued violations of required setbacks, impervious surface standards or other ordinance rules. Sometimes this is a necessity due to lot sizes, but there can still be issues. Without review, the policy can be abused.
In the past, every nonconforming structure required a BZA review and variance in order to make any changes. The idea was for there to be a review to see if the proposed project could make the structure less nonconforming, if not bring it completely into compliance. This not only gave the BZA the opportunity to review the project, but allowed the neighboring property owners to voice support or concerns regarding the project. The current thinking is that this is unwieldy, but it served a useful purpose.
I have three main concerns with this proposal and the current ordinance:
I think the Building Commissioner is right to ask for clarification and if enough detail is put into determining allowable reconstruction, this is a reasonable thing to delegate to his authority. As it’s written, it’s a minefield and I be concerned about uneven application.
One of the issues facing entry level workers is the issue of deposits. There is a deposit required for a rental unit. (In the case of a new home buyer, it’s the down payment.) There is a deposit required to get water turned on. There is a deposit required to get the gas turned on. There is a deposit required to get the electric turned on. For someone just starting out, this can be daunting. When someone moves, theoretically they’ll get their deposits back from the previous rental, but not before they have to put them down for the new place.
These have come about due to landlords, municipalities and utilities getting burned by tenants and homeowners skipping out on bills. For that reason, the justification for deposits is there. But… how often is this an issue in the first month when all the deposits are required? I would venture to say that 9 times out of 10, this is an end of occupancy issue, not a starting problem. Theoretically, the landlord renting to the tenant or the bank making the loan on a new purchase have vetted the tenant’s ability to afford their housing choice at least initially.
The new housing in Plymouth at Riverside Commons is geared towards lower wage earners. People that are good workers with steady income, but not at a level to afford good housing. These units are 100% electric and on city water and sewer, so there are only three deposits required. Unfortunately, Plymouth’s deposit requirement for water is $150. REMC, which provides the electric, has a deposit of $350, plus a $10 membership fee for the co-op. That’s $500+ in deposits without counting the rental deposit. This does not make it easy for a renter to move from substandard housing to the new units. The Paddocks in Culver runs into similar issues qualifying tenants, though I don’t think the start-up costs for water, sewer and electric are quite as high.
So, here’s what I would like to suggest for municipalities:
The above isn’t a panacea, but it would help low-income workers with a hand up that shouldn’t hurt the municipality much, if any. If the same principles could be applied to private utilities and maybe even rents, then it would be an equitable way of solving the insurance provided by deposits, while reducing the penalty those deposits put on low income individuals and families. This is just the beginning of a thought on a possible solution… But I think it is something worth consideration and refinement.
DST Here we go Again
March 11, 2024
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Personal, Rants
DST, government, Rants, Trends
For the TL;DR crowd, I am not a fan of Daylight Savings Time and more specifically the silliness of changing clocks all the time. Here’s a new video that explains it and tells why it’s antiquated.
Even Neil deGrasse Tyson says it’s ridiculous now (below), and “No One Gives A Rat’s Ass”. We invented electricity. Duh!
0 comments