Operations: Sustainable sites lead to simpler life

San Marco, a Walking Oasis in Jacksonville, FL. Every neighborhood has some walkability or simple mobility element.

In the prior post on LEED v3 changes, I touched on the sustainable sites requirement. Essentially LEED is attempting to encourage a bit of smart growth by reducing the number of vehicle trips generated by development (and separately develop in areas with existing infrastructure or minimally disturbed greenfields). For this post, I’m focusing on existing communities that either are not actually or do not consider themselves sustainable sites.

Operationally, you can create a sustainable site by studying your neighborhood, using resources such as Yelp, Urban Spoon, and other location-based web services to help residents find their way. For those exploring social media, culling local event listings provides great fodder for resident-focused Twitter feeds.

Celebrating or publicizing neighborhood based events, services, or vendors enables managers to serve as (apartment) community resources, local economic generators, and pushes the apartment community into the center of a resident’s life, rather than simply a place to sleep. Understanding and sharing information about locally-based resources puts a little more meat to the notion of “Life made simple.”

Focusing on your immediate surroundings improves your local outreach efforts by showing businesses 1) your property is a part of the neighborhood, not just a parcel; 2) better acquaints you with the employers and employees of the neighborhood. Finding potential residents within your local surroundings greatly improves the chances of renewal, and I strongly believe reduces your overall marketing costs.

As an operationally-focused asset manager with a portfolio of over 50 properties nationwide, I consistently found that 35-50% of my new resident prospects came through drive-by. When added to the number of resident referrals, that number was consistently between 40-65% of total applications. Signage, landscaping, and general appearance (all of which affect existing residents as well) is a far stronger indicator of the living environment than a static print ad. Reaching prospects while in the context of searching for a new home and residents while in the context of their daily life is a better use of marketing efforts because it provides something of use to your customers. Very few management companies do this well and with such a low hurdle, any sustained effort is appreciated.

At every property visit, in every conversation with managers and leasing agents, I asked some variation of the following questions, my keys to a ‘sustainable site’:
1. Do you know where you are? Do you know how to get here?
2. Who lives here and why?
3. Where do your residents work?
4. What is there to do around here?
5. Where is the nearest park, house of worship, child care center, grocery store, and school?
6. How do you involve the property with the surrounding community?

If you can’t identify your property as part of a larger community and explain that role to a resident, you’re not trying to improve sustainability, you’re not looking beyond your property line, but most damning, you’re not trying to make life simpler for your residents.

Operations: MHN discovers (but does not identify) Economic Occupancy

Multi-Housing News recently advised that owners need to be aware of “Trade-Off Between Cash Flow and Occupancies“. In other words, MHN just discovered economic occupancy.

“It is a tradeoff between cash flow and occupancies and owners need to address that,” Brad Dillman, quantitative analyst at PPR, tells MHN. “The decision depends on the specifics of the owners situation, the property itself and if there is a minimum occupancy level that needs to be maintained in the loan contract etc.”

While I know that physical occupancy is what drives most property managers because it many owners want a single variable to evaluate property performance, physical occupancy has limited importance in financial analysis. Much more important is economic occupancy, which, similarly to a hotel’s RevPAR, describes the financial efficiency of the actual revenues as a percentage of the Gross Potential Rent (Formula: Net Rental Income/GPR).

I’m not sure what happened with this piece, but either it doesn’t say what it was supposed to, or it’s introducing us to something that everyone should already. know: when conducting analysis of income properties, Economic Occupancy > Physical Occupancy.

[Note: My operating presumption is that when a property approaches 95% occupancy, rents need to climb. If your property is 100% occupied, rents are too low.]

Atlanta Housing completing demolition and redevelopment

Last week the NYT noted that the Atlanta Housing Authority was nearly done demolishing its 32 largest communities totaling nearly 15,000 units.

The article presents a quick summary of pro and con positions and mentions a series of articles from Creative Loafing Atlanta, an alternative weekly that has provided more detail on Atlanta’s particular efforts.

Writes the Times:

The elimination of housing projects does not mean the abandonment of public housing. The Atlanta Housing Authority pays for more residents’ housing these days than it did in the 1990s. But they are scattered throughout the city in mixed-income communities and private housing financed with vouchers through the government’s Section 8 program.

Still, critics of the demolitions worry about the toll on residents, who must qualify for vouchers, struggle to find affordable housing and often move to only slightly less impoverished neighborhoods. Especially in a troubled economy, civil rights groups say, uprooting can lead to homelessness if more low-income housing is not made available. Lawsuits have been filed in many other cities, generally without success, that claim that similar relocations violate residents’ civil rights and resegregate the poor.

As always, David Smith, in “End of an Error, Pt. 1″ has both the background on Atlanta and places the demolition in context. In his introductory entry (David’s thoughts ran to 3 parts) he divides housing assistance between place-based (build it and they’ll come) and people-based (pay them and they’ll go).

Atlanta has clearly made the choice to reduce the concentration of poverty by largely eliminating the ownership of housing by the AHA and providing residents with vouchers to assist them in acquiring the housing on their own.

Mentioned in the article is research conducted by Thomas Boston, professor of economics at Georgia Tech. Boston is the author of a case study of mixed-income revitalization in Atlanta. The study (link above to the working paper), was peer reviewed for the Journal of the American Planning Association and studied 2,700 families (1,200 that relocated and 1,400 that did not) from Atlanta public housing communities during a 7 year period and found:

Families who moved from public housing projects to vouchers were 1.5 times more likely to be employed in the long term than were those who remained in projects. Families who moved to mixed-income communities were about 2.1 times more likely to be employed in the long-run than those who remained in projects.

Creative Loafing collected a few of the articles written about the AHA and troubles with the Atlanta affordable housing market. I submitted a few comments in the collector piece, to the extent that well run PHAs were essential to working well with private sector owners. The benefit to an owner of taking voucher holders is that a substantial portion of the rent can be relied upon each month, that lease violations (behavior problems, non-applicant residents, housekeeping standards, etc.) can be enforced by both property management and the voucher-issuing entity. Cooperation, however, requires a PHA that is responsive to residents and owners, provides clear guidelines for enforcement and inspections, and delivers the types of follow-up assistance and counseling needed to bring greater financial stability to voucher holders.

I’ve got some additional thoughts on funding sources in a future post.

Catching up on your conferences

I’ve written previously about using Twitter to attend conferences. In the past week, there have been a couple of conferences of interest to the multifamily industry:

NAA Educational Conference (Twitter hashtag #naaeduconf)

Solutions for Working Families (hashtag #swf2009)

Association of College and University Housing Officers (hashtag #acuhoi).

If the Tweet streams provoke additional questions, a couple of folks have collected their thoughts (or Tweets) and posted them:

NAA Educational Conference

NAA-produced summaries, the ‘best of #NAAEduConf Tweets collected by Ellipse, a summation from Lisa Benson’s panel, Heather Blume’s Notes from NAA, a couple of dailies from The Apartment Finder Blog, and the poorly-lit but always informative Mark Juleen (video link).

Solutions for Working Families
The NHC’s Open House Blog provided most of the daily color, as well as a copy of Sec. Donovan’s remarks, plus a podcast from Nic Retsinas of Harvard’s Joint Housing Center.

ACUHOI

Adventures in Higher Ed summarizes three days of ACUHOI

Why do we need to broaden affordable housing funding sources?

Because you get things like this 44-unit 1992 LIHTC property that loses $25,000 per year with no hard debt.

Housingpolicy.org, an initiative of the Center for Housing Policy is doing yeoman’s work in spurring ongoing conversations amongst professionals in affordable house. At their nascent forums, Ed Kaminski shares his frustration with the deal above, and its inability to make financial sense.

[Pennsylvania's] low rent levels do speed up the intersection of operating expense with operating income. We even avoid hard debt on tax credit deals whenever possible because at some point, costs will exceed income. This is certainly true in hindsite with taxes, utilities, insurance and maintenance all rising at a greater rent than rents.

We are being offered – free of charge – a 17 year old 44 unit tax credit property that losses $25,000 per year. It has no hard debt payments, but soft debt exceeds the appraised value. [We] have come to the conclusion that the only way to preserve this is to find a source that will subsidize operations. We are willing to enter into a 15 year restrictive use agreement in exchange for a 15 year commitment of $25,000 per year.

That is $568 per unit per year ($8520 per unit for 15 years) and a total of $375,000 of subsidy for 15 years. Producing 44 new units will cost $6-8,000,000 or more.

The ability of a State Housing Agency to exchange tax credits for cash does nothing if the money goes simply to the construction of affordable housing and not to its operations. Financial stability, much less sustainability, will not occur until states and more importantly, counties, become more serious about providing and supporting affordable housing.

LIHTC cannot solve this problem.

Direct HUD subsidies, HOPE VI, vouchers, all are powerless to solve the long term danger to affordable housing: incomes (and thereby rents) do not rise in concert with expenses.

Operations: Capturing rainwater, reusing graywater

Way out West, water use issues are much more pertinent than they are in the East. Well, maybe. [National view from Drought Impact Reporter.]

Regardless of location, water usage will be reduced through legislation, co-option, construction, or consumer choice.

To help us along, Multifamily Water Systems appears in the May issue of Builder News to provide definitions, discuss existing technology, and identify current and proposed legislation. It’s a strong article that covers a lot of ground.

Where should you look for this reusable water? On your structure, upon undeveloped land, and within the units: