Some of you may have noticed my soft spot for the Hawthorne neighborhood.
I’m not sure if it’s that I just always love the underdog, or perhaps a challenge, but whatever it is, I find myself paying an inordinate amount of attention to this small neighborhood on the opposite end of the Northside from my own.*
In terms of real estate values, Hawthorne may well be the single most depressed neighborhood in all of the City of Minneapolis. Indeed, over the last four months, the average sold price for single-family residences in that neighborhood was a mere $39,085.
(click to enlarge)
So knowing this, and being able to count a healthy and growing number of friends who today live MORTGAGE-FREE in NoMi as a result of these ridiculously low prices, is it any wonder that I was a little taken aback to hear that the non-profit Urban Homeworks had decided to sell their newest Hawthorne listing as a Community Land Trust property?
What does this mean, you may ask? Right right – let’s talk about exactly what that means:
The City of Lakes Community Land Trust promotes a model of “homeownership” which is supposed to preserve affordability, among other things. Here’s a little background from their website:
The City of Lakes Community Land Trust resulted from a collective, committed effort by Minneapolis residents and neighborhood associations to preserve affordable housing ownership in their community.
In late 2001, a collaboration of Powderhorn Residents Group (PRG), Seward Redesign, Powderhorn Park Neighborhood Association (PPNA), and the Lyndale Neighborhood Development Corporation (LNDC) began educating themselves on best practices relating to creating and stabilizing affordability in their neighborhoods.
Through research, community conversations, an environmental scan, and the identification of opportunities, the collaborative group determined that there was a significant need in the City of Minneapolis to form a Community Land Trust (CLT).
Housed and incubated by PRG, the collaboration incorporated as the City of Lakes Community Land Trust (CLCLT) in August 2002 and acquired its 501(c)(3) status in August 2003.
The CLCLT hired its first staff person in October 2002. Current CLCLT staff consists of three employees (two full-time and one part-time).To date, the CLCLT has assisted over 70 low- and moderate-income households into CLCLT homeownership since the fall of 2004 and anticipates adding another 20-30 households over the next 18-24 months.
The mission of the CLCLT is to provide and foster stewardship of perpetually affordable home ownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income families throughout Minneapolis and is achieved through three major objectives, including:
• Assisting households that otherwise would never be able to purchase a home responsibly in having the ability to do so;• Ensuring that, if and when the homeowner(s) decide to sell, the CLCLT is there to keep the home(s) affordable for other income-qualified households; and• Provide support necessary for CLCLT homeowners be successful in homeownership.
Nationally, there are over 150 CLT’s, which work to create perpetually affordable housing while simultaneously balancing escalating housing market appreciation with the ability to meet housing needs for low- to moderate-income homebuyers.
CLT’s provide permanently affordable housing by owning the land of a particular property but selling the home on the land to an income-qualified buyer. The homeowner then leases the land from the CLT through a 99-year, renewable ground lease.
The ground lease connects the homeowner to the community and to keeping the house permanently affordable by including a resale formula that determines the home’s CLT sale price and the homeowner’s share of the home’s increased value at the time of sale.
This mechanism facilitates the initial investment made in the home by public and private subsidy sources remaining with the home to make it affordable to subsequent, income-qualified buyers.
Now, that’s all well and good, and I’m very pleased about their three staff people and their commitment to affordability and all… but it really begs the question: Isn’t Hawthorne affordable ENOUGH already? And frankly, considering the fact that the property in question is currently listed at $130,000 (more than THREE TIMES the average sale price over the last four months in this neighborhood) one has to ask, is this really about affordability?
And yes, I am sure that the UH property is (will be when the rehab is completed) in better condition than much of its active competition in Hawthorne right now. And if anyone wants to check, here's that inventory list:
(once again, click to enlarge)
But here are two important things to keep in mind with respect to that notion:
First, a CLT sale includes the house ONLY. So, for one hundred and thirty thousand dollars, you, my friend, do not actually become the owner of real estate. You become the owner of an improvement (the house) and enter into a lease for the land.
Second, even if the competing houses are in poorer shape, they are SO much cheaper, that even when combined with rehab costs, they’re mostly going to end up more affordable than the UH/CLT property.
So, what gives?
I’d really like to know, personally… because I find this highly perplexing.
Oh, and here's the house:
I do admit that it's got good bones...
But so do a whole lot of other homes in Hawthorne that wouldn't sell for such a price in this decade.
*Oh, and I also love a deal – so there’s that as well.
The Sheltering Arms House is a massive, vacant, four-unit structure at 2648 Emerson Avenue North.It has a charming façade, with what appears to be original wood lap siding, double-decker front porches, and –while I have not been inside- I am told that the interior still holds much woodwork and other quality original features.
Per the MLS, the City of Minneapolis acquired this property on January 7, 2010 for a price of $17,500. The cumulative days on market prior to close are listed at 67. So, it was for sale for a little over two months before the City closed on it. However, the “off-market date” which we can use to speculate approximately when the purchase agreement was signed and delivered, is December 16, 2010.
(These dates are important because they refute any potential argument about the house being un-marketable to private buyers.The house was not languishing on the market for an unreasonable amount of time.)
The City acquired this property for the purpose of demolition and land-banking, according to staff of the Hawthorne Neighborhood Council.
So the first question is: Why?
Why didn’t the City leave this house for a private investor to purchase and renovate? We have no indications that this house is or was un-salable, nor do we have any illustration of it being deteriorated beyond reasonable hope of repair.
Subsequent to the City’s initial moves to purchase, neighbors began to research a bit of the history, and learned of the house’s beginnings as the Sheltering Arms orphanage. While I will not personally make the argument here that such information qualifies it as historic, it is only because I do not deem that necessary.
What I mean to say is: random demolition of single structures around the city should be a last-resort – saved only for those cases where a home is NOT SALVAGEABLE. This is especially true in our older neighborhoods, where the removal of a home which fits the character of the street will cause an obvious hole; a discontinuity that damages the flow of the block.
The Sheltering Arms house is valuable to the block, and valuable to the community, because –as a structure- it contributes to the architectural and cultural fabric thereof. The fact that it has an interesting history is gravy.
(One need only look at the Phillips neighborhood[s] in order to understand the impact of piecemeal demolition on block character and integrity.The most stable residential blocks in those neighborhoods are, were, and will continue to be the blocks which have the most original structures, which, incidentally, are overwhelmingly occupied by their owners.)
But anyway, today I am less interested in elaborating the folly of these past demolitions than I am in helping determine where we go from here.
The Sheltering Arms house is a good place to begin. It still stands, and it does not have to come down.
But beyond that, what?
There are a few options, the more conventional of which involve the City giving/selling the place to developer, either non-profit or for-profit, for rehabilitation.
I am a fan of a less-conventional method, myself… an approach which I think will ultimately be better for the house, the block, and the neighborhood.
I propose that the City GIVE THE STRUCTURE AWAY.
As in, a lottery.
The neighborhood and other interested individuals could spread the word far and wide, and I am confident that many folks would throw their hats into the ring. Why?Because the house is free.And because it’s got potential to be a beautiful place. And an interesting history.
Of course there should be a few rules involved in entering this lottery, such as:
Owner agrees to enter into a restoration agreement with the City, and post a bond of some amount which is returned after some amount of time.
Owner agrees to occupy the house for some number of years. (There should be some monetary penalty if they cease to comply before the term is completed.)
Owner can provide proof of qualification for a loan (or of cash funds) in some amount for the rehab. (But let’s not be unreasonable here – they should be permitted to do some things with sweat-equity, like painting, sanding their own floors, etcetera.)
It is very simple.The City gets rid of the house (and taxpayer dollars do not have to be spent to demolish it,) someone gets a new home, and the neighborhood gets to maintain an architectural asset AND gain an invested owner-occupant.
Or, you know, we could just go with another vacant lot. I'm not sure NoMi has quite enough of those yet...
I just realized that I left everyone hanging here with regard to the Hawthorne house.
We did finally close! And the insurance inspector* comes today (shiver.)
Pictures to follow shortly.
*Properties in distressed condition often do not qualify for market insurance, and therefore need "MN Fair Plan" coverage, which is not only more expensive, but also requires an inspection.
I don't know where this case is going to go, but I DO know that many of the good boys and girls of North Minneapolis are getting rather PISSED about the current state of affairs... and I don't blame them one bit.
I am a licensed real estate broker with Century 21 Luger Realty, preservationist, fixer-upper-type-nut, sometimes-landlord, and all-around house-addict. I love everything from Queen Annes to Bungalows to Foursquares to Farmhouses.
minneapolisgirlatgmaildotcom is where you can reach me!