From houses to homes
Initiative to reuse dwellings that otherwise would have been destroyed benefits first-time buyers
Six years ago, the houses were hauled to Charleston's Lee Street on flatbed trucks, most of them in poor repair, with their windows boarded up and new addresses chalked on the front doors.
They were among nine houses removed from the path of construction of the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge, given to the city, and taken to new locations to be renovated and sold to first-time home buyers.
The Post and Courier
Danny Havens has made this house his home on Lee Street downtown. The house was one of three the city placed there after moving them out of the path of the Ravenel Bridge.
Danny Havens got the keys to the last of those houses in March, making him a homeowner and successfully completing a city initiative aimed at reusing houses the state would otherwise have torn down.
"I was just driving by one day on the way to the post office and saw the sign," said Havens, 24, who was considering home ownership this spring because his lease was due to expire.
He now lives next door to Emily Cox, who purchased a city-renovated house in 2006, and two doors down from Orlando Newkirk, who bought one of the first houses completed in the fall of 2005.
"I got my pick," Newkirk said Friday. "I like where I'm living."
The homeowners all benefitted from city subsidies that priced the freshly-renovated houses well below market value, in some cases less than half the price that vacant fixer-uppers were selling for elsewhere in the East Side.
The trade-offs include being the only homeowners on the 70 block of Lee Street, where neighbors include a vacant house, an empty gas station, and an open field that the city plans to redevelop.
Charleston's Homeownership Initiative has sold 90 homes to first-time buyers during the past five years, including 42 condominiums recently completed in the Longborough neighborhood.
The homes are sold to buyers with moderate incomes.
Some of the houses are new construction but many are rehab jobs in marginal neighborhoods, which have improved the quality of housing in the community while putting new homeowners in place, people with a stake in the future of places like Lee Street.
Lee Street borders the large area where the old Cooper River bridges came down on the peninsula. Demolition of the old bridges created a large expanse of open land bounded by Lee and Cooper streets, with Meeting Street at one end and Morrison Drive, and the pedestrian and bike path over the new bridge, at the other end.
The city hopes to turn that land into a new community of homes and businesses. New roads and sidewalks have been installed, but the effort has not moved as quickly as once hoped, and the state has yet to transfer all of the properties to the city.
The Post and Courier
The city of Charleston renovated these dwellings on Lee Street and put them on the market for first-time homebuyers.
Newkirk said that when he moved into his house, there were people camping out in the bushes where the old bridges once stood, and there were drug deals taking place within sight of his house.
"It was tough for a while because there was a lot of drug traffic at Nassau and Lee street," he said. "That got cleaned up, and now it's probably the quietest spot on the East Side."
For Havens, the house he found on Lee Street represented an opportunity to own for the price of rent. His 1,033-square-foot house was built in the 1800s and features original wood floors and high ceilings.
"Everyone has been really nice, and it seems like a safe neighborhood," Havens said. "I'm just excited to put some paint on the walls and get it together."
The city spent $132,449 on Havens' house and sold it to him for $109,000, according to Geona Johnson, director of Charleston's Department of Housing and Community Development.
The Homeownership Initiative works by subsidizing the sale prices of the houses and condos and selling them with restrictions on future resale prices in order to keep them affordable. The city subsidies stay with the house, and Charleston County taxes the homes based on the subsidized prices.
The sale of the final "bridge house" on Lee Street, to Havens, coincides with a flurry of city home sales to first-time buyers, many of whom also have benefitted from a new $8,000 federal tax credit for first-time homeowners this year.
Havens said he wasn't aware of the new federal tax credit and is thrilled to be getting it. The credit will cover nearly a year's worth of mortgage and insurance payments.
Havens studied economics at the College of Charleston and said he wasn't concerned about the city restrictions on resale profits. The city requires that if a home in the Homeownership Initiative is resold, it must be resold for no more than the original price plus the cumulative increase in the area median income or the consumer price index, whichever is higher.
FILE/STAFF
A before-and-after look at the houses moved to Lee Street downtown.
Havens said it seems like a reasonable attempt to keep the houses affordable, while allowing the owners to gain some equity. For him and others, like Newkirk, the initiative has been a great opportunity to own a home on the peninsula.
"I wouldn't have been able to get a house downtown without that program," said Newkirk, who is executive director of PASTORS, a non-profit group that develops housing for the city's initiative.
Johnson said three previous attempts to sell the same house on Lee Street purchased by Havens had fallen through.
In 2006, a 23-year-old school teacher planned to buy the house but then learned she was going to be laid off. In 2007, a social worker was approved to buy the house but got married before the sale was completed, which raised her family income beyond the city's limits for the program. Also in 2007, a law student was going to buy the house but backed out after learning that owning a home would make it harder to get student loans.
"The sale of this home has been a top priority for the city and we have worked with a number of buyers to make that a reality," Johnson said.
While some houses in the initiative took years to sell, the city now has only three left, on Peecksen's Court and on America Street.
There are 46 more properties under development for the initiative, including vacant lots and houses in poor repair that were acquired at tax sales. The city's net cost for each home has ranged from as little as $10,000 to more than $100,000.
"People think that, with what's happening in the (real estate) market, that the need for affordable housing has diminished, but that's not the case," Johnson said.
Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Halcyon (anonymous) says...
Google Maps shows Lee St. runs between Meeting and America. Yikes.
May 26, 2009 at 2:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
Good luck with that dude. They would have to pay me to live in that area. If you don't have kids to send to a school, and have a great security system, and don't venture out at night, and own a gun or two, you should be OK!
Subsidized housing, Great thing that the City of Joe has your tax dollars so they/he can do projects like this.
Where in the US Constitution does it say the Gov shall buy your house?!
May 26, 2009 at 5:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CaptPete (anonymous) says...
The city sold the house at half of what a comp house would bring on purpose. I am sure the other neighbors who fixed their houses up using their own money really appreciated that. The City ought to cut the rest of the neighborhood a check for bringing down their house values on purpose.
May 26, 2009 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sig (anonymous) says...
Why does the taxpayer have to pay for this? It is bad enough that we provide free/subsidized houseing through HUD, free food via foodstamps and gas through DSS (Yes they were handing out $60 gas cards every month last year), free medical from DHHS for thousands of people who know how to work the system.
I am willing to help anyone who helps theirselves, but at least half of the people in these programs expect a handout.
I for one am tired of it and I investigate any agency fully before I donate. Tired of paying for scumbags and welfare mommas.
But, I agree with moonpie, get a gun and stay home at night.
May 26, 2009 at 7:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
The reason they did this to begin with was because government policies had driven housing prices up so high, and this "fix" will only make things worse. It's a never ending cycle, government decreases availability of housing, government cries because the cost of housing is so high, government interjects itself again into housing to offer taxpayer subsidized housing, housing prices increase due to government interference in the market, government raises taxes to pay for new housing subsidization programs.
This seems to be one of the prime objectives of government at all levels, increase hardship on people by interfering with the free market so you can seem empathetic to those you just hurt and use that as an excuse to interfere even more in the free market. This is the type of government that is going to give us free health care now that it has driven up the cost of health care for us.
May 26, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
Home ownership brings pride and a want for community. If you want to change the areas around the East Side this is the way to do it. Home owners will call the police and insist on better patrols. Renters or people in projects tend to live with the problems.
I think it is a great way to move progress.
Let the naysayers attacks begin.
May 26, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gococks1985 (anonymous) says...
I get so sick and tired of hearing people gripe about the "welfare mommas". It's not always their fault they are in the system. If the daddy's and husbands would step up to the plate and act accordingly, then maybe they would not be forced to be a part of the system. For the record, NO, I am not on any type of public assistance, but have used it in the past when my children were smaller and I was unemployed. I have been gainfully employed for some time now, but I would use it again in a skinny minute if I needed it. Quit placing blame on the mommas all the time...
May 26, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wilyred (anonymous) says...
Just another progressive program designed to redistribute the wealth.
But it's NOT socialism!
May 26, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tc1 (anonymous) says...
"Quit placing blame on the mommas all the time..."
Rape is a serious crime with serious punishment, that being a relative statement these days. Point is Momma agreed multiple times and with multiple partners in many cases. Society pays a bonus check for each additional one and the circle is unbroken.
And finally for a number of years now society has been pushing the concept that fathers are unnecessary except for the most basic biological function which can take place in a petri dish. Single parent motherhood is celebrated and promoted today with Hollywood leading the way. All hail womans rights.
May 26, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
I think some posters are just using ths as a chance to offer knee-jerk responses about government programs of any kind without really appreciating the economics of the situation and the purposes of the program in the first place.
For example, to hear MajorJohnson tell the story, this sort of government effort is causing housing prices to spiral out of control (by limiting supply of housing). But, only two posts earlier, CaptPete thinks the program is dragging down housing prices (by undercutting prices). It can't be both at the same time.
I suspect that neither is correct. Having the City buy a few dozen houses that no one wanted to own hardly diminshes the supply of housing city-wide. And, the price of these houses is not artificially low; neighboring houses are offered free of lots of ownership restrictions and are not comparable to these.
May 26, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Numba10 (anonymous) says...
in the article someone claims Nassau has ben cleaned up---yet toady we read of another shooting on Nassau---are we even living in the same city
May 26, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Numba10 (anonymous) says...
Perhaps the Fathers could step up if they were not always the one told to leave the home when problems arise and if Fathers who are employed recieved custody instead of giving them to a non working Mom and requiring Dad to pay---
May 26, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Halcyon (anonymous) says...
majorjohnson, since when are housing prices in Charleston high? Do you realize where you live? Take a look at the housing market in a truly inflated area such as the Bay Area or NY Metro and get back to me.
May 26, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
These negative comments are the same I heard in the mid-90s regarding King Street north of Calhoun - funny how a decade can change things. That is the hottest spot in Charleson now. The Eastside, for you people who do not know real estate investment and understand what is happening, will not look like it presently does 10-20 years from now. The naysayers are ALWAYS the ones who laugh today and wish they had done the same tomorrow. Fools.
May 26, 2009 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ccfromsc (anonymous) says...
Question is this: What about property taxes? How much does he pay? How is he to pay them with "downtown" rates or does he get a discount? I wonder is he going to keep up paying the electric, water, sewer bills among others? I myself have picked up a couple of houses that way that were once from the Habitat for Humanity, when they sold them to idiots who could not pay their rent, yet they expected them to pay and upkeep a house!
May 26, 2009 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Larz13 (anonymous) says...
Marking this down....I actually agree with Luna!
Overall, I am all for helping those who want to better themselves. These programs often help city police and fireman who work hard and do not make a ton of money. The point is that these people are working and the city is helping them afford a house and live where they work. They pay the mortgage, electric and repair costs. The only thing that I would change is that after a certain period of time, that they could sell the place for market rates. The city wins with higher tax revenue but for some reason they want to keep the prices low.
May 26, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mon_Kie (anonymous) says...
"Quit placing blame on the mommas all the time..."
Quit boinking shiftless unemployed thugs...Momma!
May 26, 2009 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
burton (anonymous) says...
Luna hit it on the head. You have to increase home ownership. Imagine when you were a renter. Did you feel like you were part of the neighborhood you were in? No, because you knew you were only going to be there temporarily and you didn't own the place you were living in. For example, Chicora-Cherokee has an 75-80% rental rate. You see the connection now?
May 26, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
I don't even live in Charleston anymore so you people are the ones who have to pay higher taxes to pay for these houses for other people. Folks who are renting have to pay taxes for these people to own homes too. Charleston restricts the housing market, that drives up housing costs (supply/demand for you goons who can't remember economics 101). Then they cry because housing costs are so high that police can't afford to live there and instead of loosening restrictions so that there is more housing (and lower price) they increase your taxes so they can subsidize the purchase of houses for people. The highest housing costs in the country are the places where government has the heaviest hand in the market. I happen to own my home, I purposely chose a place where restrictions were lower so that I could get a reasonable price. You want to be a real city but with small town housing so you end up with nowhere for people to rent or buy and that increases the cost of housing. You can lower housing costs by allowing denser development, quit taking tens of thousands of acres of land off the housing market, quit beating landlords to death with high fees and tax rates. People like you create the problem, then want everyone else to pay higher taxes to subsidize making it worse.
As far as home ownership, that's like gun ownership. Some people just shouldn't. In case you Einsteins haven't noticed government trying to turn people who should be renting into home owners caused just a slight problem in this country.
May 26, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.