A recent article from Kiplinger.com, “Will a Supreme Court Case About Fishing Water Down the IRS?”, intrigued me. The case has to do with the IRS. Kiplinger is a financial website, so their article concentrated on the obvious tax implications of IRS interpretations of obscure laws. The following two paragraphs caught my eye:
“The IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury are responsible for implementing tax regulations. Due to the complexity of tax law, they often have to fill gaps in tax legislation passed by Congress.
This is especially true when Congress drafts complex tax legislation at the last minute or amidst challenges on Capitol Hill, as is happening now with a bipartisan tax compromise proposed just weeks before tax season begins. In those and other instances, experts at the IRS and Treasury make interpretations and create rules to provide clarity to taxpayers.”
The implications of the rethinking the Chevron Deference, will have implications for a myriad of government agencies and their control over citizens. Our system of governance is based on compromise. Unfortunately, that often results in Congress passing compromised Laws, written in a manor that allows both sides to somewhat legitimately say, “I voted for this Law because I understood it to mean <blank>.” Under the Chevron Deference, this results in a bureaucratic agency effort to divine the meaning and write rules based on their interpretation.
In a perfect world, the agencies would do this even-handedly, with the rules being interpreted through an impartial lens. In reality, the agencies are controlled by the President’s Administration, leading to wild swings in policy based on the political party in office. This negates all of the compromise required to create the original Law.
Example #1 – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): This one hits hard for the construction industry. From their website, “The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency vested with the power to safeguard employees’ rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.” In reality, board members are rotated and appointed by the President’s Administration. Because there is a general Democrat Union bias and a Republican Non-Union (Free Enterprise) bias, this board’s rulings swing wildly based on the political party in the White House and the appointments they make to this board.
Example #2 – Waters of the United States (WOTUS): For decades there have been rules protecting wetlands. All States have rules regarding wetlands, with varying degrees of protection, in attempts to balance property rights vs perceived public good. With theoretically good intentions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expanded the definition of WOTUS to include even minor wetlands, woodland wetlands, intermittent streams etc. bringing them under EPA control. In many cases this impeded or stopped development, and at times went so far as to deter existing farming practices. Currently, the courts have reigned this in, putting much of this control back in the hands of the States. In some cases this has caused a pendulum swing resulting in not only the repeal of current regulations, but even some long standing and accepted regulations on wetland protection Nationally and at the State level.
I could easily cite a half dozen more of which I’m aware. Suffice to say, that there could be big changes on the horizon… some good and some bad.
In theory, I’m very much in favor of a requirement that laws be clear. Jingoistic names for Bills should be ditched in favor of either a name that reflects what is included or just a number and no name at all. I’m also in favor of ending Christmas Tree Bills that have ridiculously unrelated items lumped together, under a name that often implies something completely different. (The Washington politicians that can say the Inflation Reduction Act did anything to reduce inflation with a straight face are truly scary!) For this reason I’d be in favor of the Line Item Veto, no matter which party is in office, as it would eliminate at least half the graft… (The Line Item Veto has been deemed unconstitutional, but it still seems like a good idea!)
Bureaucracies are a somewhat necessary evil, but they are never accused of expediting anything or being efficient. It would seem their main function is to perpetuate the bureaucracy. (Read up on the March of Dimes… They’re still around despite successfully completing their mission in 1949.) If the Chevron Deference is overturned, it will cause some serious shake-up. Some good could come of it though. Honesty and completeness in the crafting of Laws would be a good thing.
I was amused by a blurb from Anita Boetsma’s article on the Argos Reflector.
I just finished serving on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committees in Culver and Plymouth right now. This is my 4th and 5th times through this process and housing is always an issue. I know Argos has been struggling with housing issues and according to this article, that struggle has been going on for 140 years!
As is also typical today, the commentator in the Reflector was happy to suggest what others do with their money. “Money invested in this way (housing) would pay a good percent to the investor.” Uh, huh. Other people’s money is easy to spend. I’m sure there would have been further commentary if the writer thought the “good percent” was too good…
I’m reminded of some of the grief I received from the then Culver Town Manager, Street Superintendent and Building Commissioner, who all thought I should be spending more on Sand Hill Farm Apartments and The Paddocks when they were under construction. While their comments were disheartening, it was nice the few times, then Town Council President, Ginny Munroe, publicly reminded them that with all the projects being completed due to Stellar, I was the only one with upfront skin in the game, i.e. making investments and with the potential for losses if things didn’t go well.
Currently, another developer is trying to wind their way through a housing development project in Culver. His project is to be partially funded through a READI grant. As Culver found out when initially looking for a housing developer, there aren’t as many out there as you might think. Culver Sand Hill Farm LLC was created to fill that void. While working on Sand Hill Farm Apartments and The Paddocks, we endured a lot of pushback. Culver’s unofficial motto, “Change is Bad, Even When It’s Change for the Better!” was the theme of many public meetings. The current developer is hearing it all again: The project is too big. The units should be built in a different order. The entrance should be somewhere else. There should be a direct connection to Town. There should NOT be a direct connection to Town. The houses are all going to look the same (stated as bad). The houses should all look the same. There are too many houses and not enough apartments. There are too many apartments and not enough houses. At 300 units, it is a small Town of its own and should provide some services accordingly… and on and on… While the injections of public funds gives the public some say, it still has to be understood that the developer is a for-profit entity and has to make the best decisions for a profitable outcome. Otherwise, why is he doing this? (A question that gets asked at Culver Sand Hill Farm LLC often…)
Housing remains a big issue in both Comprehensive Plans. Plymouth’s was adopted last year. Culver’s is still pending rewrites. In both cases, housing remains front and center, though slightly different approaches have been outlined. Housing is still considered part of the American Dream, but even with that shared vision, everyone has their own ideas about how to achieve that dream and what it looks like.
It’s not too late to make the current developer see the folly of these fights and watch him walk away. Culver Sand Hill Farm LLC sold 12 acres planned for future housing, rather than go through that process again. It’s now going to be a mini-storage facility. Culver Investment Corp. let their PUD expire and have their property for sale. Finding someone else to step up to the Culver’s housing challenge may be hard to do.
It’s interesting that the small town of Culver is having heated conversations regarding traffic calming measures, but that was part of the discussion at the Redevelopment Commission meeting last Monday, 1/15/24. There was actually an impressive turnout for an evening with temperatures in the single digits.
I already expressed some concerns about the connections between The Dunes and the rest of Culver here. Since that time, Culver has asked MACOG to fill a portion of the Urban Planner roll I suggested. MACOG is working on a traffic study to predict the impact of The Dunes. Town Manager, Kevin Danti, shared some of those results during the Redevelopment Commission meeting. The main thrust of this was that additional work need to be completed and probably would not be completed until this Summer when they would collect actual busy season data. Note: The plan to the right is old. There is a new one hanging on the wall in the Town Hall meeting room, which is probably out of date too, but closer to the final plan. The one to the right is close enough for representative purposes.
Most of the public comments were a rehashing of concerns expressed before. An interesting bit that caught my attention was the diametrically opposed conversation about the relatively new, pedestrian friendly, traffic calming islands on Main Street and Jefferson Street. Some audience members first expressed concern about additional traffic in the downtown causing safety issues, but then followed that up with complaints that the new traffic calming islands made it difficult for trucks with trailers to traverse these areas. Which is it, folks? Do you want to discourage the heavy traffic in the downtown and make pedestrian crossings safer for shoppers in the business district or do you want to change things to encourage truck and trailer traffic along these routes?
Cities and Towns around the world are looking at ways to make their streets more pedestrian friendly. This makes a lot of sense in business districts. Narrower lanes slow traffic. Corner islands reduce the distance pedestrians have to traverse. Both of these things serve to discourage unnecessary traffic in these areas. All of this fits with the trails that Culver has been adding. If residents are concerned about traffic downtown, don’t they want things that discourage it?
While I’m old enough to remember when Culver had two stoplights, I’m not old enough to remember when they were needed. I don’t remember when or why they were removed, but as a kid, I remember a stoplight at the corner of Main Street and Jefferson Street and a second one at the corner of Ohio Street and Jefferson Street. Now, I don’t remember the last time I’ve been behind more than one car at either of those intersection. We could always bring those back to slow things down…
The other thing that caught my attention is that while the committee working on this project recognizes the issues at the intersection of South Main Street and Davis Street, the idea of a roundabout has been taken off the table because the street department doesn’t like roundabouts. Really? I am not convinced that it is the best way to go, but it should remain a consideration until a better option comes forward. After all, it was in the 2014 Comp Plan. (I put the link in, hoping that the Town website will be fixed soon.) I am not saying that the street department’s input should be ignored, but I don’t think they should have that kind of veto power.
While Kevin Danti did a fine job of relaying the information at the meeting, I hope there is the opportunity for MACOG to present their ideas to the public directly. As with many things, there is unlikely to be 100% acceptance and agreement, but I’m pleased the effort is being made.
A lurker asked me about shipping container homes and the PUD Container Home project planned by Voodoo Dream Work LLC at 3919 North Michigan Road between Plymouth and LaPaz. I don’t generally comment on other developer’s projects, but I cannot imagine that this isn’t an improvement on what’s existing. I wish Mr. Landgrebe and Voodoo the best and hope their project is successful.
My lurker asked what I thought of the shipping container home concept. I actually looked into this before and was given some drawings by Brent Martin, SRKM Architecture, to consider. I hadn’t considered container homes for a whole subdivision as Mr. Landgrebe is proposing, but I thought they would be interesting to consider for infill lots. There are many small lots that were platted when standards were looser, that would be difficult to develop now due to setbacks and other restrictions.
There are several lots in Culver that are virtually undevelopable due to their size and setback restrictions. The former Community Garden parcel owned by the Wesley United Methodist Church at the NE corner of Slate Street and Lewis Street comes to mind. Another is the parcel at the SE corner of Clymax Street and Jefferson Street. Not only does the second one have streets on two sides, but it has issues with utility poles and an alley.
An interesting side note: Culver’s current Building Commissioner has a different interpretation of setbacks for corner lots than was enforced in the past. In the past, a lot that fronted two streets was considered to have two front yards and consequently two rear yards. The current interpretation is that the front yard is the side with the street address making the rear yard the opposite from that. This will help some of these difficult small lots.
The biggest positive for shipping container construction is that modular construction can be highly efficient. Parts and pieces that can be manufactured in a controlled, factory setting can speed up construction in the field. Sand Hill Farm Apartments were based on modular construction, with each apartment based on a standardized two bedroom layout. The three bedroom units are the same two bedroom unit layout with stairs to a third bedroom above. The one bedroom units are the same two bedroom unit layout with the second bedroom truncated to allow space for the office in one case and a maintenance room in the other. I spent a lot of time working with Hi Tech Housing, Inc. out of Bristol, hoping to use them and their version of modular construction. In the end, that just didn’t work out.
The main problem I found when I looked into shipping containers was their rigidity; ironically, one of the positives their proponents tout. 1) The module that they create is limiting. To make them into a home, they need to be framed out to allow space for insulation and space for infrastructure like plumbing and electrical to run throughout the space. This reduces the living space. 2) Their steel frames mean that any modifications require a cutting torch. 3) Any attempts to combine them are made difficult by the deep corrugations, which are designed to give them strength, but create additional space issues. 4) Cuts made for doors, windows and larger openings between them take away some of the strength inherent to the modular unit. 5) The Building Inspectors I’ve talked to are uncomfortable inspecting them with the modifications, and would require an Architect or Engineer to sign off on them. This creates a problem in finding an Architect or Engineer comfortable in doing this.
The shipping container home shown in the picture to the right is what I envisioned for some of the above infill sites in Culver, but if would have had Building Inspector issues and would still have required local variances as it would have been below Culver’s required square footage standards. Check out the site for the home to the right here. They have some other interesting pictures, but most of them are single container homes, making the square footage requirement harder to meet. But picture how much floor space stairs between floors would require and how that would subtract from your usable space when you add a second floor.
I don’t feel like shipping containers as homes follow the axiom of “everything to its highest & best use”. The best use for a shipping container is for shipping material. (Much as I said about the best use of West High School would have been its original designed use as a school.) Architect Belinda Carr does a great job of breaking it down in the video below:
I’m not sure I’m ready to say they’re a scam, but they just didn’t make sense to me. To each their own. I just don’t see them as a panacea to the housing crisis.
Modular construction does make a lot of sense. Sand Hill Farm Apartments, The Paddocks and Riverside Commons were all framed using factory produced wall panels. They’re delivered en masse and then carpenters stand them up on site. We did this with most of the Garden Court projects we built as well. It just makes sense when there are repetitive room shapes and sizes. A big difference is that we can work towards other modular sizes when we build this way. Drywall comes in lengths and widths in multiples of 4′. This makes rooms with dimensions based on 2′ increments more efficient. Carpet comes in 12′ widths. We design for that efficiency. Wood studs have easily determined bearing capacities based on 16″ and 24″ centers… which works out with the 4′ drywall increments. Those same 4′ increments work out for OSB and plywood which is used for exterior wall sheathing and roof decking. Studs come in standard length, which can help determine the most efficient ceiling heights. Considerations of these increments helps reduce waste.
I’ll be watching Mr. Landgrebe’s project with interest. It should be interesting visually and his vacation voucher rental model is novel. I wish him the best and who knows; he may cause me to rethink my views on container housing…
Deposit Dilemma
February 5, 2024
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Marshall County, MCCF
Community, Culver, government, Plymouth
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.
2 comments