THE WHY, WHERE

AND HOW OF

AFFORDABLE

HOMES

PRESENTED ON

APRIL 19, 2007

BY

2P A R T N E R S

Under One Roof 2 Partners

Chester County 2020 *Chester County Commissioners *Chester County Planning Commission *Honey Brook Township *The Hon. Jim Gerlach *League of Women Voters of Chester CountyChester County Association of Township Officials (CCATO)Chester County Department of Community Development *Transportation Management Association of Chester County (TMACC) *Housing Authority of Chester CountyPA State Association of Boroughs (PSAB)Chester County Chamber of Business & IndustryHabitat for Humanity of Chester County *Housing Partnership of Chester CountyChester County Economic Development CouncilChester-Delaware Homebuilders Association (HBA)Chester County Community FoundationU.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) *Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC)* The Committee

The Partners wish to express their appreciation for the support of the Sponsorswho made this summit about affordable homes possible.

Leadership

PECO Arcadia Land Company

Chester County 2020 Corporate Sponsors

Bryn Mawr TrustSaul Ewing LLPJ.D.Wood & Company

Herr Foods, Inc.Kimberton Whole FoodsSher-Rockee Mushroom Farms

Event Sponsors

Commerce BankDelaware Development CompanyFulton BankThe Hankin GroupHomebuilders Association of Chester-Delaware County Iacobucci Homes

Supporters

Bernardon, Haber HollowayFirst Resource Bank

1

The Why, Where and How ofAffordable Homes

Effective action in meeting the challenges of the

affordable home demand in Chester County requires

an extraordinary level of cooperation among players

who do not often find themselves at the same table.

During the initial Under One Roof, held in June ‘04,

highly diverse participants joined in identifying and

examining housing issues with the intent of establishing an action agenda. Subsequently, a full

year of monthly meetings of Chester County 2020’s housing committee produced a White Paper

that attracted full consensus from the 27 partners. Fragmented attempts have been made since

then to implement the action items, but they lacked the breadth of support and energy that

transforms recommendations into accomplishments.

Meanwhile, the affordable homes conversation continued. As Chester County’s population

increased by nearly 49,000 since 2000, access to affordable homes declined. In defining affordable,

consider the office worker (or married couple) earning $80,000 to $130,000 a year and yet unable

to buy a home in the present market. Lower the income figures just slightly; the need enlarges

dramatically. Traditionally, the accepted route to home ownership began with an apartment,

perhaps followed by a rented house and then a starter home that wasn’t the total fulfillment of a

dream but exciting because it was “yours” – mortgage payments and all. Gradually the housing

world changed until, with a giant leap, the once generous supply of affordable homes dried up,

replaced by much larger houses on one acre and larger lots. Economic prosperity drove home

prices higher. The healthy diversity of the housing market weakened, in the process decreasing

the options for affordable homes close to the economic centers. And, naturally, affordable for the

family with a $300,000 income is certainly going to be different than that for one with $60,000.

Many entry level professionals, young families, support employees ranging from teachers to

construction workers, police, firemen and every other person we tend to take for granted in the

smooth running of our communities find themselves purchasing or renting homes far from their

workplace communities. The result is lengthy, frustrating commuting on crowded highways, less

time for family, and little or no community involvement.

The well known NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude has morphed into BANANA (build

absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone), an unrealistic approach in light of the rapidly growing

population and concurrent pressures on the housing market. The corollary is resistance to any

LandscapesGuiding Goal“Provide diverse,

affordable housingto meet the needs of

all households,in a manner consistent with

land use goals.”

2

change in the local scene. Pick your favorite: too many

school children with accompanying tax increases,

increased traffic, fear of expensive homes devalued by

less expensive neighbors, discomfort with the idea of

diversity in general, erosion of a comfortable sense of

community, stress upon municipal and county budgets

in response to increased demand for social and

community services.

The problems won’t be solved overnight. Neither

will they just “go away.” Under One Roof 2 evolved as an attempt to take the long-identified

issues and develop practical options for effective action. There has long been agreement about

what could happen, but little consensus around the means of accomplishing the most basic of the

housing goals. In calling this new summit, The Why, Where and How of Affordable Homes, the

very word housing was avoided for the tendency to think of “affordable housing” as Section 8,

government subsidized housing projects. The territory of affordable homes encompasses a far

broader community than low income housing alone, ranging from those entry-level employees to

young families to senior citizens. Too often forgotten or ignored in housing considerations are the

contributions that diversity of income, background, generation and culture make to the strength

and richness of community fabric. And ultimately, every member of the housing community has a

role to play in meeting the critical needs.

The participants at Why, Where and How reflected the most positive aspects of the county’s

diversity, for they represented government officials, planners and developers, a wide range of

residents and business people, educators and school board members, employers and employees,

non-profit and for profit homebuilders – without exception individuals willing to contribute time

and effort to a stable future that preserves the County’s highly valued quality of life. For many, it

was that quality of life that initially brought them to the area.

Several opening speakers had agreed to set the scene for exploration of the ever elusive

solutions. Chester County Commissioners Carol Aichele and Patrick O’Donnell addressed the

“why.” County Planning Commission Executive Director Ronald Bailey took on the assignment of

connecting the “where” to the comprehensive plan, Landscapes and the currently under- revision,

Landscapes2. Taking the why and where to the active phase, Patrick Bokovitz (Chester County

Department of Community Development) and Engram Lloyd (U.S. Housing and Urban

Development) spoke about mortgage financing and loan opportunities, especially for first-time

home buyers. Rounding out the program, developer Jason Duckworth (Arcadia Land Company)

Landscapes2 Public Input

■ “…lack of affordable housing”■ “….need more opportunities for housing”■ “workforce housing is a huge issue…”■ “more diversity in housing needed…”■ “….our children can’t afford to live here”■ “housing, housing, housing”

however…

3

shared his passion for livable, walkable communities.

The WhyCarol Aichele effectively made the case for the

affordable homes demand generated by the “largest

natural increases” in population in all of

Pennsylvania, second only to the city of Philadelphia.

The current median home price requires a minimum

$73,000 income for purchase. Someone making

$39,000 cannot own a home in light of 10-20% down payment against a selling price of $160,000 –

if it is even possible to find a house at that figure. Without a car, and there are many residents in

that position, they must live within the community where they work. Consider the numbers of

nursing home workers, caterers, builders and landscapers with modest incomes who encounter

limited choices in searching for rentals, much less home ownership.

Patrick O’Donnell took a philosophical approach as he spoke of the necessity of achieving the

sustainable quality of life that leads to a sustainable community to pass on to future generations.

We tend to speak of future generations in the far away sense. Actually, we see them today as

toddlers in strollers, middle schoolers playing baseball on community fields, and as we send

college graduates out to explore new lives as educated adults. Eleanor Morris, a leader in county

conservation, spoke decades ago about “open spaces and historic places” as the foundations of

our culture and appreciation of natural resources. But, as Commissioner O’Donnell emphasized,

“We need livability as well, and that element is threatened as the cost of land continues to

increase. Beauty and success are great but we need a fix for the housing problems. Too many of

the first responders who are so important to our society live outside the communities they serve

– and that is a bad structural arrangement. Homes must be available for everyone, regardless of

income. This is what makes our workforce work; it has nothing to do with special needs. We know

about urban decay, but don’t do much thinking about suburban decay – a boarded up McDonald’s,

too many people crammed in one house, drug houses – and what the long term impact means to

all of us.”

Commissioner O’Donnell went on to highlight the differences in communities within the

county – mentioning West Chester, West Grove and Paoli as examples. In talking about change, he

referred to the house he sold in West Chester a number of years ago for $30,000; it recently

resold for $300,000. By comparison, in McKeesport, PA, a town that lost its sustainability when

the steel mills left, a similar house couldn’t bring $30,000 today. A simple but important lesson:

Landscapes2 Housing PrioritiesAffordable Homes – Critical Connections

CommunityServices

CommunityServices

EmploymentEmployment

Shopping &

Entertainment

Shopping &

Entertainment

SchoolsSchoolsHigher

Education

Higher

Education

Parks&

Recreation

Parks&

Recreation

PublicTransportation

PublicTransportationHomeHome

4

the strength of the cultural and economic fabric is

deeply dependent upon a community’s sustainability.

Diversity in culture and generations as well as

respect for the individual regardless of income are

critical components.

Perhaps Ronald Bailey had to deal with the

toughest part of the equation, for the fulfillment of

Landscapes has had its difficult moments. During the

past ten years, open space and farmland preservation

demonstrated their widespread appeal. It’s difficult to argue against the value of protecting water-

sheds, scenic treasures and the farmland that flourishes because of the county’s remarkably

productive soils and rainfall. It’s the other part of Landscapes that has proved challenging:

opposition to building houses where the infrastructure already exists rather than in the corn-

fields; the exasperation of dealing with NIMBYs; municipalities focused on rising school taxes as

reasons to disallow density. Bailey made a strong case for the appropriateness of moderate densi-

ty and affordable homes in revitalizing urban centers, suburban centers, and on the edges of rural

centers. Where density is too low, but not approaching sprawl with its expensive homes on

expensive land, the builder cannot afford the investment. Not a matter of greed, just good

business. Realistic density as infill or within an infrastructure service area generally translates

into a higher standard of construction. Some of the better examples include the transformation of

West Chester’s Sharpless Works as well as Habitat within the Elm Street district, the knitting mill

renovation in Spring City, some of the plans for the former steel town of Phoenixville, and

Coatesville with on-going but limited steel activity and the potential of recreational trails on the

Brandywine. Kennett Square’s Las Rosas development improved a vacant site.

Suburban communities have seen new and revitalized rental homes including Cedar Woods

and Buena Vista in New Garden; Luther House in Penn Township offering senior rentals plus

services; mixed use and housing appropriate to a variety of income levels that can be found at

Eagleview, and farm worker housing in rural areas close to on-farm employment. It all sounds so

easy, and even right, but rarely does the permitting and neighbor acceptance prove to be a

smooth process.

The HowPatrick Bokovitz (CCCDC) and Engram Lloyd (HUD) shared statistics to illustrate the

amount of government and private funding that contributes to the upgrading of homes in urban

“Not in My Back Yard” (NIMBY) – still very strong.

Source: www.nimbyadvisor.com

5

centers and the townships. Patrick explained

that opportunities for $20,000 of assistance was

available for qualified First Time Home Buyers

in the urban centers, and $15,000 in the town-

ships. Help with maintenance programs

throughout the county has led to 190 houses

improved and upgraded. Workforce housing has

been made available for leasing.

Engram Lloyd, who himself lives in walkable

Chesterbrook, administers HUD programs in

fifteen states and the District of Columbia. In

Chester County, Lloyd’s office is dedicated to

helping stabilize communities, and keep them free of discrimination through making fair deals at

fair prices; FHA mortgages total $255 million on 1,940 properties, and there are over 550,00 FHA

mortgages across the country. HUD also deals with the challenges of the subprime mortgage

market problems, but can’t save them all. The increasing scope of FHA financing is illustrated

by the fact that in 1934, the FHA held 8,400 mortgages, with 70% of them in manufacturing

communities in Michigan and Ohio. Engram is proud of FHA’s ability to serve as emergency

responders, helping with foreclosure purchases in revitalization areas where they sell at 50% of

list price. They would like to expand beyond foreclosures to work with discounted down payments

to make purchases easier.

Keynote SpeakerJason Duckworth’s and Arcadia’s approach to affordable homes combines distinct portions of

Why, Where and How in pursuing the development of compact, walkable neighborhoods. Jason

began by explaining Arcadia’s business model of real estate development. Arcadia is a land

developer—not a homebuilder. Arcadia buys land, establishes the vision for a particular property,

seeks approvals, determines building sites, develops infrastructure, and sells lots to builders.

They stay involved to control the exterior design components, and make sure that newer con-

struction effectively integrates with existing community. Up and out of the ground, New Daleville

in Londonderry Township concentrates development around the historic center of the township,

a hamlet called Daleville. Arcadia worked with the township to develop a new ordinance with

emphasis on quality home design, sidewalks and open space preservation. The homes start at

prices around $275,000, and the project itself is the subject of a newly released book, Last

How Do Housing Costs Affect Employers?

City of CoatesvilleListing Price $249,900Square Footage 1,886 sq. ft.Bedrooms 3 BRBathrooms 2/1 baGarage 1Median Home Price $250,000

Sales Price: $249,900Less 10% down payment (25,000)Principal amount of mortgage $224,900Household Income to Qualify $68,152Income Gap $8,152

Mortgage term: 0 yearsAmortization RatableAnnual Percentage Rate: 5.75%Monthly principal + interest $1,312.46

6

Harvest, by Witold Rybczynski, a professor at the

University of Pennsylvania. Also in the County,

Sadsbury Park is a fully approved traditional

neighborhood that will place 460 homes priced from

the low $200,000s within walking distance of a post

office, convenience store and day care in the village of

Sadsburyville which straddles Business Route 30 west

of Coatesville.

In reviewing and comparing affordable housing in

Chester County with other areas in the United States,

Jason made the point that in 2000 there were many

options in Chester County for a household with the

county’s median income. However, in the first half of this decade, the price of the median house

in Chester County increased by more than 10% per year, while household incomes grew by

merely 2.2% per year. The unavoidable consequence is that the median household can no longer

afford the median house—an unprecedented condition for Chester County and one more typical

of notoriously expensive housing markets like Boston and San Francisco. This has resulted in a

situation where prospective homeowners “drive until they qualify,” taking them to far western

Chester County, Berks and Lancaster Counties. In sharp contrast, Dallas, Texas responds quickly

to housing demand and prices have remained affordable. Chester County, like highly regulated

land markets in California and New England, responds to housing demand sluggishly. Why is

housing produced so slowly in Chester County? The typical land approval process – in theory –

does the right thing. In reality, it is necessary to persuade governing bodies to pass new ordi-

nances which on average takes 3-4 years, and can require as long as seven years! Jason is con-

vinced that while such changes should not be hasty or ill-considered, neither should they be so

drawn out as to constrain progress in an area of serious need.

The most difficult aspect of developing in Chester County, as Jason sees it, is that there is no

consensus on where density should go. There are certainly no municipalities asking for more

dense development projects. Existing urban centers or new towns are the preferred locations for

Arcadia’s projects, with the suburbs being among the most difficult.

In response to opportunities, the new town of Bryn Eyre, just over the county line in Berks

County, will be created over a 30-year build-out to provide thousands of homes ranging from the

mid-$100,000s to $500,000 plus a variety of mixed use buildings that will allow for local, walkable

employment, shopping, recreation and education. Included in the plans is space for three future

How Do Housing Costs Affect Employers?Devon, PA (Easttown Township)

Listing Price $449,900Square Footage 1,908 sq. ft.Bedrooms 3 BRBathrooms 2/1 baGarage 2Median Home Price $750,000

Sales Price $449,900Less 10% down payment (45,000)Principal amount of mortgage $404,900Household Income to Qualify $122,700 (169% AMI)Income Gap $62,700

Mortgage term: 30 yearsAmortization RatableAnnual Percentage Rate: 5.75%Monthly principal + interest $2,362.89

7

The 130 individuals who participated in

Why, Where and How were assigned to groups

that were designed for diversity. Each group

was charged with choosing one of eight tasks

developed from the original white paper, and

then creating the structure for implementing

their solution(s). The broad general goals

under which they worked included:

■ Fostering economic and generational diversity to maintain vital, livablecommunities

■ Creative use of infill and density in and around already existing boroughs, towns, and villages.

■ Planning around transportation nodes and existing infrastructure.

■ Upgrading older neighborhoods with solid housing stock.

■ Support for walkable, neo-traditional communities with an adequate range of affordable homes.

The tasks were as follows:

1. Address housing in its broadest sense, a mix of homes that offer affordable options for County residents andcontributes to a sense of community.

2. Develop solutions for the resistance tohigher density in terms of the impact onschool districts and property taxes.

3. Redefine and address affordablehomes as a multi-municipal issue, not aresponsibility solely of individualboroughs, cities and ownships. Develop a model for simplifying the approval processand utilizing resources more effectively. Address purchase and transfer of develop-ment rights on a multi-municipal basis.

4. What are the needs of current and prospective employers regardingaffordable homes? Will they come to, or remain, in Chester County if the supply ofaffordable homes is not increased?

a) What are the needs of theiremployees?

b) What can their employees afford?

c) What amenities are important: for instance, easy commuting, good schools, open space, and recreation?

5. Examine the perceived impediments to affordable homes and the reasons they

elementary schools, a middle school, and a

1,000 acre preserve with trails and outdoor

recreation facilities. Ideally, Jason would like to

see communities decide where density should

go and make it easier for that density to be ful-

filled in those locations. Given the growth in

population in Chester County over the next ten

years, that might mean picking ten places to

build new communities with 1,000-2,000 homes each.

And on to the Conversations

How Do Housing Costs Affect Employers?An offer is made to a prospective employee with a resulting household income of $60,000 per year (82.5% of HH median):

Single wage-earner receiving a $60K/yr. offer orDual wage-earner offered $40K/yr.; spouse makes $20K/yr.

Devon, PA (Easttown Township)

Listing Price $449,900Square Footage 1,908 sq. ft.Bedrooms 3 BRBathrooms 2/1 baGarage 2Median Home Price $750,000

8

exist. Explore incentives for an affordable homes component for new development and, when possible, for those already underconstruction. Consider how to keep them affordable from one owner to the next. Address communities that “work,” analyzetheir strengths.

6. Create effective tools to help communities deal with residents’ fears of diversity, often coupled with assumptionthat density equals increased school taxes.

a) How can they be defused? Are therespecific approaches that respond tovaried demographics?

b) Find examples where diversity exists and identify the pros and cons. Are there usable models in Chester County? Elsewhere?

7. Consider new construction that includes a mixed use component on the corporate campus. Are there potential models in Chester County?

8. Examine the real estate taximplications for homeowners and buyers across the board. The tax burden hits first time home buyers and those on fixed incomes especially hard in revitalizing municipalities where the tax base hasn’t caught up with the population growth, and also in municipalities where propertyvalues are rapidly rising.

One group chose Question 1; two

Question 2; three Question 3; two Question 4;

one Question 5 and one Question 8. In talk-

ing to the participants about their choices,

they felt that Number 6 might be helped by

dealing with the other issues or that it was

too specialized in terms of public relations

and the tendency toward being a purely emo-

tional issue to address in a single evening.

Number 7 was considered somewhat narrow

and specialized, and no group had enough

corporate representation to deal with the

topic.

ADDRESSING THEAFFORDABLE IDEAS

The complete reports from the various

groups appear in the Appendices. The

responses and recommendations resulted in

identification of a great deal of productive

common ground. It was especially interesting

to realize that each conclusion and solution

applied to more than one task. The segments

that appear below represent a distillation of

the reports, a matrix for prioritizing, planning

and implementation.

STRONG AGREEMENT1. Community revitalization with all its many facets is very important.

2. Continuing sprawl and currentdevelopment patterns are not in thebest interest of community vitality and stability.

Suburban LandscapesWhat Landscapes recommends:■ New neighborhoods■ Revitalized neighborhoods■ Mixed-use developments■ A diversity of housing types■ Density variations

9

3. The quality of Chester Countycommunities is decreasing as the result of diminishing open space, increased traffic and less diversity.

4. Cost savings from collaboration canpositively impact the resident taxpayers and the developers.

5. Personal vested interest is the area of easy agreement, capable of representing an impediment to affordable homes.

6. Ultimately, productive agreement within the broad area of the why, where and how of land development is not easy at all.

SOLUTIONS

1. Improve communication and cooperation:

a. Patience

b. Demonstrate the personal interesteach county resident should have insustainability.

c. Conversations rather than gripe sessions.

d. Effective education of the generalpublic is a challenge that must be met, especially in cultivating good people who might be persuaded to run for office.

e. Support active networking across areas of interest to encourage discovery ofproductive common ground.

2. Multi-municipal planning as a solutionsurfaced in every group, with differentapproaches and goals:

a. Approach multi-municipal planning byschool district.

b. Develop county-provided financialincentives to encourage cooperation. Aprimary option offered was to limit open space funding to municipalities adopting an open space tax.

c. Unify zoning ordinance adherence toLandscapes across the municipalities.

d. Make multi-municipal planning moresensible to ease access to affordable homes (“sensible” not defined)

e. Every municipality should be engaged with a Chester County Planning Commission-led multi-municipal group, aided by a “circuit rider” to supportcommunication and cooperation.

f. More multi-municipal agreementsfor sharing costs of services, policeprotection.

g. Change zoning ordinance to allow density and traditional neighborhood development by right, in the areas that are appropriate.

h. Fully implement regionalcomprehensive plans.

i. Convene a countywide summit to address and modify codes that differ widely by municipality.

j. School boards and superintendents must be involved.

k. Accessibility of grants and stateprograms that support infrastructure.Programs contingent on increased density.

l. Cooperation may be challenging at first, but can grow with interaction.

3. Suggested urban center planning initiatives:

a. Provide housing for all income levelsfor employees/employers close to public transit and infrastructure.

Urban LandscapesWhat Landscapes recommends:■ Re-use of existing housing stock■ Infill development■ A balance of housing types■ A range of income levels

10

b. Mixed use development with commercial at street level, residential above.

4. On the financial side:

a. Reduce property taxes on First Time Home Buyers, seniors and low incomeresidents.

b. Develop means of less impact from higher density on the revenue for school districts and municipalities.

c. Identify an alternative system forfunding schools.

d. Make housing choices an element ofeconomic development.

e. Lobby the General Assembly to allow greater flexibility in setting local tax rates and basis.

f. Economic vitality depends uponcooperation.

g. The business community must be involved in supporting the planning process.

5. Public transportation

a. Put good minds to work on solving the financial issues for TMACC and SEPTA.

b. The R-5 extension is critical to the future of Chester County.

6. Approval process

a. Streamline the process when a developer/builder responds to thecomprehensive plan and submits aproposal that will enhance the quality of life in a municipality.

7. The downside of failing to supply affordablehome choices in Chester County can beexpressed very simply:

a. Business will not come to nor remain inChester County.

b. Entry-level workers, service workers, teachers, emergency service providers, young families with children and long-time resident seniors will continue to find it difficult to live in the communities near their work places or for the seniors, where they raised their families. Their community energy and awareness, as well as the potential for being productive volunteers (for local organizations, as municipalcandidates, on the non-profit scene) will be far less available in both the working and residential communities.

8. Solutions suggested but not currentlypermitted by Pennsylvania’s MunicipalPlanning Code.

a. Simplify zoning and planning byassigning responsibility for landdevelopment to the county.

Meet the Jones’Chester County Median Household Year 2000

■ Police officer and part-time accountant

■ Earns $65,295 per year

■ Can afford a $206,000 home*,higher than the median house priceof $182,000

■ What can the Jones’ buy?

*Assumes 30 yr, fixed rate mort. At 8%, 20% down payment, 30% of income on house payment.

New single family homes

Quarry Ridge – $160,000sRyan Homes in Sadsbury Twp

Meadowbrook – $180,000sDeweyHomes in Valley Twp

11

b. Move to a more central, coordinated form of regional government.

9. Innovative, out of the box suggestions:

a. Purchase land, lease it back to the home buyer to reduce upfront costs of purchase.

b. Encourage employer-sponsored housing.

c. Utilize community land trusts inacquiring and for affordable andlow-income housing.

Overall, the breakout groups created a

thoroughly can-do attitude – and there is

plenty to be done. The Why was easily

substantiated; the need is dramatic. Within

the other two major topics of Where and How,

important questions surfaced across the

groups. These must be addressed as part of

any strategic plan that hopes to implement

the solutions. Some are extremely practical

such as:

Where

■ What do affordable homes look like?

■ What density and styles are necessary to make them affordable, to blend them into any community of new or renovated homes?

■ Where in the county should affordable homes be located? Is there any indication of potential locations in Landscapes or existing local plans (rather than genericresidential)?

How

■ The mechanism to sustain the affordable aspect over at least fifteen years must be

identified if the supply is to remain stable.

■ How is a critical element of any effort to create a strategic plan. HUD and CCDCD are support agencies, not leadershipentities. Realistic assessment of their potential support is important to anyplanning activity.

■ Although New Dalevilles are not acounty-wide answer, can similar density and mixed use be implemented as village or borough extensions?

■ Within the How, planning and discussion sessions must identify appropriate leaders, assignments of tasks and a schedule that includes benchmarks for achievement and monitoring.

■ The suggestion was made that the County consider relating grants ofplanning funds to multi-municipalplanning projects, with an implementation agreement as an up-front commitment.

■ There was agreement as to theimportance of education, but little or no indication of program content, potential effectiveness or who will do what and when.

In ’05, the Jones’ cannot afford new SFD home

■ New SFD start at:■ Great Valley SD $800,000■ Downingtown SD $430,000■ CASD $270,000

■ Townhouses start at:■ Great Valley SD $450,000■ Downingtown SD $275,000■ CASD $200,000

Assumes 3BR new construction. GVSD SFD is Bentley’s Ashwood, DASD SFD is Orleans’ manors at Byers Station,GVSD TH is Toll’s Charlestown Meadows, DASD TH is Orleans Mews at Byers Station, CASD TH is Ryan’s Round Hill.

12

At the close of the session, fourteen

participants volunteered to help develop a

strategic plan. With the publication of this

report, the follow-up process will begin.

This is one document that must not be

allowed to sit on a shelf gathering dust.

Anyone interested in joining the we-can-do-it

committee may sign up by sending an email

to info@CC2020.org Be sure to include com-

plete contact information.

The Under One Roof 2 partners wish to

express their appreciation for the energy and

commitment shown by every person who

played a role in this Community Conversation

– and especially to the speakers who set the

scene, as well as George Fasic, former CCPC

executive director whose generosity in

sharing his experience enriches many of the

CC2020 partnership programs. We look

forward to many more productive sessions

focusing on preservation of the quality of life

that means so much to all of us.

Nancy Mohr

Executive Director, Chester County 2020

for the Partners

Construction costs are relatively stable,

but houses are expensive

Typical 2,200 sq ft SFD home on _ ac in Chester Co.Low High Typical

■ Sticks and bricks $88,000 $132,000 $110,000 ■ On-site land development $25,000 $80,000 $35,000 ■ Sewer EDU $3,000 $15,000 $9,000■ Off-site impacts $500 $2,500 $1,500 ■ Approvals & permits $1,500 $10,000 $3,000 ■ Sales and marketing $2,000 $8,000 $5,000 ■ Financing costs $5,740 $14,560 $10,150

■ Total Before Land & Profit $123,740 $243,166 $173,650

■ Land (raw in exurban Chesco) $40,000■ Profit at 10% $24,000■ Minimum SFD house price in Chesco $237,650

Assumes 2,200 sq ft house built in 100 home subdivision in western Chester Co.Source: Arcadia Land Company analysis

{➔

2

13

REFERENCESUseful resources for information about affordable homes:

The Chester County Comprehensive Plan www.landscapes2.org

Homes for Working Families: http://www.homesforworkingfamilies.org/

HUD's Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse: http://www.huduser.org/rbc/index.asp

Credits for power point slides:

Pages 10, 11, 12 Arcadia Land Company

Pages 5, 6, 7 UNIDEV, INC

Pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 Chester County Planning Commission

APPENDIXThe Complete Report Summary

14

1.‘In

Its

Broa

dest

Sen

se’

Addr

ess

hous

ing

in it

sbr

oade

st s

ense

, mix

of

hom

es th

at o

ffer a

fford

able

optio

ns fo

r Cou

nty

resi

dent

s an

d co

ntrib

utes

to a

sen

se o

f com

mun

ity.

SOLU

TION

S:•

Use

of fi

nanc

ial

ince

ntiv

es b

y th

e co

unty

toen

cour

age

mul

ti-m

unic

ipal

coop

erat

ion,

a p

rimar

y on

ebe

ing

to li

mit

open

spa

cem

oney

to to

wns

hips

that

have

an

open

spa

ce ta

x.•

Purc

hase

gro

und,

leas

e it

back

to lo

wer

hou

se

purc

hasi

ng c

osts

as

othe

rst

ates

do.

2.‘S

olut

ions

for R

esis

tanc

e’

Deve

lop

solu

tions

for t

here

sist

ance

to h

ighe

r den

sity

in te

rms

of th

e im

pact

on

scho

ol d

istri

cts

and

prop

erty

taxe

s.

SOLU

TION

S:•

Deve

lop

an a

ppro

pria

teco

mbi

natio

n of

hou

sing

that

incl

udes

mix

ed u

se,

cost

, loc

atio

n, a

nd d

ensi

ty.

• De

velo

p so

lutio

ns fo

rhi

gher

den

sity

to h

ave

less

(neg

ativ

e) im

pact

on

the

reve

nue

for s

choo

l dis

trict

san

d m

unic

ipal

ities

.•

Unify

zon

ing

regu

latio

ns’

com

preh

ensi

ve a

dher

ence

to L

ands

cape

spr

opos

als

acro

ss m

unic

ipal

ities

. •

Inco

rpor

ate

flexi

ble

zoni

ng &

dev

elop

men

tor

dina

nces

to e

ncou

rage

rede

velo

pmen

t.•

Supp

ort m

unic

ipal

ities

with

reso

urce

s.

• M

ake

hous

ing

choi

ces

anel

emen

t of e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t.

3.‘M

ultim

unic

ipal

Issu

e’

Rede

fine

and

addr

ess

affo

rdab

le h

omes

as

am

ulti-

mun

icip

al is

sue,

not

a re

spon

sibi

lity

sole

ly o

fin

divi

dual

bor

ough

s, c

ities

and

tow

nshi

ps.

SOLU

TION

S:•

Mak

e m

ulti-

mun

icip

alpl

anni

ng s

ensi

ble

to e

ase

acce

ss to

affo

rdab

le

hous

ing.

• Si

mpl

ify z

onin

g, p

lann

ing

by e

leva

ting

land

de

velo

pmen

t to

the

coun

ty in

stea

d of

the

mun

icip

ality

.•

Ever

y m

unic

ipal

ity b

eac

tivel

y en

gage

d in

a

mul

ti-m

unic

ipal

gro

up w

ithth

e Co

unty

Pla

nnin

gCo

mm

issi

on s

pear

head

ing,

brin

ging

us

toge

ther

thro

ugh

circ

uit r

idin

g co

ncep

t.•

Affo

rdab

le h

ousi

ng fo

rth

ose

with

cou

nty

med

ian

inco

me

and

belo

w.

• Pa

tienc

e•

Netw

orki

ng

4.‘E

mpl

oyer

s’ N

eeds

’

Wha

t are

the

need

s of

curr

ent a

nd p

rosp

ectiv

eem

ploy

ers

rega

rdin

gaf

ford

able

hom

es?

Will

they

com

e to

, or r

emai

n, in

Ches

ter C

ount

y if

the

supp

ly o

f affo

rdab

le h

omes

is n

ot in

crea

sed?

SOLU

TION

S:•

Prov

ide

hous

ing

for a

llin

com

e le

vels

of C

hest

erCo

unty

for e

mpl

oyee

s/em

ploy

ers

that

is c

lose

topu

blic

tran

sit a

ndin

frast

ruct

ure

(par

ks,

libra

ries,

hou

sing

den

sity

inid

entif

ied

urba

n ar

eas)

• Di

vers

ified

eco

nom

icba

se –

bus

ines

ses

will

not

com

e to

or s

tay

in C

hest

erCo

unty

if th

e su

pply

of

affo

rdab

le h

ousi

ng is

not

wor

kabl

e.

5.‘P

erce

ived

Impe

dim

ents

’

Exam

ine

the

perc

eive

dim

pedi

men

ts to

affo

rdab

leho

mes

and

the

reas

ons

they

exi

st. E

xplo

rein

cent

ives

for a

n af

ford

able

hom

es c

ompo

nent

for n

ewde

velo

pmen

t and

, whe

npo

ssib

le, f

or th

ose

unde

rco

nstru

ctio

n. C

onsi

der h

owto

kee

p th

em a

fford

able

from

one

ow

ner t

o th

ene

xt. A

ddre

ss c

omm

uniti

esth

at “

wor

k,”

anal

yze

thei

rst

reng

ths.

SOLU

TION

S:•

Empl

oyer

spo

nsor

edho

usin

g•

Rem

ove

dens

ity b

arrie

rs•

Shar

e th

e ph

ysic

alin

vent

ory

of th

e av

aila

ble

hous

ing

infil

l.•

Partn

ersh

ip b

etw

een

deve

lope

rs•

Mix

ed d

evel

opm

ent –

com

mer

cial

on

botto

m w

ithre

side

ntia

l on

top

• M

unic

ipal

buy

-in•

Put “

hear

tstri

ngs”

into

the

effo

rt by

doc

umen

ting

or in

dica

ting

the

pers

onal

vest

ed in

tere

stea

ch

coun

ty re

side

nt h

as in

su

stai

nabi

lity.

• Co

unty

wid

e m

unic

ipal

mee

ting

to e

ase

or m

odify

code

s th

at d

iffer

wid

ely

by c

omm

unity

.

6.‘T

ax Im

plic

atio

ns’

Exam

ine

the

real

est

ate

tax

impl

icat

ions

for h

omeo

wne

rsan

d bu

yers

acr

oss

the

boar

d.Th

e ta

x bu

rden

hits

firs

t tim

eho

meb

uyer

s an

d th

ose

on fi

xed

inco

mes

esp

ecia

lly h

ard

inre

vita

lizin

g m

unic

ipal

ities

whe

reth

e ta

x ba

se h

asn’

t cau

ght u

pw

ith th

e po

pula

tion

grow

th, a

ndal

so in

mun

icip

aliti

es w

here

prop

erty

val

ues

are

rapi

dly

risin

g.

SOLU

TION

S:•

Redu

ce p

rope

rty ta

xes

on 1

sttim

e ho

me

buye

rs, s

enio

rs a

ndlo

w in

com

e•

Exam

ine

real

est

ate

tax

impl

icat

ions

– h

its F

irst T

ime

Hom

e Bu

yers

and

fixe

d in

com

eha

rd.

• M

ake

mul

ti-m

unic

ipal

plan

ning

mor

e se

nsib

le to

eas

eac

cess

to a

fford

able

hou

sing

.•

Attra

ct b

usin

ess

to b

alan

ceta

x bu

rden

. Res

ult:

redu

ced

resi

dent

ial t

ax b

urde

n. If

prop

ertie

s ar

e bu

ilt th

at a

rem

ore

affo

rdab

le, (

re: l

ower

asse

ssm

ent)

= lo

wer

taxe

s.•

Alte

rnat

ive

tax

met

hods

oth

erth

an re

al e

stat

e.•

Lobb

y le

gisl

atur

e to

allo

wta

xing

bod

ies

to b

e m

ore

crea

tive

in h

ow th

ey s

et lo

cal

rate

s an

d ba

sis

– lik

e w

aivi

ngta

x if

inco

me

belo

w c

erta

in le

vel

AP

PE

ND

IXT

HE

CO

MP

LE

TE

RE

PO

RT

SU

MM

AR

Y

15

AGRE

EMEN

T:•

Revi

taliz

e ex

istin

g co

mm

uniti

es

• Ch

ange

zon

ing

ordi

nanc

es to

allo

w d

ensi

tyan

d tra

ditio

nal d

evel

opm

ent

form

.•

Alig

n re

gion

al p

lann

ing

alon

g sc

hool

dis

trict

line

sfo

r bet

ter b

alan

ce.

• Im

plem

ent e

ach

regi

on’s

com

preh

ensi

ve p

lan.

• St

ream

line

the

appr

oval

proc

ess.

AGRE

EMEN

T:•

Cont

inui

ng s

praw

l and

curr

ent d

evel

opm

ent

patte

rns

is n

ot in

inte

rest

.•

The

qual

ity o

f life

in o

urco

mm

uniti

es is

dec

reas

ing

as th

e re

sult

of, a

mon

got

her t

hing

s, le

ss o

pen

spac

e, m

ore

traffi

c, le

ssdi

vers

ity.

• Tr

ansp

aren

cy o

f pla

ns•

Open

to fe

edba

ck•

Have

the

mee

ting

ofm

ulti-

mun

icip

al g

roup

host

ed b

y Co

unty

Com

mis

sion

ers

and

fund

ing

agen

cies

• Or

gani

ze•

Educ

atio

n of

ele

cted

offic

ials

and

the

resi

dent

sw

ho e

lect

them

.•

Sim

plify

app

rova

lpr

oces

s.

AGRE

EMEN

T:• C

ost s

avin

gs fr

omco

llabo

ratio

n ca

n po

sitiv

ely

impa

ct b

oth

the

resi

dent

taxp

ayer

s, d

evel

oper

s

AGRE

EMEN

T:•

Pers

onal

ves

ted

inte

rest

is th

e ar

ea o

f eas

yag

reem

ent.

• M

ove

to a

mor

e ce

ntra

lco

ordi

natin

g fo

rm o

fgo

vern

men

t.•

Too

man

y re

gula

tions

by

stat

e on

mun

icip

aliti

es•

Trai

n tra

nspo

rtatio

n to

cent

ral C

oate

svill

e•

Publ

ic tr

ansp

orta

tion

isim

pera

tive.

• En

list n

onpr

ofits

.•

Appe

al to

cor

pora

tions

,tra

de o

rgan

izatio

ns,

mun

icip

al g

over

nmen

ts,

scho

ols,

chu

rche

s.•

Patie

nce

• Ne

twor

king

• Tr

ansp

aren

cy o

f pla

ns

• Op

en to

feed

back

AGRE

EMEN

T:•

Ther

e ar

e m

any

impe

dim

ents

to a

fford

able

hom

es.

• Pe

ople

inte

rest

ed in

them

selv

es –

“I h

ave

min

e.”

• Co

st o

f lan

d dr

ives

• Pe

rson

al v

este

d in

tere

stis

the

area

of e

asy

agre

emen

t.

or g

radu

ated

tax.

• Lo

ok fo

r way

s to

cre

ativ

ely

redu

ce th

e co

st o

f ser

vice

s –

mul

ti-m

unic

ipal

ity a

gree

men

tsfo

r ser

vice

s, c

omm

unity

polic

ing,

mor

e th

an w

hat i

sdo

ne n

ow.

• St

ream

line

proc

ess

• In

cent

ives

to to

wns

hip

toop

en h

ousi

ng•

Mul

ti-m

unic

ipal

pla

nnin

g by

scho

ol d

istri

ct•

Clos

e ga

ps b

etw

een

adjo

inin

gco

mm

uniti

es.

• Us

e Co

mm

unity

Lan

d Tr

usts

.•

Lobb

y le

gisl

ator

s an

d ot

her

elec

ted

offic

ials

.•

Enco

urag

e lik

e m

inde

din

divi

dual

s to

run

for p

ublic

offic

e an

d ed

ucat

e pu

blic

.•

Supp

ort C

of C

and

loca

lbo

roug

hs, b

usin

ess

impr

ovem

ent d

istri

cts,

mai

nst

reet

man

ager

s w

ith b

usin

ess

attra

ctio

n ef

forts

.•

Patie

nce

• Ne

twor

king

• Tr

ansp

aren

cy o

f pla

ns•

Open

to fe

edba

ck

AGRE

EMEN

T:•

Not e

asy.

16

1.‘In

Its

Broa

dest

Sen

se’

OBST

ACLE

S:•

Solu

tions

invo

lvin

g th

eCo

unty

and

Tow

nshi

ps in

coop

erat

ive

plan

ning

for

the

impl

emen

tatio

npr

oces

s.•

Loca

l tur

f bat

tles

• NI

MBY

• So

me

tow

nshi

ps a

re n

otw

illin

g to

take

on

the

issu

eof

fair

hous

ing.

• Lo

gica

l mul

ti-m

unic

ipal

boun

darie

s do

not

corr

espo

nd w

ith s

choo

ldi

stric

t bou

ndar

ies

whi

chm

ake

it di

fficu

lt to

equ

alize

tax

impa

ct o

f not

spr

eadi

ngde

velo

pmen

t out

.

2.‘S

olut

ions

for R

esis

tanc

e’

OBST

ACLE

S:•

Loca

l tur

f bat

tles.

• NI

MBY

• Th

e na

tura

l rel

ucta

nce

ofth

e Co

unty

to b

ecom

e pr

o-ac

tive

and

appe

ar p

ro-

build

er.

• Re

sist

ance

from

tow

nshi

ps.

• Ha

ving

to d

eal w

ith 7

3in

divi

dual

, ind

epen

dent

mun

icip

aliti

es.

• Fe

ars

of re

side

nts,

fuel

edby

indi

vidu

als

with

spe

cial

inte

rest

s.•

Myt

hs a

bout

den

sity

• Ed

ucat

ion

• Pe

rsua

sion

• Th

e m

edia

is m

ost

inte

rest

ed in

con

trove

rsy.

• Pe

ople

equ

ate

dens

ityw

ith c

rime.

•

Rent

al a

reas

hav

e hi

gher

crim

e ra

tes.

•

he a

bilit

y to

pur

chas

eTD

RS•

Diffi

cult

to d

o re

gion

alpl

anni

ng•

Busi

ness

wan

ts le

ssre

gula

tion,

or a

t lea

stun

iform

regu

latio

n.

• Co

mm

uniti

es w

ant n

ode

velo

pmen

t. •

Resi

dent

s af

raid

of r

isin

gsc

hool

taxe

s.•

Affo

rdab

le h

ousi

ngde

crea

ses

the

reve

nue

toth

e m

unic

ipal

ities

but

stil

lre

quire

s th

e sa

me

leve

l of

3.‘M

ultim

unic

ipal

Issu

e’

OBST

ACLE

S:•

Mos

t mun

icip

aliti

esw

ould

nev

er c

ede

pow

er to

the

coun

ty.

• NI

MBY

• Ti

me.

• “N

o ch

ild le

ft be

hind

” –

disi

ncen

tive

for d

iver

sity

.•

Open

spa

ce s

aver

s.•

Sing

le m

unic

ipal

ityco

ntro

l of p

roce

ss•

Crea

te th

e de

sire

for t

his

hous

ing.

• El

imin

ate

fear

of w

how

ould

be

the

resi

dent

s.•

Conv

ersa

tions

ver

sus

grip

e se

ssio

ns•

Apat

hy•

Mun

icip

aliti

es m

ust g

ive

up s

ome

pow

er.

• De

velo

per e

duca

tion.

• M

unic

ipal

edu

catio

n.•

Turn

ove

r of p

oliti

cian

s.•

Cont

rol o

f lan

d.•

Cont

rol o

f zon

ing.

• Ex

clus

iona

ry z

onin

g.•

Iner

tia.

• No

ince

ntiv

es to

wor

kto

geth

er.

• Af

ford

able

hom

es v

ersu

sho

mes

that

are

affo

rdab

le.

4.‘E

mpl

oyer

s’ N

eeds

’

OBST

ACLE

S:•

Zoni

ng•

Getti

ng th

e m

unic

ipal

ities

invo

lved

• Ed

ucat

ing

the

publ

ic:

Wha

t doe

s af

ford

able

mea

n?•

Fund

ing

for p

rom

otio

nsan

d co

mm

unic

atio

ns•

Entre

nche

d se

nse

of w

ell

bein

g•

Apat

hy

5.‘P

erce

ived

Impe

dim

ents

’

OBST

ACLE

S:•

Losi

ng m

omen

tum

–m

ust k

eep

issu

e at

the

fore

front

.•

Over

com

e en

trenc

hed

idea

s.•

Mun

icip

aliti

es w

ho s

ay,

“Not

in m

y ba

ck y

ard!

”•

Com

mun

ities

do

not

have

aut

horit

y be

caus

e of

PA la

w to

regu

late

the

iden

tity

of th

e co

mm

unity

.•

Build

ing

code

s ad

d co

sts

to c

onst

ruct

ion

of h

omes

.•

Supe

rvis

ors

ofm

unic

ipal

ities

are

lim

ited

intim

e fo

r pro

blem

sol

ving

.•

Fund

ing

for p

rom

otio

nsan

d co

mm

unic

atio

ns•

Entre

nche

d se

nse

of w

ell

bein

g•

Apat

hy•

Cont

rol o

f the

land

• Co

ntro

l of t

he z

onin

g•

Zoni

ng -

excl

usio

nary

6.‘T

ax Im

plic

atio

ns’

OBST

ACLE

S:•

Curr

ent s

tate

law

effe

cts

wha

tlo

cal m

unic

ipal

ities

can

do.

• No

des

ire to

tack

le m

ulti-

mun

icip

al c

onve

rsat

ion

• Bu

sine

ss a

ttrac

tion

ince

ntiv

esfo

r loc

atio

n/ex

pans

ion/

jobs

crea

tion

• NI

MBY

• Ti

me

• No

chi

ld le

ft be

hind

–di

sinc

entiv

e fo

r div

ersi

ty•

Deve

lope

r edu

catio

n/m

unic

ipal

edu

catio

n•

Turn

ove

r of p

oliti

cian

s•

Naïv

e re

sear

ch

17

UNRE

SOLV

ED IS

SUES

:

COOP

ERAT

ION:

• In

itial

ly p

oor,

but w

illgr

ow w

ith in

tera

ctio

n•

Very

diff

icul

t•

Like

ly•

Econ

omic

vita

lity

depe

nds

on it

• M

ost n

eigh

borin

gm

unic

ipal

ities

don

’t ta

lk to

each

oth

er•

Firs

t ste

p w

ould

be

tocr

eate

mul

ti-m

unic

ipal

asso

ciat

ions

like

the

Wes

tCh

este

r COG

or t

heNo

rther

n Fe

dera

tion

serv

ices

and

nee

ds.

• Zo

ning

and

regu

lato

ryre

quire

men

ts•

Bure

aucr

acy

at a

ll le

vels

• Fu

ndin

g fo

rtra

nspo

rtatio

n

UNRE

SOLV

ED IS

SUES

:•

Appr

opria

te le

vel o

fre

gula

tion

• Ho

w fa

st s

houl

dde

velo

pmen

t hap

pen?

COOP

ERAT

ION:

• Li

kely

• Ec

onom

ic v

italit

yde

pend

s on

it•

Busi

ness

& s

choo

ldi

stric

ts•

Boro

ughs

and

neig

hbor

ing

tow

nshi

ps,

neig

hbor

ing

scho

oldi

stric

ts

UNRE

SOLV

ED IS

SUES

:•

We

have

not

beg

un y

et!

• Pe

ople

nee

d to

bec

ome

mor

e a

part

of th

e pr

oces

sas

in M

t. Jo

y To

wns

hip,

Lanc

aste

r Cou

nty

COOP

ERAT

ION:

• Lo

w a

t thi

s tim

e•

Good

if th

e m

unic

ipal

ities

wor

k w

ith a

ll th

e ab

ove

tow

ard

the

com

mon

goo

d

UNRE

SOLV

ED IS

SUES

:

COOP

ERAT

ION:

• To

get

the

busi

ness

com

mun

ity to

sup

port

plan

s•

Attra

ct th

e bi

gges

tem

ploy

ers

to p

artic

ipat

e•

Use

Scho

ol D

istri

cts,

colle

ges

to c

olla

bora

te o

nde

velo

pmen

t•

Lim

ited

UNRE

SOLV

ED IS

SUES

:•

You

can’

t ple

ase

ever

yone

, so

try

to fi

nd a

happ

y m

ediu

m•

None

- un

anim

ous

COOP

ERAT

ION:

• Pr

ospe

cts

limite

d.

UNRE

SOLV

ED IS

SUES

:

COOP

ERAT

ION:

• Lo

w a

t thi

s tim

e•

Very

diff

icul

t to

chan

ge.

Whe

re is

a p

rope

rty ta

x re

form

prog

ram

now

? W

ill it

be

succ

essf

ul?

Mig

ht b

e ab

le to

rally

loca

l offi

cial

s bu

t not

stat

ewid

e

18

1.‘In

Its

Broa

dest

Sen

se’

INCE

NTIV

ES:

• Ab

ility

to re

duce

mun

icip

al a

nd s

choo

lta

xes.

•

Seei

ng s

omet

hing

happ

en!

• Fl

exib

ility

by

tow

nshi

ps•

Deve

lope

rs s

pend

ing

for

mut

ually

ben

efic

ial

outc

omes

• St

ate,

regi

onal

, loc

alpl

anni

ng c

oope

ratio

n-Ea

gle

View

is th

e be

stex

ampl

e; C

hest

erbr

ook

isan

othe

r exa

mpl

e fo

rre

side

nts.

• Ne

w ta

x re

venu

e•

Mor

e co

nven

ienc

e to

exis

ting

resi

dent

s- o

ffset

by

fear

of m

ore

traffi

c

ACTI

ON N

OW:

• Cr

eate

a 5

0 ye

ar p

lan.

• Id

entif

y re

gion

s.•

Star

t with

the

fund

amen

tals

.•

Deve

lop

effe

ctiv

e pu

blic

trans

porta

tion.

• Co

ntin

ue to

pla

n.

• Ta

lk to

you

r gov

ernm

ent

offic

ials

• Ge

t inv

olve

d•

Rest

rict t

he p

rolif

erat

ion

of a

ge-r

estri

cted

com

mun

ities

• Pr

ovid

e ed

ucat

ion

to th

eco

mm

unity

by

mee

ting

with

indi

vidu

al g

roup

s, i.

e.

2.‘S

olut

ions

for R

esis

tanc

e’

INCE

NTIV

ES:

• Fl

exib

ility

by

tow

nshi

ps.

• De

velo

pers

spe

ndin

g fo

rm

utua

lly b

enef

icia

lou

tcom

es.

• St

ate,

regi

onal

, loc

alpl

anni

ng c

oope

ratio

n•

Busi

ness

inpu

t.•

Coun

ty p

lann

ing

assi

stan

ce•

Gran

ts a

nd s

tate

prog

ram

s th

at e

ncou

rage

infra

stru

ctur

eim

prov

emen

ts c

ontin

gent

on in

crea

sed

dens

ity.

• Re

quire

d nu

mbe

r of

affo

rdab

le u

nits

.

ACTI

ON N

OW:

• La

ndsc

apes

I an

d II

• Ta

lk to

you

r gov

ernm

ent

offic

ials

• Ge

t inv

olve

dEc

onom

ic s

ucce

ss o

f new

mor

e de

nse

mul

ti- u

sede

velo

pmen

t•

Enco

urag

e pl

anni

ng a

ndid

entif

icat

ion

of p

oten

tial

area

s to

targ

et.

• Co

ntin

ue to

pla

n.

• Co

mm

unity

dis

cuss

ion.

•

Stro

ng le

ader

ship

.•

Educ

atio

n.•

Busi

ness

/Gov

ernm

ent/

Com

mun

ity c

oope

ratio

n.

3.‘M

ultim

unic

ipal

Issu

e’

INCE

NTIV

ES:

• Ex

pedi

te p

lans

if b

uild

ing

to th

e cu

rren

t pla

n by

righ

t.•

Com

mun

ity g

ive

back

s(p

ark,

infra

stru

ctur

e)•

Mor

e ta

xes

at s

ettle

men

tbo

rn b

y bu

yer

• Af

ford

able

eas

emen

ts•

Econ

omic

s: s

igni

fican

tco

st s

avin

gs th

roug

h m

ulti-

mun

icip

al e

fforts

- fu

ndin

gad

vant

ages

• Ta

x in

cent

ives

• Ot

her s

tate

and

fede

ral

ince

ntiv

es

ACTI

ON N

OW:

• Ke

ep ta

lkin

g ho

usin

g•

Enco

urag

e co

unty

and

mun

icip

aliti

es to

wor

kto

geth

er to

sol

ve c

omm

onpr

oble

ms

• M

ore

unifo

rmity

for

resi

dent

s•

Proc

ess

mor

e op

en a

ndm

ore

easi

ly u

nder

stoo

d

4.‘E

mpl

oyer

s’ N

eeds

’

INCE

NTIV

ES:

• Em

ploy

er s

pons

ored

bene

fits:

fle

x tim

e,co

nden

sed

wor

k w

eek,

trans

it ch

eck

• Al

tern

ativ

e tra

nspo

rtatio

n•

Dens

ity•

Tax

ince

ntiv

es

ACTI

ON N

OW:

• Co

nvin

ce th

e pu

blic

that

it is

a p

robl

em.

• Bu

ild c

onse

nsus

• St

art t

oday

• Ed

ucat

e po

pula

tions

• Tr

ansp

orta

tion

fund

ing

• Ea

se th

e pe

rmit

proc

ess

• Ad

just

hou

sing

pric

es•

Alte

rnat

ive

trans

porta

tion

• Cr

eate

par

tner

ship

s•

Enlis

t non

prof

its•

Appe

al to

cor

pora

tions

,Tr

ade

orga

niza

tions

,m

unic

ipal

gov

erno

rs,

scho

ols

and

chur

ches

5.‘P

erce

ived

Impe

dim

ents

’

INCE

NTIV

ES:

• Ta

x be

nefit

s th

roug

hm

unic

ipal

ities

pro

vidi

ngec

onom

ic in

cent

ives

for

cons

truct

ion.

• Gr

ant l

oans

that

pro

vide

way

s fo

r peo

ple

to in

vest

swea

t equ

ity.

• M

unic

ipal

ities

mus

tpr

ovid

e eq

uity

• M

ust c

hang

e m

inds

ets

ofpo

litic

ians

.•

Cons

ider

sec

urin

gpr

oper

ty in

Phi

lade

lphi

a.•

Dens

ity•

Tax

ince

ntiv

es

ACTI

ON N

OW:

• Ta

lk –

ope

nly,

hon

estly

,no

hid

den

agen

da•

Stat

e la

w is

sues

• Lo

bbyi

ng•

Invo

lvin

g bu

sine

ssco

mm

unity

• St

art t

oday

• Co

mpl

ain

to y

our b

oss

• Le

t the

mun

icip

alof

ficia

ls k

now

• Sp

read

the

wor

d

8.‘T

ax Im

plic

atio

ns’

INCE

NTIV

ES:

• Ex

pedi

te p

lans

if b

uild

ing

toth

e cu

rren

t pla

n by

righ

t•

Com

mun

ity g

iveb

acks

(par

k,in

frast

ruct

ure)

• M

ore

taxe

s at

set

tlem

ent b

orn

by b

uyer

• Af

ford

able

eas

emen

ts

ACTI

ON N

OW:

• Ge

t org

anize

d –

gras

s ro

ots

–lik

e 20

/20

as s

prin

gboa

rd.

• Pu

blic

dis

cuss

ion

– st

art

smal

l and

bui

ld s

uppo

rt•

Educ

ate

com

mun

ity –

sha

resu

cces

s so

try

and

find

the

area

succ

essf

ul m

odel

s to

hel

p se

llco

ncep

t.•

Rais

e aw

aren

ess

• Be

pos

itive

– it

can

be

done

19

seni

or g

roup

s, s

ervi

cecl

ubs

• Pu

rcha

se a

ds in

the

new

spap

er•

Gues

t edi

toria

ls, l

ette

r to

edito

r

CRIT

ICAL

PLA

YERS

:•

Deve

lope

rs•

Mun

icip

al o

ffici

als

• Co

mm

unity

gro

ups

• Co

oper

ativ

e, v

isio

nary

deve

lope

rs•

Chur

ch g

roup

s

ACCO

MPL

ISHM

ENTS

:•

Incr

ease

d ta

x re

venu

e•

Incr

ease

d co

nven

ienc

e of

serv

ices

to re

side

nts

• M

ore

sust

aina

ble

com

mun

ities

• As

sist

ance

from

cou

nty

and

stat

e.•

Esta

blis

h un

iform

ity a

tst

ate,

cou

nty

and

mun

icip

alle

vels

.•

Prom

ote

mix

ed u

ses.

CRIT

ICAL

PLA

YERS

:•

Deve

lope

rs•

Empl

oyer

sGo

vern

men

t: F

eder

al,

Stat

e &

Loc

al•

Buye

rs –

pur

chas

e w

hat

they

can

affo

rd a

nd w

hat

they

like

ACCO

MPL

ISHM

ENTS

:•

Affo

rdab

le h

ousi

ng fo

ryo

ung

adul

ts, n

ewfa

mili

es, r

etiri

ng a

ndem

pty

nest

ers.

• Co

ncen

trate

inve

stm

ent

dolla

rs to

infra

stru

ctur

ene

eds.

CRIT

ICAL

PLA

YERS

:•

Coun

ty C

omm

issi

oner

s•

CC p

lann

ing

Com

mis

sion

• In

divi

dual

pas

sion

ate

cham

pion

s•

Mun

icip

al m

anag

ers

–qu

alifi

ed!

• CC

2020

• Le

nder

s in

mun

icip

aliti

es

• Ci

ty re

side

nts

• To

wns

hip

zoni

ng•

Cost

to d

evel

oper

s an

dbu

ilder

s

ACCO

MPL

ISHM

ENTS

:•

Broa

der d

iver

seco

mm

unity

, ene

rgy,

vita

lity

• Lo

wer

dev

elop

men

tco

sts

• Co

mm

on u

nder

stan

ding

of is

sues

• Fr

amew

ork

ofde

velo

pmen

t pla

n•

Cost

sav

ings

topa

rtici

pant

s•

Inte

rgen

erat

iona

l –fa

mili

es to

geth

er•

Bene

fits

to e

mpl

oyer

s•

Econ

omic

ben

efits

for

com

mun

ity

CRIT

ICAL

PLA

YERS

:

ACCO

MPL

ISHM

ENTS

:

CRIT

ICAL

PLA

YERS

:•

Ches

ter C

ount

y Go

vt.

• El

ecte

d of

ficia

ls•

Empl

oyer

s•

Ever

ybod

y - a

gele

ss

ACCO

MPL

ISHM

ENTS

:•

Reta

in a

nd a

ttrac

tbu

sine

ss•

Reta

in a

nd a

ttrac

tre

side

nts

• In

crea

se ta

x re

venu

e•

Achi

eve

affo

rdab

leho

usin

g, b

usin

ess

vita

lity,

mai

ntai

n di

vers

ity o

fco

mm

unity

.

CRIT

ICAL

PLA

YERS

:

ACCO

MPL

ISHM

ENTS

:

20

NOTES:

2© 2007 Chester County 2020