Two Significant Area Meetings Occurred Last Week-- Military Mission Resiliency and Attainable Housing were the Focus

Although there was no scheduled meeting of the Escambia Board of County Commissioners this past week--there were still lots of other significant meetings, gatherings, and galas in the region--three of which I had the opportunity to attend.  Two of which are of vital importance to our communities, county, and region.

On Wednesday, a regional meeting of panhandle business interests, military personnel, elected officials, and other interested community members met in Okaloosa County.  The discussion was pertinent and pointed:  

What are the most serious issues that could potentially impact the Panhandle's significant military footprint here?  

This is an important and pressing question to ask, as a HUGE part of our area's economy, more than 50%, is derived from military spending and the resultant spin off of jobs and economic activity that spending creates.  In all of Florida, according to data presented at the conference, military spending totals about $97 Billion per year producing 900,000 jobs.  The panhandle of Florida, with $22 Billion in DoD spending creating 200,000, jobs takes an oversized portion of that revenue (when population of the area compared to the rest of Florida is the benchmark).  So we need to be mindful of this and do everything we can to protect the bases from all threats to include environmental, encroachment, and downsizing/closure.

Speakers included Austin Mount, CEO of the Emerald Coast Regional Council, Capt. Paul Flores, CO, NAS Whiting Field, Jim Bagby, District Director for Congressman Matt Gaetz, and Keynote Speaker was Mr. Dale Marks-Vice Director of the 96th Test Wing of Eglin AFB

This is an important question to ask the answer is important to know for policy makers and business owners alike--as according to several who spoke at the meeting--there are other bases and states with powerful elected representatives that are working to move military missions from this area into their respective jurisdictions.  We can't let that happen without taking a HUGE economic hit.

There will be follow-on meetings of this ad-hoc group-and I look forward to attending in the future.

For those interested in learning more about this group and what they will be working on, check out their web page here.  Check out the informative, data rich agenda presentation here.   And you can watch the first half of the meeting (prior to the break out session and visioning exercises) here.

On Friday-Dave Robau, CEO and Founder of National Energy USA, hosted an all day Attainable Housing summit at the Bayview Community Center. This event was focused on finding solutions to housing shortages while simultaneously making existing homes more fortified against natural disasters and also finding ways to decrease the costs of owning a home utilizing new, innovative technologies to lower energy costs. 

Housing, as everyone in Pensacola knows, is a huge issue in our community as our population grows and the costs for housing increase.  So how do we tackle this issue?  That was the subject of discussion for the all day presentations and panels which included representatives from Escambia County's Neighborhood and Human Services Division, The City's housing and planning/zoning staff, multiple representatives from local construction firms and materials manufacturers, architects, contractors, and those that work in this space.

For me the intriguing take aways were the professional presentation on tiny homes and a discussion of supply and demand's impact on housing costs and availability locally. 

On tiny homes in particular,  the discussion and back and forth with architect and builder Mr. Jordan Yee--who gave a very informative presentation on his experiences building and designing tiny homes and accessory dwelling units (ADU's) in Pensacola--was enlightening.  I asked him, specifically, how tiny homes can help with the housing cost crunch and also the homeless situation Escambia County faces.  Interestingly, Mr. Yee did not say the tiny homes can assist with either issue.  He also told the panel that on a cost per square foot basis--building a tiny home is much more expensive than a traditional house, because "You are still having to build a kitchen and a bathroom with all the necessary appliances and those are the expensive components of a home.  And you don't get the savings on the less expensive walls and areas of a traditional home to balance the costs." he explained.

This was interesting as I have heard several folks in the community profess that Tiny Homes are going to be the solution to housing issues and homeless.  This professional's take, by contrast, is not in agreement.

Mr. Yee's greater concern was on having zoning and code changes that allow for more density and easier approvals of construction of tiny homes in existing neighborhoods which will allow for an answer to the "missing middle"- a term describing the lack of duplexes, triplexes and ADU's in traditional neighborhoods.  Although he did acknowledge that such a change of ordinances and codes will not be easy as many neighbors in traditional, mature communities will resist and fight against any additional density.\

That topic allowed for a segue into the contentious issue of building housing to meet the demand and to help lower the costs overall.  I provided my take on the issue, pointing out the fact that when we approve new housing and particularly more density--we are often lobbied by the most stridently opposed citizens imaginable.  To which everyone in the room seemed to understand.

So the question was nevertheless left unanswered:  How do we address the supply issue to lower the housing costs when existing citizens don't want any new growth and will openly tell commissioners we should not "allow" any new residents to move here.

It certainly is a conundrum.  But interesting just the same and an ongoing challenge we all face.

New Affordable Housing Law Potentially Complexifies OLF 8 Sale

 

The newly passed, bipartisan "Live Local Act" which was signed by Governor DeSantis late last week sailed through the legislature with very little fanfare and much applause.  It has a lot of very positive provisions, namely the doubling of state dollars for the SHIP and SAIL programs which seek to provide more affordable housing options for citizens.  It also has some innocuous provisions related to what local governments can charge to tow and store vehicles within their respective jurisdictions.

But some language in the bill related to approval of housing development is troubling.  And it could impact Escambia County in many ways which may have perhaps not been thought through as this was pushed over the finish line.

The biggest and most concerning conundrum this legislation creates is the way in which it specifically limits the county's ability to make important zoning determinations and decisions with respect to commercial properties.

The legislation which is now Florida law has provisions which allow developers to completely bypass local ordiances controlling allowable uses withing commercially zoned parcels of land----if certain conditions are met by the developers. Specifically--if a builder owns commercial property that is not currently zoned by the county for housing--such a developer can now build housing (if a certain percentage of such housing development is alloted for "affordable/workforce" housing) on such parcels with no need for a county's approval.  The legislation preempts the local authority to regulate this. (see the language in lines 312-379 of the original bill here)

So this new law potentially complexifies our sale of OLF8 because it opens the possibility that the developer we eventually sell this parcel to--with our intention being that such a developer follow the master plan we have codified in county ordinance--could instead potentially develop the entire parcel with residential.  I was invited onto this past Thursday morning's "Real News with Rick Outzen" to discuss these potential issues this new law creates as it pertains to our upcoming sale.  You can hear that conversation here. The master plan's compromise specified certain acres for commercial, light industrial (for job creation) with other portions set aside for residential, retail, a town center and amenities.  With this new law in place though--all the allowable residential could be built, and a developer could potentially then bypass our zoning to create EVEN MORE residential on OLF 8 under the provisions of this new law.   This is the concern I have, and that many others share.

In a conference call I had with county staff and multiple lawyers Wednesday--I was told that because we own the property currently--we may be able to utilize restrictive covenants/deed restrictions to

Is Rent Control Coming? Here?

Could Rent Control happen here?

Some  states and many cities, municipalities, and counties worldwide have enacted laws, policies, and ordinances supporting the concept of price controls on residential rental units.  Ostensibly these policies are to allow for more affordable housing options for those citizens and families in areas of high rental costs and low housing availability.

Pensacola/Escambia County have significant poverty combined with a shortage of attainable housing units.

Is this something that could happen?  Is rent control coming here?

The concept of price controlled housing is generally panned by most private landowners, economists, apartment operators, and conservatives--while it is supported, generally speaking, by liberals, social science (and egghead) academics, and idealogues.

It's a concept that has failed just about everywhere it has been implemented.  Read about some of the epic failures and arguments against rent control here, here, and here.

But according to a recent report from the National Multifamily Housing Council--these policies will be moving again in the new year--and incredibly Florida is listed as a strong candidate for price controlled rent (not at the statewide level; state maintains preemption).  This is because at the local level Florida law specifically allows a municipality/county the option to implement rent control if a successful ballot initiative of the affected citizenry passes in such an area authorizing such price control.

I don't see it happening in Escambia County.  At least not for my vote and I doubt it would get three votes.  But how about in the city of Pensacola?  Perhaps?

I hope not:  because I philisophically disagree with the construct and I believe the market should dictate rental prices---not bureaucrats. Foisting draconian price terms and conditions on private market developers and apartment owners will stifle new investment and actually reduce the supply. And the quality of the housing that is available currently will deteriorate. 

That's what happens in real life---- not in imaginery, make-believe worldview aspirational economies. 

But I guess we will see what happens in the new year in the city.  Again, I don't see this happening in the county at all.

Read all about this topic and where it is gaining traction nationwide here.

Is the Push for Housing on OLF-8 Actually About "Affordable"---------- or is it Really All About "Upscale" Rental Housing?

If the push is for "affordable" rental units to be constructed on OLF-8--I don't see how rents of between $1,000 and 2,000 Monthly on a proposed 900 such units on the OLF-8 property fits that bill....$1,000 monthly for a studio sounds like a Luxury rental in Pensacola.....

The surreal revelations of last week surrounding our supposed BCC consultant's recommendations for OLF-8 have taken a dramatic series of sideways turns as I have now read through all the emails previously provided via a public records request.

As I have now pointed out in a series of blog posts--It appears that our consultant was working against some of our priorities as it relates to OLF-8.

But why the unwavering, uncompromising lobbying by DPZ for rental housing on OLF-8?----why the dogged, unflinching push by them to build more residential housing on this field that was acquired by the county to create jobs?

The first red flag was their outright refusal to consider the value of jobs and payrolls from companies that might become employers on that field--when attempting to rate/rank the "value" of plans they would bring before us.  This resulted in apples to pineapple comparisons of plans that were faulty.  We finally got them to bring an analysis from the Haas Center of the power of payrolls on our area---- if the right jobs are targeted and placed on OLF-8.  Now we are getting a better analysis of the economic value and power of jobs.

But initially--the vision from DPZ focused solely on the ad-valorem revenue the structures built on OLF-8 would generate for the county.  (Which are significant--yet paltry when compared to the impact of payroll dollars from a large employer rippling through an economy yearly--generating home purchases, retail purchases, gas tax and sales tax for the county.)  As an example of this at Thursday's meeting I pointed out something important that I learned earlier in the week after speaking with Escambia County Property Appraiser Chris Jones.  Navy Federal Credit Union has built about a Billion Dollars worth of facilities adjacent to OLF-8.  And if you peel off the incentives applied via eDATES provided to NFCU---the ad valorem value of the facilities constructed comes to about $4 Million yearly.  (The county only collects about half of that, though.  The balance goes goes to the School Board, the Sheriff's MSTU, and the Library MSBU).  The payroll that the 8400 Employees of NFCU generate, by contrast, is estimated to be in excess of $350 Million per year.

What's better:

$350 Million per year for jobs     or    $2 Million per year in the county's coffers as ad valorem revenue.

But wait!  It's not an either or.  We get both--as long as we put good companies on the field!

What we don't get, if we build a bunch of residential and low-wage retail on the field, is BIG PAYROLL dollars rippling through the economy.  We only get the facilities' ad valorem tax revenue. Which as I illustrated in the example above is paltry in comparison...

So I went back to the complete draft Weitzman study from last August and looked at the pages our DPZ Communications Subcontractor was highlighting in emails I have seen.  Pages 248-251 were what he