Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local redevelopment agency debates prioritizing rehab over new construction after $6M West Side investment
Summary
Agency members reviewed recent West Side investment figures and debated whether to focus future incentives on rehabilitating existing structures rather than new construction, citing lower costs, faster impact and more local contractors; the issue was referred to a property-evaluation committee to craft guardrails.
The Charleston Landry Youth Agency discussed whether to shift incentive dollars from new construction toward rehabilitation of existing homes and buildings, after staff presented compiled investment figures showing roughly $4 million in nonprofit and government investment on the West Side and more than $6 million when private-sector new-home construction is included. Vice Chair said, "We're killing it on the West Side," summarizing the report of partners and households served.
Members at the meeting cited the benefits of rehabilitation over ground-up building. One committee member argued rehab is more cost effective and opens the pool of potential contractors: "There's a lot more contractors who can handle that than build from the ground up," the member said, urging that the LRA consider targeted reimbursement or inspection-based programs rather than up-front grants.
Supporters of a rehab focus pointed to local examples and to funding leverage: staff reported an estimated 3.6-to-1 private-to-public return on the new-construction incentive, and members suggested that smaller rehabilitation reimbursements could yield higher return for limited public dollars. A participant noted a recent state-funded senior housing award and local projects that produced between 12 and 24 units, describing the mixed results from different project types.
Concerns centered on program design and oversight. Several board members said any payment or reimbursement program must include clear guardrails — permitting, full inspections and performance-based reimbursement — to avoid superficial fixes. "If money is going into it, then it's gonna obviously have to be permitted correctly," one committee member said, adding that oversight is critical when public dollars augment private work.
The group also discussed selection criteria to prioritize properties that are salvageable and offer higher likelihood of successful rehab, including using existing data such as a fire-score index or a HUD rehabilitation index. Staff suggested a scoring system could help prioritize which properties receive funding or staff assistance.
Rather than decide policy at the meeting, the Chair moved to table the details and send the idea to the property-evaluation committee for deeper study and a recommendation on program design, eligibility and legal guardrails. The board asked staff to develop selection criteria, financial guardrails and a potential reimbursement model for committee review.
The meeting closed the topic by requesting that committee work include: a) a clear method to rate rehab viability; b) specific permit and inspection requirements; c) anti-speculation protections to avoid rewarding out-of-state buyers who acquire auction properties sight unseen; and d) options to leverage private investment. The committee referral is intended to return a concrete proposal for agency action.
