Over the past year, there's been no shortage of stories about the need for affordable housing. This was even an issue in this year's Presidential race. This is a problem that was actually created back in 2008, when the Great Recession resulted in a collapse of construction. That industry is still only a shadow of its former self. But even with a booming construction industry, many cities like those in the Lehigh Valley have very limited space on which to build and can only do so much. County governments, and perhaps some townships, can do more. Aside from its own courthouse and Gracedale campus, Northampton County owns 500 acres of land. Instead of leasing it to farmers, couldn't some of this land be used to create affordable housing? Better yet, couldn't some of it be used to provide affordable housing to county employees who are increasingly difficult to retain?
Northampton County has about 1700-1800 employees, though its actual number should be closer to 2,000. It has problems attracting nursing care at Gracedale, despite offering retention bonuses and even building a daycare that may or may not yet be open. This is a nationwide problem, and the county has been forced to hire outside nurses to provide care at higher rates than it pays its own.
In addition to a shortage of nursing care at Gracedale, there is also a shortage of corrections officers, youth care workers and 911 dispatchers. They are often forced to work overtime to fill gaps in coverage, which exhausts them and can make conditions unsafe.
Couldn't we express our appreciation to these unsung heroes by providing them with an affordable place to live?
Here's what I would suggest as a pilot program. The Gracedale campus is huge. Some of that land is used neither for farming nor anything else. It's just grass to cut. How about a small development of about 30 homes for workers in critical departments like the jail, Gracedale, Juvenile Justice Center and 911. I'm not speaking of McMansions but am thinking of smaller homes like the Boxable Casita.
The county could offer these homes and agree to hold the mortgage at a low interest rate. The qualifying employee would own, not rent the property to erase any illusion that this is a company store. If the employee either leaves county employment or decides to sell the property for a larger home, the county would have an option to repurchase at its appraised market value. That way the employee could build equity, and the county could attract and retain good workers.
What do you think of this idea? Any suggestions to make it better? Is it nonsense?
28 comments:
More waste of taxpayer dollars. Why not just pay for the house for them. Who pays for our mortgages!!!! It is getting ridiculous. Get rid of McClure and you would get employees.
Wow, another political favor for elected officials to hand out to the chosen few.
And, in addition to running a nursing home, let’s now get county government involved in a few more areas that it doesn’t belong in like home building and financing of the homes.
Plus, unless the county chooses to repurchase the homes when an employee moves, the perk is quickly gone for future employees.
Most importantly, do you really think the county is going to build these homes at a reasonable cost to the taxpayers? Of course not! Best case scenario they only pay twice as much to build them as what a competent private developer would pay.
Better idea: Sell off the nursing home operation and land to a private buyer. Allow them to develop the property as the market demands. If you must, condition the sale on the nursing home remaining in operation for a certain period of time, although no longer in county hands.
16 tons and what do you get….
What comes after McClure will be very bad for employees. First item on the chopping block will be healthcare. If the COs think they got crushed in Arbitration by McClure, just wait until an Executive is not fighting with one hand tied behind their back.
The devil will be administrating it
Fact: many or most of these very employees are also tax payers within the County. Stop this tired excuse of “wasting” tax payers money.
No matter who the executive is the employees would never be paid their worth. Why? Because to sustain that increase in salaries if most were raised there would have to be tax increases. Minimal increases but no executive who cares to run for a second term would push for that because they’d be voted out by whiners such as yourself.
The tax increases shall be minimal adding maybe $40-$80 dollars a year onto each tax bill but many voters would hate that idea. Yet these same taxpayers will pay an extra dollar each day of the week for their precious latte at the local Starbucks and not complain at all. Priorities are misaligned with folks such as yourself.
Dumb idea. Sounds like "company housing" from back in the days of coal mining towns.
Young families would do well in those casitas, and they’re affordable. This is fundamentally a great idea, and no need to consider it modest. It is plain and straightforward. One area of disagreement, however.
At times I’m snarky or a little bit of an iconoclast. Not about farmland, however. It’s sacred. It allows rainwater and snow to percolate back into the soil naturally. We live atop limestone, which can collapse. All of the paving for distribution centers compounds the issues.
Clever planners (and not including LVPC in this group) can find land without losing arable, cultivatable, or forested land. Look at today’s MC approval of a distribution center in Williams. Plenty of additional space in that area, per the planners.
Respect our land.
Another loony tunes bleeding heart liberal mistaught. I swear BO the shock of harris's lost has melted your brain.
We've all seen these schemes and know how they end: badly. The problem with affordable housing is that 1) we let millions of illegals in the country in the last four years. Hold on. They're about to get kicked out. Obama got rid of millions of them. Trump will get rid of even more. 2) We added trillions to our debt and cheapened the value of each existing dollar. That drove up interest rates and collapsed construction. 3) We funded two wars and showered billions on Ukraine. The grown ups are back in charge. Hold off on these stupid, though well-intentioned, money wasting schemes. Our government can't define what a woman is, and you want it to solve the housing crisis? Ridiculous. Wait.
It’s an interesting idea. What’s the cost would be my first question. Could you get a better return on retention by just raising everyone’s wages? Seems like an awful lot of cost just to retain 30 or 40 employees. Take the jail for example, give them a better salary, better working conditions, you wouldn’t have the turnover you have now. Besides wages, there is a leadership problem in the county, who wants work for an idiot that is in his position because he or she is connected. Yes I’m looking at you Ken Kraft.
If you work for a living, there is no reason why you should have to beg for a place to live. Public Housing based on your wages promotes slums. Taxpayers dollars pay for the maintenance and upkeep of these properties. These would have to be strictly rental properties with no option of later purchase of the property. What is the difference between taxpayers subsidizing salaries of County employees by creating subsidized housing and taxpayers outright paying the salaries of these employees so they can have a decent standard of living? You just don't get it Bernie. Our elected officials are balancing their budgets on the backs of their employees. Pay decent wages and give benefits that makes someone want to work for the County and you can resolve some of these problems without creating another bureaucracy. Northampton County has taken away employee benefits by making them pay for what was once considered a part of their wages. What is the difference if we pay higher decent wages or subsidize their pay by creating another bureaucracy by building Housing? Do the Pay Study and you will find out how much County employees are underpaid.
Paving over farmland should be the last option. I'm sure there are plenty of brownfield sites or other blighted properties that would be better suited for housing.
So, let's say we build affordable housing on a county owned farm. how close are these farms to the county workers jobs? What if any consideration did you give to infrastructure? Roads, water, sewer, etc. are not found on farmland, unless that is if it's owned by some local "turkey farmers".
Why not focus on redevelopment on development.
BO, I respect your opinions and willingness to put yourself out there for all of us keyboard warriors, but you hit this one right in the lumberyard.
I’m sure there’s no way you can make them sell if they leave the job, so now you’re stuck with people who are going to get jobs just to get the property and then probably leave the job and still have the benefits. Personally I think unaffordable housing happened during the pandemic.
Why not just pay the county worker a livable wage like the neighboring counties!
Bad idea. Best thing would be to pay the employee a decent wage and you'll get the employee's. Second reason is what happens if the employee quits? will he or she be required to move or sell the home back to the county? Can someone that works in different departments buy one? Too many problems with the idea, just pay them more.
Sorry, you are generally reasonable but that is a ludicrous plan. You would pay a fortune to hire or retain 30 employees, and 30 does not put a dent in the employee vacancy issue.
It is a very good idea because every affordable residence that is created in our region is helpful. I think it might also be a good employee incentive because it should reduce travel costs for employees who work near by. My only concern is that the construction cost of producing new housing units is very high in the Lehigh Valley. I don't think the county or can or will supply all the affordable housing that is needed to provide this incentive for every employee. A fair and objective system will need to be created to determine who is eligible for this benefit.
Having the government build houses below market value at a loss by default? How is this not a socialist idea?
How about a tent city with portolets and a communal soup kitchen? It’ll be rustic and nostalgic. At night the employees could have sing-alongs. It would be like “The Grapes of Wrath.”
or you could just pay county employees appropriately....
I've received mostly negative comments. Let me address some of the points made:
1) It is not a company town idea bc the employee would own the property and would be able to build equity.
2) It would be completely legal to require the employee to sell back to the county if he leaves county employment or wants to live elsewhere.
3) The pilot project would not be on farmland. The reason I don't consider the farmland leased by the county to be sacred is bc it is not used to feed us. It is not sustainable agriculture. Perhaps I am wrong there. But the county also has a repository of properties and could use land it gets from tax sales that no one wants, usually bc it is too small.
I believe the Diocese of Allentown is considering doing the same thing. It is converting old unused churches into housing for teachers at its schools.
The government would not be building houses at a loss. It would get its money back via low interest mortgages to employees at Gracedale, jail, 911 and JJC, where there is a real problem hiring and keeping people.
I rejected a comment that accuses me of rejecting comments lol.
Sorry, that was me. When I looked in the late morning there were numerous comments on your other post and only one here.
I realize the comments are now appearing later than they used to. I should have taken that into account and not jumped to conclusions.
The difference between the diocese and the county doing this is the fact that the county will be constructing these houses at the prevailing wages, which would make these units inherently more expensive to construct.
The issue with the lack of affordable housing is in general, that when you factor in the zoning, administration and all of the other soft costs, plus the price of the land itself, to achieve the appropriate rate of return, you need to charge market rates.
Where can we post the apologies to Susan Wild for accusing her of illegally leaking a report that the panel voted to release?
I forgive you.
Post a Comment