Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Housing emerges as central issue at Effingham steering committee meeting
Summary
At an Effingham steering committee meeting on the comprehensive plan, residents and stakeholders spent the bulk of the session focused on housing — debating whether to use incentives, public‑private partnerships, rezoning, or land swaps to expand supply amid high lot and infrastructure costs.
Steering committee members and residents in Effingham spent more than an hour of a standing committee meeting debating how to address a tight local housing market, identifying land prices, limited contractor capacity and infrastructure costs as the top constraints.
The committee reviewed recent focus‑group findings and draft vision goals, then turned quickly to housing. "Municipal growth should be encouraged to increase local tax base and provide for local employment opportunities," Speaker 2 read from the legacy goals and said those principles helped shape the draft vision; participants argued housing must be central if the city hopes to realize those goals.
Speakers described a market where land is expensive and builders are stretched thin. "If the city comes in and does something like Diedrich did or something like T town did, offers $5,000 lots, they're out," Speaker 3 said, summarizing earlier developer feedback that direct public competition can drive private builders away. Several people agreed private developers are reluctant to compete with heavily subsidized public lots.
Others urged the city to explore tools that reduce upfront land or infrastructure costs without displacing private builders: tax increment financing (TIF) for blight remediation, enterprise/residential incentive zones and public‑private partnerships to pool public and private funds were discussed as possible approaches. "We need to put apartments up or small houses," Speaker 4 said, arguing the immediate priority is getting more units online in a variety of forms.
Panelists also flagged non‑local constraints on feasibility: a prospective multifamily project could face larger electric-service requirements and state code costs (for example, higher amperage and EV charging wiring) that increase per‑unit expenses, Speaker 1 said. Development finance math was raised repeatedly — one example quoted a 96‑unit project where estimated annual taxes were roughly $255,000, a sizeable share of gross rents.
Participants proposed near‑term, practical steps: inventory existing lots and infill parcels ready for development, revisit earlier outreach to builders, task the city’s housing advocacy group (PAVE) with research on recent completions, and consider targeted rezoning where utilities already exist. "If we don't get on top of it now, it's gonna cost this area a whole lot more than it does right now," Speaker 4 said, summarizing the urgency heard in public comments.
The committee did not take any formal action or vote. Instead, staff said they will circulate draft plan chapters, proposed goals, and action items to the steering committee before the next meeting so members can refine recommended champions, funding options and map changes.
