Do you want to be an American flowing out seven hundred w LW. Could this idea help tackle the housing crisis? You know, in a housing pinch, housing crunch, and the idea is to stack housing on top of firehouses and police stations. Council Member Mark Jefferies is here to discuss on seven hundred WLW.
Mark, Good morning morning.
When I first heard this, I chuckle. It seems I don't know why. It just seems silly, you know what I mean.
Yeah, Look, it's it's an interesting you got to think out of the box given the crisis that we have in housing. Look, this is happening throughout the country on any you think about all the types of buildings that any city built, Yes, firehouses, police stations, but wrec centers, health centers, and we build the base, you know, the first floor typically, and there's an opportunity to build a couple of floors on top of that. And in a lot of other cities that enables a lot more senior
affordable housing because the economics work. The city's already spending money to build a foundation, so then a developer just comes in and builds the housing on top. So I think it's an opportunity. It's not going to solve our housing crisis, but it's one way to add more units for people who may want to live in a rangement like that. Not for everyone, but some folks may very well want to live in earth rec center.
Yeah, a rec center. I mean you just mentioned police and fire stations. I guess maybe the fire station or police station, but particularly the fire station. One to me is I mean, are you going to be people with with that are hard of hearing or hearing issues seniors, because it's it's I don't know about if I ever a firehouse, I've been around, it's pretty loud.
Yeah, it's funny. I chuckle at that as well. But if you think about I mean, I live in Clifton on Love Low. People live literally right next to the fire station. Over in Westwood, the firehouses people live across or next to it. Most fire trucks these days, when they leave, they don't put their sirens on right away anyway. And so you know, I mean, yes, as I said, it may not be for everyone, but I think it's an opportunity to add more housing units. And here's the thing, Scott.
You know, we added about five thousand people in terms of population, and we're only adding about one thousand units net of new housing a year. And what that means pure supply demand is that as a result, prices are going up, and so we need more housing. And this is a creative solution that we'll add more housing.
It's true, not just in Cincinnati but everywhere. The price of housing, as we know, is going up exorbitantly these days. I had a started earlier this morning at nine oh six on the podcast, and the average price Mark Jeffreys of a new car as just the average price now has just passed the fifty thousand dollars mark. Let that's sank in for a second. I mean that's car, but housings right up there too.
Yeah, I mean, look, Scott, the you know, the average average age of a new home buyer is forty now. Several years ago it was thirty something. In the sixties it was twenty. I mean forty, and you take out a thirty year mortgage here in your seventies, yep, before you're even paying off the pain off the mortgage, and the I mean, the American dream is just unattainable, Tony.
If you're younger, you feel like the screws.
I mean, I'm someone behind the baby boomer generation and I feel like, wow, I'm getting squeezed. I can only imagine, you know, you're a gen Z of millennials, but particularly Gen z rs right now. But is this enough housing units to make a dent in at Mark? I mean, what are we actually talking about her?
Yeah, So, as I preface, it's not gonna solve It's going to take a lot of these things we legalize, except for dwelling units. You remember that. I me's somebody the other day who added it. They moved their parents in their backyard and they absolutely love it. You know, So you get incremental units. It's not gonna there's no silver bullets that's going to solve all of the housing needs.
But look, if we can add a couple hundred units as a result of this, when you when you think about it, it's got you know, we sold the railroad. We're you know, in principle, we've got twice as much investment going into UH into city projects, including we're going to build three new firehouses yep. And so over the next couple of years we're going to be adding more of the structure and and what I've asked the administration to do is just look where does it make sense.
It may not make sense everywhere, but as they look at their massive plan of where we're going to build new units. I'll give an example in Oakley, we built a new rec center there that would have been perfect. You know, I know, I do know some people that said, well, they would love to live on top of a rec center and have a workout, they can go out and you know, leave their kids at the daycare. You know, again except for everyone.
But yeah, no, no, that seems like I mean that that does seem like a good idea as long as you know, I'm curious how many people are going to wind up running these places. But how do you ensure that housing's built on top of these new structures, Mark Jefferies is generally affordable and not just a little less expensive than luxury market rates.
Yeah, I mean, the reality is, I think the economics will be in principle much better because if you think about let's say a rec center, the city is paying to build the foundation, of paying to build the first floor, and so that is stun costs for whatever developers and developers paying for floors two three, four, five, or whatever the case may be. And so in principle, what we've seen around the country as a result is those units
are a lot more affordable, especially for seniors. I mean, look to our earlier conversation, and these folks who are in their sixties seventies and maybe have fixed income, and prices are going up, rents are going up. They need predictable places to live where they know exactly how much the rent is going to be. And they can't, you know, they don't have ciple income for a lot of folks who are you know, in their seventies plus.
Right, Well, I guess what happens is so the city would buy property. Let's say they're can develop a rec center like an Oakley if you could go in the way back machine and do it there. All right, So you own, you buy the land very expensive, You build the structure as long as you're digging and developing. You put down bigger footer so it can support a building above a building. And now the developer goes, okay, good,
we're going to seal or rent these buildings out. Why wouldn't they just try to get market rate, which is going to be higher than a lot of people can afford. Does that undermine the affordability issue?
Yeah, I mean I think that comes back to who we partner with and what developer, and what the agreement is with the developer. And that's where in the early stages of this right, I've just asked the administration to go out and identify where the buildings and then have conversations with different developers, especially ones who build affordabllowses, and I think that would be part of the agreement, is that they're building it income restricted housing on these units.
Okay, he's got some member Mark Jeffries with a novel approach here to help put a dent into the city's housing crisis, and it's a crisis that's repeated in every town across America, and saying, hey, you know, if the city's going to start building new fire stations, police stations, rec centers, things like that with the money from the railway fund, well, then shouldn't we think about maybe putting
housing atop some of these buildings. I don't know how many people want to live above a fire station or police station, but rec centers and other buildings like that. Possibly does this help put a small dent, But any little bite of the apple, of course, is better than nothing. I would say in that regard, though, how many other cities are doing this and to what success?
Yeah, I mean I just saw an example yesterday of a smaller city in Oregon, just outside like Portland or whatever, and they build housing on top of the libraries in town senior affordable, I think, below sixty percent average income. There are several cities throughout the country that have done this, and so it's not a completely unique approach. It's been done before. It just hasn't been done here. And you know,
it'll drive some incremental units and definitely worth running the ground. Look, I mean, it may not resolve everything, but it adds a little bit. Then I think we're.
Much I don't think it's a I don't think it's a game changer. Like, for example, the ordinance allows people to take their freestanding garages and an accessory dwelling unit and turn that into livable housing. That to me seems a very novel approach. It's good for the homeowner, it's good for tenants. It gets more doors out there that we desperately need. But this is you know, it's it's
I guess it's a practical solution here. You're already going to build these things, why not put some extra housing above it and try to take some of that load off. I mean, no, it makes sense. We're not just building things to build them for housing. We're actually constructing things that the community needs and then leveraging that because you're already on the property in the building. I mean no, it makes makes a lot of sense in a lot of regards. Long we start small and see how it goes.
How many properties stop your head, mark, Jefferies, do you see or how many developments out there that are pending or on the horizon with this money? Now, do you see where this would fit in any specific examples of where might I do this? I mean, I do know.
We have at least three firehouses that we're going to build in the next few years. I think it will probably renovate a couple of health centers. Let me think
that the city has health centers as well. I mean, we're building the over Rye over the Ryane Rec Center now, so that's kind of that ship has saaled, you know, But you're probably talking about you know, over the next ten years, maybe a dozen or so at most, where this could apply, but you know, a dozen with maybe fifty or fewer units on top, you know that's you know that that's yeah.
Well, I mean you know you're spending the money already. The bulk of money, as I said, is in the structure buying the land and everything is like a little gravy on top. And if you can maybe even make some money off that too and put it back into the fund, that's probably even better for taxpayer.
So it works out there.
Any of these areas you mentioned, and I know it's like Frisco is doing it, you said Portland.
Are there any problems they've run into with this?
No? I mean, I think it really depends on having a strong partner in a developer, and we have a lot of local developers who produce especially affordable units, and I think it's just making sure that you've got the right partner who has a track record of, you know, really caring about the types of units that they're developing, and we've got a lot of those, so I think that's that's really the key. And yeah, are.
There any liability issues there?
I mean, you know, police stations can be dangerous places, firehouses are noisy, and you've got big equipment coming in.
There any any risk liability concern No, I mean I.
Think a lot of the places that do it, they've got separate entrances. Obviously you're not going to be walking through a firehouse or a police Sah.
Wait a minute, I don't get to slide down the pole.
What the hell exactly?
Late for work?
I mean a lot of people might feel a little bit safer being on top of and as I said, look, I mean see the noise issue. There are a lot of places in the city where people live right next to a firehouse that's sure station and uh, you know, they they manage, and so I think a lot of folks might feel particularly safe, you know, on top of it or right next to the right.
And you also wanted to build this ordinance to to you know, to future profits so someone doesn't come in and overturn it. But you know, you're talking such a small number of units, I can't imagine it being a problem. What about the element though the contentious Southern Way Railway Trust Fund, and of course that whole thing was was was something can intentions to about what you're going to do with the money. And for those who said, wow, here we go, we're going to get off in the weeds.
Now we're going to take this money. It was destined for infrastructure, our crappy roads and intersections, lights, public safety, maybe some buildings, and now we're going to start building housing out of it that has nothing to do with infrastructure. That's a separate deal entirely. It feels like a legal challenge may come out of this.
Well, what I would say is none of that. First of all, we are legally prohibited from using that money for anything other than current infrastructure. And so if we're building new infrastructure, that money legally cannot be used. And so it is purely for current infrastructure, So it's not gonna be used to build housing on top of anything. So that money would be a partnership with a developer. The city is building the structure or renovating the structure,
and then on top the developer would cover that. And it's your point that can be covered in the legal parameters. I think the guardrails on the REIL funds are pretty clear.
Gotcha, So the rail money would be to build a rec center, police station, fire station. If you decide to do this element of adding on and building up, that's a whole separate fund in different money that's going to come in to do that, and it's going to be in conjunction.
Then it's not city money. That would not be city money. The city would not be spending a dime on that.
The developer would.
Yeah, gotcha, a private developer coming in and building housing on top. Got it.
But again we'll see it's interesting. I don't know how the developer doesn't go, Okay, fine, well we're already doing this. We'll charge market rates. You're gonna have to put some guardrails in there to make sure if you want to do affordable housing or market rate housing, you then have to instruct them saying, hey, look, you know, we'll do this deal, but are you going.
To put caps in for how much they can charge?
But that kind of upends the free market because typically someone can afford it if it's a nicer place and go, yeah, I want to live above a rec center, tender track. Maybe more young urban professionals who are going to pay top dollar for that. But that then frees up inventory down the line a little bit.
Yeah, I mean I think for you know, like we have a lot of developers, like the model groups that does development in and around of the line that does a lot of affordable units. You know, developers like that who can come in and say yes, they intend to make the units income restricted. And I think, you know that's what we would have to ensure as we write the contract and partner with them.
He's a council member, Mark Jeffers and the Scotslan show on seven hundred WLW. And the proposal here to take the development from the Cincinnat Southern Railway Trust funds, So it's going to be police stations and rec centers and firehouses and things, Paul libraries, things like that, and in a separate account to housing over the top of some of these buildings to alleviate the housing crisis in Cincinnati. And you know, it's a creative idea. It's a creative
solution here. It'll put a small den in things. But again, any step forward in the right direction, I think is it's a pretty good idea.
Mark, Yeah, no, I've scotten. The thing that I want to emphasize you're books listening is the prior point. None of this money for housing on top would come from public dollars. This would not be railroad dollars or anything. Because I think, you know, initially, when one might see that, they might conclude that. I think what it is is, hey, we're building these structures anyway, let's partner with somebody who then because you've already put this on costs and can build housing on top.
Yeah, and you know I mentioned car is fifty thousand dollars the average price of car in America, and the housing price of housing and rent is going through the literally the roof as well. No pun intended something else had happened recently.
I don't know.
You only have a second for this. But during his stay, the same mayor, after a purevol mentioned his pension bailout plan two hundred and fifty million dollars was stuck in ten years ago to try and fully fund the city pension program. And now it's like, hey, we don't have enough money in twenty twenty six, and so now we've got another fifty million dollars going in the system, which is about, you know, taking a sick if can bite out of tax revenues.
At some point you look at that model and go, it's antiquated. It's old.
That employer funded or city funded pension plan plan doesn't work. Why don't we just move everyone in a four to one K.
Yeah, I mean that's a lot bigger discussion. I mean, as you know, the Futures Commission had several recommendations on solvency on the pension. Uh. The proposal that was outlined last week was intended as kind of a compromise with the employer or employees actually increased their own contribution and then the city in turn is increasing their contribution. So
it's intended as kind of a balance. But I think that's a bigger, longer term conversation is how do we make sure that you know, I mean, it's the solvency of that fund and the impact on city budgets.
Well, fixed you know, fixed pension plans are it's a dog. I mean, well, it's losing all over the place, teachers here in the city of Cincinnati. You can't afford fifty million every few years to prop this whole thing up. And at some point, you know, four oh one k's work wonderfully. I'm in one, and I know people go on, there's no guarant there's no guarantees anymore. I mean, pensions are you know, an idea that's at least fifty years old.
They just simply don't work anymore. And I think it's unfair to burden people, especially younger tax payers and those who are trying to lure to Cincinnati by having to pay the freight on this.
Yeah. I mean, look, I have a four to one k myself for my company and my wife through her pediatric office as well. So I mean, I hear you. I think this is a larger discussion that we need to have that came out of the Futures Commission of how do we make sure that our fiscal health is strong going forward? Yeah, and you know there's a lot more that we need to do on that.
Yeah, we'll have a separate conversation there, but that definitely has to change. He's concol member Mark Jeffries. Thanks for jumping on the show again. Mark, have a great day.
Appreciate it's got tick.
Tack care all the best.
Let me get a news updated and that's a five minutes away here on seven hundred wwe whipsov whether we have warm temperatures. We've got more snow comingting and then more warm temperatures. As Mom would say, you're gonna get sick, You're gonna catch your death. Full forecast traffic. All that just minutes away. Here on the Big One, seven hundred ww iHeartMedia and seven hundred w DOW salute Cincinnati's own
Procter and Gamble. If you've got someone there you'd like for us to recognize on air, text their name to fifty one eight eighty one and be listening