Deep Ellum / Expo Park | Evergreen Residential @ 3800 Willow St.

[Justin Terveen]

grumble . . . "Not a shelter."

That's really starting to bother me, too. Right now, there's a massive opposition building to the proposed developments in my neighborhood (3800 Willow @ Commerce ). It's being pitched as a "shelter", or "camp" by a number of key players in Expo Park. The majority of the neighborhood will show to speak out against the proposed "shelter" later today during a public hearing at the library.

[MarkL2023]

That's really starting to bother me, too. Right now, there's a massive opposition building to the proposed developments in my neighborhood (3800 Willow @ Commerce ). It's being pitched as a "shelter", or "camp" by a number of key players in Expo Park. The majority of the neighborhood will show to speak out against the proposed "shelter" later today during a public hearing at the library.


This?

http://planbdevelopment.com/pages/willow.htm

[Justin Terveen]

That's the site, but not the project -- I don't think.

This (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/dallas/stories/021710dnmethousing.3fe62c6.html) is all I can find on the proposed projects.

[ericthegardener]

That's really starting to bother me, too. Right now, there's a massive opposition building to the proposed developments in my neighborhood (3800 Willow @ Commerce ). It's being pitched as a "shelter", or "camp" by a number of key players in Expo Park. The majority of the neighborhood will show to speak out against the proposed "shelter" later today during a public hearing at the library.

People were all over Facebook yesterday complaining about a "homeless camp" in Expo park. What is the real deal?

[MarkL2023]

That's the site, but not the project -- I don't think.

You are correct. According to DCAD it looks like Plan B held it from 2000-2008 before the holding company's address moved to 1920 Abrams Pky which, I believe, would be the "Lakewood Office" mentioned on Hamilton's website.

Here is the briefing the DMN article references

http://www.dallascityhall.com/committee_briefings/briefings0210/HOU_2010LowIncomeHousingTax_021610.pdf

[ericthegardener]

I see a lot of discussion on Amsterdam Bar's Facebook page but I'm still not sure exactly what is being proposed.

[Justin Terveen]

People were all over Facebook yesterday complaining about a "homeless camp" in Expo park. What is the real deal?

The usual NIMBY opposition, mixed with a little misinformation. My whole beef is how the opposition is pitching the issue. They're calling it a shelter, when in reality, it's assisted housing, much like 511 N. Akard. There is a distinct fundamental difference between the two, just as there's a distinct difference between the type of people they are designed to help. I know you fine folks understand that, but that seems to be the main point of confusion on the front lines.

[Justin Terveen]

I see a lot of discussion on Amsterdam Bar's Facebook page but I'm still not sure exactly what is being proposed.

That's just it. Nobody does. Outside the link I've provided, I can't find anything but hearsay. To add to the confusion, there are multiple projects being proposed, from the MLK & I-30 area, to Expo Park.

[mjblazin]

They are multi-unit (50-200 units) of 1-2 BR apartments with units allocated to several tiers of subsidies (30-60%). Subsidies depend on TX funds. Dallas City Council has local approval and usually listens to community support (your local councilperson basically says yea/nay and he/she rarely does anything that would get several hundred voters mad (usually the entire margin of victory in our poorly participated council elections)).

They are not camps. A non-profit entity runs them as any apartment manager would. Biggest community concern is perception on area affectting existing residents' ability to sell. Unfortunately, timing in economic cycle is not good for people facing yet another reason why their properties would be difficult to sell. The people that have moved to these communities, active, articulate, involved property owners (a good thing for city's future) often make powerful spokepersons against the projects.

[jsoto3]

Site plan of proposed project can be found on page 125 of 381 of this document (linked in Unfair Park post (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2010/04/what.php)):
http://www1.tdhca.state.tx.us/htc/2010apps/10232.pdf

[Justin Terveen]

neighborhood speaking at the meeting last night...

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=379965122466

(can we break this into another thread? sorry for the hi-jack)

[jsoto3]

(can we break this into another thread? sorry for the hi-jack)
Done.

[Justin Terveen]

Thanks homey...

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2010/04/strong_expo_park_showing_oppos.php

[RayM]

neighborhood speaking at the meeting last night...

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=379965122466

(can we break this into another thread? sorry for the hi-jack)

Looks like I was too late for that video; it's been removed from facebook.

[Justin Terveen]

Still there for me..

[dfwcre8tive]

Doesn't sound so bad to me; and it's a better contribution to the neighborhood than what is currently on the site.

Developer, First Presby Pastor Answer Questions About Low-Income Housing Development Planned for Expo Park
By Daniel Rodrigue, Friday, Apr. 16 2010 @ 2:15PM
Categories: News
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2010/04/developers_debunk_expo_parks_p.php

​On Tuesday night, during the public hearing organized by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, developer Graham Greene sat in the audience quietly watching as 50 Deep Ellum and Expo Park residents stood in opposition of EVERgreen Residences | 3800 Willow, as a planned development he's working on with First Presbyterian Church of Dallas that would bring permanent supportive housing to Exposition Park. Yesterday, when Unfair Park spoke with Greene by phone, he said the show of opposition was "unexpected," but he's not so sure they're opposing his development.

"I think that people have been given ... well, they've been misinformed," he said, citing everything from the residents of the development being "chronically homeless" to the fact that the development is at odds with the "creative ecosystem" of Deep Ellum and Expo Park.

"This is a really nice project," Greene said. "It has some neighborhood amenities. It's really been designed to fit into the neighborhood and there will be art studios and some other things like that."

As indicated in the designs above, which can be found on page 146 of EVERgreen's 381-page application for Competitive Housing Tax Credits, the "other things" would include a workshop, two art studios and a community garden.

We placed a call to Ken Maxwell of Exposition Park Association to find out if the association was aware of the planned art studios, workshop and community gardens. "We haven't seen the exact plans," Maxwell said. But even after Unfair Park informed Maxwell about the above amenities -- and Greene's assertion that EVERgreen was designed to "fit into the neighborhood" -- Maxwell reiterated that the development "doesn't fit into the ecosystem that's developing down here. Any developer would say, 'It fits.' But it doesn't."

​While Greene may have found the opposition "unexpected," Rev. Dr. Joseph Clifford, the senior pastor at First Presbyterian Church, told us this morning that he wasn't too shocked by the public's reaction.

"It's not a surprise," he said. "I've never really seen a neighborhood come out in support of this kind of project. But I think that in the long run it will be a benefit to the community, not a detriment."

The challenge, he said, is that these projects need to be well-organized and operated, which he maintains is a task with which First Presby has had more than three decades of experience at The Stewpot. And once the construction is complete, First Presbyterian Church of Dallas will take over as the service provider for the project.

"We're not some commercial developer," he said. "We're a church, and we have a track record of providing those services. And the last thing that we want to do with this is develop an antagonistic relationship with our neighbors."

And Clifford said he "totally understands" why the community would be concerned with a project like this. But as far as Greene is concerned, much of the public's concerns about development -- especially the "chronically homeless" bit -- have nothing to do with EVERgreen.

"We're not going to be dealing with the chronically homeless," he said. "That's the other project down here that was in the paper the other day -- it's down near Hickory Street and Malcolm X, and that one is being done by CDM, Central Dallas Ministries. And ours is permanent housing for people who were formerly homeless. That's how they qualify for direct subsidies."

...

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/3800willowproposal1.jpg

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/assets_c/2010/04/3800willowproposal2-thumb-560x330.jpg

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/3800willowproposal3.jpg

[mjblazin]

The pastor identified the most important factor: confidence in the property manager. Property owners in neighborhoods immediately see the Section 8 model: absentee landlords acting with little care except to fill up units. We need a few examples to prove the managements' capabilities. Trust in anyone is not a big item in this marketplace.

[tamtagon]

The pastor identified the most important factor: confidence in the property manager. Property owners in neighborhoods immediately see the Section 8 model: absentee landlords acting with little care except to fill up units. We need a few examples to prove the managements' capabilities. Trust in anyone is not a big item in this marketplace.

I have complete faith the Presbyterians will run this place the right way.


Rev. Dr. Joseph Clifford said, "It's not a surprise." "I've never really seen a neighborhood come out in support of this kind of project. But I think that in the long run it will be a benefit to the community, not a detriment."

.... And once the construction is complete, First Presbyterian Church of Dallas will take over as the service provider for the project.

This is one Dallas' neighborhoods that's perfect for permanent supportive housing. People live here until they can get a place in a neighborhood not well suited to permanent supportive housing.

[SeriousSummer]

Here's part of today's blog from Larry James' Urban Daily:

We can end chronic homelessness in a city like Dallas, Texas.

That fact is no longer in question.

What remains very questionable is whether or not we've got the political will and the faith to move forward as a community to do exactly that.

Here's the beginning of this must-read report:

Times Square’s Homeless Holdout, Not Budging
By JULIE BOSMAN
Published: March 29, 2010

Heavy, as he is known, is said to be the only person still living on the streets of Times Square.

As long as there have been homeless people sleeping in Times Square, there have been social workers and city officials trying to persuade them to leave.

The homeless man Heavy slept in a cardboard box on Sunday as a worker from the Times Square Alliance swept 48th Street.

In the past, the homeless were offered a free ride to one of the city’s warehouselike shelters. These days, workers for nonprofit groups help people move into apartments, keeping track as the number of the chronically homeless in Times Square goes down.

According to their records, by 2005, there were only 55. Last summer, it was down to 7.

Now there is one.

His name is Heavy, and he has lived on the streets of Times Square for decades. Day after day, he has politely declined offers of housing, explaining that he is a protector of the neighborhood and cannot possibly leave, the workers who visit him every day said.

Yet they are determined to get through to Heavy, the last homeless holdout in Times Square.


The goal of permanent supportive housing is to get rid of homelessness. The idea isn't that complicated. Once someone has a home, then they aren't homeless. You won't see them on the streets.

And there aren't that many homeless people in Dallas. About 6,000 is all the official count could find last year, and only about 600 of those people were chronically homeless.

According to the national nonprofit Corporation for Supportive Housing, Dallas only needs between 700 and 1200 housing units to solve the problem. If we built them, then rather seeing homeless people all the time, we could be like Times Square--trying to persuade that last hold out, whom we would all know by name, to come in out of the rain.

[tamtagon]

^SeriousSummer, how would you compare & contrast this proposal for Expo Park with Central Dallas Community Development Corp and 511 Akard?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the passionate outcries against this project may have been nudged by absentee property owners. Of course, I have absolutely no concrete basis for the suspicion, it just seems so familiar to other land use instances where decision makers were singularly focused on the ability to cash out with a hefty profit without regard to neighborhood character.

[mjblazin]

Absentee landowners (= non-voters) don't get politicians' attention. Solving this issue means you have to directly confront the fact that the biggest opponents are the very people that we as a city have wanted to move to and own property in these neighborhoods: mid-30's-40's, well-educated, above average income, owner-occupying.

[breavis]

A few large landowners were the primary initial opposition. They went around pressuring other owners and tenants to contribute money to their "cause." Lawyers and a PR firm were hired to kill the project in anyway possible. Their PR people have made conscious effort to shift the face of the opposition to the residents. They were at the hearing directing what was a highly choreographed effort. This is not to say that residents shouldn't be concerned about what is built in their neighborhood, but most of their knowledge about the project is coming from the landowners behind the scene. This project is being described to them as a homeless shelter/halfway house that will destroy the neighborhood. I really doubt that most residents have done their own research on what is actually proposed. From comments seen elsewhere, the opposition has very little information about the proposed project or Permanent Supportive Housing in general. You just see the typical NIMBY responses...With this exception:

"I have a fundamental problem with this because I don't see how putting the chronically homeless -- some of them have been in and out of prison -- into an area so close to all the drugs and alcohol that's available down here." Michael Scheel, owner of The Amsterdam Bar.

Usually the NIMBY response is that the neighborhood is too good, important, on the verge of something great. This argument seems to be: The atmosphere in the neighborhood where I own a bar is so bad, that even formerly homeless people should not live here.

[tamtagon]

Absentee landowners (= non-voters) don't get politicians' attention.

money talks

[UrbanHope]

A few large landowners were the primary initial opposition. They went around pressuring other owners and tenants to contribute money to their "cause." Lawyers and a PR firm were hired to kill the project in anyway possible. Their PR people have made conscious effort to shift the face of the opposition to the residents. They were at the hearing directing what was a highly choreographed effort. This is not to say that residents shouldn't be concerned about what is built in their neighborhood, but most of their knowledge about the project is coming from the landowners behind the scene. This project is being described to them as a homeless shelter/halfway house that will destroy the neighborhood. I really doubt that most residents have done their own research on what is actually proposed. From comments seen elsewhere, the opposition has very little information about the proposed project or Permanent Supportive Housing in general. You just see the typical NIMBY responses...With this exception:

"I have a fundamental problem with this because I don't see how putting the chronically homeless -- some of them have been in and out of prison -- into an area so close to all the drugs and alcohol that's available down here." Michael Scheel, owner of The Amsterdam Bar.

Usually the NIMBY response is that the neighborhood is too good, important, on the verge of something great. This argument seems to be: The atmosphere in the neighborhood where I own a bar is so bad, that even formerly homeless people should not live here.


WOW! Can anybody else back up these claims.

If this is true, this is very disappointing. I have been to 511 N. Akard, and if it's that type of project then I support it. And yes, I live near the Bridge and see the homeless everyday. IMO this isn't for the chronically homeless that have mental and other issues, this is for people who need a place to live so they can work and function better.

[mjblazin]

We may be saying the same thing. While non-resident property owners may have their agenda and are likely an info resource against the projects, I do not believe they have the deciding leverage. The council has made it clear that it will do what the voters in the neighborhood want. If the voters are misinformed, then the tactic is to re-educate them. The developers cited likely realized the tactic early and have begun implementation. Supporters have to work the same ground.

We may see deals where developers go around the voters to get to the council. In this situation, if the developers are acting,the actions are through the voters. There are no THEM stopping these projects. They are US.

[tamtagon]

Frankly, I do not see how anyone can win expect a public approval / perception competition against the First Presbyterian Church.

Furthermore, the folks who misinform and organizing rallies against philanthropic initiatives to lessen the cultural stress & discomfort as well as economic drain caused by an abandoned homeless population are the folks who give us a valid reason to bring back the stocks and pillory.

[SeriousSummer]

I have been trying to post a response to Tamtagon's comparison questionn for two days, and can't get it to post. I'll put it uup on the CityWalkTalk blog, and see if I can do better at posting it from my office.

BTW: I wouldn't underestimate the power of and ease with which opponents can hire professionals to block these projects. Most of the nonprofits doing this work are very thinly capitalized. It took Central Dallas CDC a full year to pay off all the costs of our failed effort to convert the Plaza to permanent supportive housing. The cost was enough to delay any new project from beginnning construction until late this year, at best.

[tamtagon]

I have been trying to post a response to Tamtagon's comparison questionn for two days, and can't get it to post.

There's an on again, off again problem with the maximum number of characters allowed in a post. That might be the reason it's not working. If you split your reply into two or three posts, it might work.

[SeriousSummer]

^SeriousSummer, how would you compare & contrast this proposal for Expo Park with Central Dallas Community Development Corp and 511 Akard?

I have only glanced at the EVERgreen application, but I can talk a little bit about the differences between Evergreen and CityWalk.

First, the projects are based on different models. We copied from Common Ground in New York. Projects based on that model try to include a mixed population of people who have been homeless and people who haven't. To make that work, the housing has to be attractive enough so that market tenants aren't discouraged from renting there by the stigma that still attaches to a homeless building.

That's why CityWalk needed to be downtown. Affordable housing is so rare in Downtown Dallas that demand far exceeds supply.

The downside is that it's a very expensive choice. We raised a ton of philanthropic money for CityWalk, but that was because it was a first and caught the imagination of some people with money. In New York, Common Ground has managed to build 3,000 units on this model because a lot of state and local money is available. In Texas there is no state money, and there will only be local money if the City Council and the voters approve it in a bond issue--and that money would likely not be available until 2012 at best.

Evergreen looks to me like it is based on some of the models I saw in San Francisco (I don't know if they looked at those models or not). In the old Tenderloin district there are a number of former Merchant Marine hotels that have been converted to permanent supportive housing. They all have shared kitchens like the Evergreen project.

I have looked at projects that are 100% formerly in a number of cities and they work just fine, so I don't think that's a problem. I also think the location is fine. To properly run a permanent supportive housing program you need enough units (probably a minimum of 75 units) to do so efficiently. Otherwise the operating costs eat you up.

The need for that much density makes it difficult to locate in traditional single-family areas. You also need access to good mass transportation and land that isn't too expensive. In Dallas, the best locations are Downtown (if you can afford it), the Cedars, the near East Side, the Design District, and maybe some of the more commercial areas of Oak Cliff or near one of DART's light rail stops.

[SeriousSummer]

Part II

The more diverse and dense a place is, the better. Most of those locations are going to have to have 100% psh units. I know the people in the Cedars or Expo park don't want to hear it, but those areas are sketchy enough already for renters. There won't be a market for mixed projects any time soon, unless you do something really special with building.

Graham Greene is a good architecct and the Evergreen building looks good, from what I've seen. I think Evergreen would actually raise property values--it's likely to be the best looking building in Expostion Park. The approach is very similar to what and where New Hope housing is doing in Houston. Their projects have been very successful.

The only thing I don't like about Evergreen is the shared kitchens. That won't affect people outside the building, but they tend to be a management problem. People don't clean up, take other people's food. The problem isn't any different from four guys sharing an apartment in college--but it's a problem there as well.

I would guess it was done as a cost saving measure, but it could also be an expression of their philosophy. Building community be eating together and all. I still wouldn't do it.

Either a mixed population or all psh works fine--if you get people a place and do a good job with management then there really aren't any other secrets, form what I've seen.

I don't see any reason it shouldn't be a successful project and an asset to the community.

A final note: It's just coincidence that both Evergreen and The Cottages are under development on the East Side of Downtown. We don't talk to each other about our projects, even though we all know each other. With only two or three viable choices, it's not so surprising. I have tried to develop projects in the Design District and the Cedars, but those didn't work out for one reason or another. First Presbyterian also had a proposal Downtown that didn't work out.

Anyway, that's all I know and more.

[tamtagon]

So, what's going on with this deal?

Did the PR firm responsible for starting the homeless shelter wildfire rumor get censored or anything? Hard to believe the folks who represent T-Lep would make the mistake of traceability for a smear like that, especially when the Presbyterians are backing the project.

Anyway....

[SeriousSummer]

So, what's going on with this deal?

Did the PR firm responsible for starting the homeless shelter wildfire rumor get censored or anything? Hard to believe the folks who represent T-Lep would make the mistake of traceability for a smear like that, especially when the Presbyterians are backing the project.

Anyway....

As far as I can see, it's probably dead for this year. Likely, it will reappear next year for another try.

[mjblazin]

Among its many tasks to do, the Council has to set up a plan with rules, scorecards, etc. on these projects. They need to do 3 or 4 of these things at same time in different 'hoods.

Neighborhoods rightly are going to look out for their individual interests, afraid of becoming the "site" for other efforts. Otherwise each one will trundle up to the horseshoe and get whacked one at a time as neighborhood pounds on councilperson that has veto in his/her district.

[SeriousSummer]

[QUOTE=mjblazin]Among its many tasks to do, the Council has to set up a plan with rules, scorecards, etc. on these projects. They need to do 3 or 4 of these things at same time in different 'hoods.

Neighborhoods rightly are going to look out for their individual interests, afraid of becoming the "site" for other efforts. Otherwise each one will trundle up to the horseshoe and get whacked one at a time as neighborhood pounds on councilperson that has veto in his/her district.[or/QUOTE]

I think this is a good idea in principal, but I don't know if it can be implemented in practice. Remember, all of these projects come from individual developers and we don't much want to disclose proprietary information to each other. We are all in competition for city monies and a tax credit award.

In short, we're competitors.

These deals are also difficult and negotiations about multiple properties go on often until the last moment. So I may not know where I'm going to try to do a project until very late in the game, and it's the same for everyone. I was involved in four different projects with three different sets of partners this year. First Presbyterian and Graham Greene had three different projects as well.

The only way this could happen as you suggest would be for the City to put substantially more money into the deals so that developers would have some incentive to work in the orderly fashion that you suggest. That can't happen until about 2012 at the earliest because the only source for enough money would be a bond issue.

So for at least the next year or two, I think we're all stuck with the current chaotic situation. Let's just hope it actually produces something.

[torycronin]

Failed to receive tax credits. DMN Article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/073010dnmethousing.292aba4.html)