Search Results for: housing

UPDATE on proposed housing projects in the area

Received this email Tuesday (screen shot below) after I followed up for a constituent about the status of the two proposed housing projects in our area.

Our community has experienced this before and I’m not sure what the final outcome will be. I’ve learned much during the past several years about these situations and frankly it comes down to “how much money is in the (federal) program” and “how may projects will that money cover”. The agency pretty much starts with high score and goes down the list of scores until money runs out.

One very interesting item is that during this past session (just months ago) a bill came to the House floor that would EXPAND this program to include STATE DOLLARS. Based on the feedback Rep. Huggins and I have received from y’all over the years, we quickly looked to amend the bill. If STATE DOLLARS are going to be used in the future, Rep. Huggins and I can have impact on that. As it stands currently, this program runs pretty much like I shared above.

As always, we will keep you informed as we learn more.

To view the scorecards of all projects in the state, click here .

More housing developments proposed in our area

Once again we have developers applying for the SC State Housing Finance and Development Authority’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program in our area. This time it’s 2 projects in the Irmo area.

As I have done previously, I wanted to bring to your attention (scroll after cliking link) since Representative Huggins and I receive certified letters informing us of the applications. Not sure how letter dated 2/26 and send 2/28 just got to my desk today (3/19)?

NathansNews readers may recall this has been going on for years, and many of the projects never came to fruition. Until recently.

Recently, projects have been approved on Lake Murray Boulevard (across from Wendy’s in Irmo where Silver Fox Tennis used to be) and on Ballentine Park Road (behind Ballentine Food Lion/Dutch Fork Baptist Church). And now, it looks like there are more trying to be built on Lake Murray Boulevard and adjacent to Lake Murray Boulevard as well.

Since this has happened at least 5 or 6 times through the years, I’ve learned a lot and wanted to share:

1) This is a FEDERAL program (money comes from Feds to the states and – something we hear a lot – “they gotta spend it”. Not a fan of that logic)
2) Approvals are based on the scoring of each project and the amount of funding available. Simply put, once scores are calculated, the agency looks at funding available and goes down the list of high to low scores and approves projects until “the money is out”.
3) There are no points awarded or deducted based on community feedback (I highly disagree with this; but cannot change at the state level).
4) These are not SECTION 8 developments. I have been told these designed for “the teachers, firefighters, policeman who work in the community but cannot afford to actually live in the community”. Again, that is what I’ve been told.

Each time I’ve received notice, I’ve asked y’all have reach out to me and let me know your concerns and I agree to share those with the SC Housing Agency. This time it looks like about 35 projects have applied . While I do not get a vote on these matters. I do get to share my response and ask that you share yours as well.

To have your voice heard, you can do one of two things:

1) Email me directly at NathanBallentine@schouse.gov with the title “Parkside at Columbiana” and I will forward you emails to the SC State Housing Finance and Development Authority. “Parkside at Columbiana” is the development proposed in the area I represent. “Cooper’s Trace” is the development that is proposed in the area Rep. Huggins represents”. Of course, we’re all in the same area – but just wanted to share that detail with you.

or

2) Email Laura Nicholson directly (Laura.Nicholson@schousing.com) and cc: me at NathanBallentine@schouse.gov

While I have been told our responses and feedback do not impact the scores, I do believe in our community having a voice and sharing feedback.

As I’ve shared before, it bothers me when developers from out-of-our-area come do this. In the past it has been developers from Florida. “Parkside at Columbiana” looks like a developer from the Upstate. Those developers don’t have a footprint here, live here, shop here, go to schools or churches here, and -in my opinion – don’t consider the impact on the community as much as perhaps a local developer would.

We are more than aware of our overcrowded schools and infrastructure needs with the current population. Packing in 40-50 families in these developments will only add to that burden and problems. Just like what we will soon experience over at Ballentine Park Road behind Food Lion and Dutch Fork Baptist.

As I learn more, I will keep you posted.

UPDATE – Proposed 60 housing development again

Seems like this is the 4th or 5th time an out-of-state developer has tried to use tax-credits to build a development near Ballentine Elementary that will cause even further infrastructure and crowding issues in our community.

Every time, y’all have reach out to me and let me know your concerns and I agree step in to help. This time there are 35 projects applying . While I do not get a vote on these matters. I do get to share my response and ask that you share yours as well.

To have your voice heard, you can do one of two things:

1) Email me directly at NathanBallentine@schouse.gov with the title “The Park” and I will forward you emails to the SC State Housing Finance and Development Authority

or

2) Email Laura Nicholson directly (please cc: me at email above) at her address: Laura.Nicholson@schousing.com

Proposed Housing – again?

While local zoning issues are county/town level decisions, from time-to-time members of the General Assembly are notified when an individual/developer is applying for state-tax-credits in their community. It seems that once again, the same out-of-state developer is looking to use state-tax-credits in our area. Seems I’ve written about this many times here at Nathans News and tonight, I’m writing again.

I have not seen official correspondence from the SC State Housing Finance and Development Authority; but earlier this month I received the letter above. VERY similar to letters in the past. When I hear from the state agency; I will again update everyone with the same instructions as in the past. Instructions to share your opinions with the agency.

You may recall, while the project in our area did not receive the funding (in part due to our overwhelming feedback), a development in the surrounding area (Lake Murray Boulevard) was approved.

Last week, I spoke with a reporter who asked about the changes in the Ballentine and surrounding area. I shared with him that it’s ovvious everyone wants to move here because of our outstanding schools and proximity to the lake and retail; we just need to be sure what’s being built doesn’t negatively impact our infrastructure and safety.

While I never have a vote on local zoning issues, in my role as a state official (with SCDOT), I will work to help reduce any complications from growth in the area. I ask that each of you stay informed and give your input to the decision makers that approve the local zoning changes in the Town of Chapin, Town of Irmo, or on Richland County Council.

Becoming a member of the Ballentine-Dutch Fork Civic Association is just one way to stay informed!

Below are previous posts related to these proposed projects in our area. Ultimately, each project was not awarded state tax-credits and the developer then decided against building without them.

July 19, 2016 Update Proposed Housing Development

UPDATE: Proposed Housing Developments

April 27, 2016 Update Housing Projects Proposes for Area

UPDATE: Housing projects proposed for area

March 29, 2016 Back again Proposed Housing Development Submits Application

Back again: Proposed Housing Development submits application

July 19, 2013 Not funded – Bickley Manor Project

NOT FUNDED! Bickley Manor Project

May 21, 2013 The Latest on Bickley Manor Project

THE LATEST on “Bickley Manor Project”

April 19, 2013 Another Update on Bickley Manor Project

Another UPDATE on “Bickley Manor” project

March 18, 2013 Update on Proposed Housing Development in Ballentine

UPDATE on proposed housing development in Ballentine

March 12, 2013 Your Input on New Proposed Housing in Ballentine

Your input on proposed housing in Ballentine?

UPDATE: Proposed Housing Developments

scbanner

Wanted to keep you informed of the proposed developments (The Park at Lake Murray, The Point at Lake Murray). Pictured above are the Preliminary Scores for each development. Obviously, too small to read. You can click here to review the scores.

As I read the list, it appears 22 developments received higher scores than these two. I also notice that the proposals in Irmo (Lexington County) and Chapin (Lexington County) received higher scores than these two in our area. As previously shared on NathansNews, I’ve been there is only funding for 20 of the 42 submitted projects.

Per the schedule on the SC Housing website , it is anticipated that notification of the Final Tax Credit Reservations will be made in late July to early August 2016.

While I do not get a “vote” on these matters. I have shared your concerns. If you have questions/concerns/support, you can either:

1) Email me directly at NathanBallentine@schouse.gov with the title “The Park and The Pointe” (names of the 2 almost identical proposals) and I will forward you emails to the SC State Housign Finance and Development Authority
or
2) Email Laura Nicholson directly (please cc: me at email above) at her address: Laura.Nicholson@schousing.com

As soon as I hear if these projects received tax credits (or not), I will share with you!

UPDATE: Housing projects proposed for area

scbanner

Nathan’s News readers will recall last month I shared the news of 2 housing projects proposed for our area .

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) is designed to provide an incentive to owners developing multifamily rental housing. Developments that may qualify for credits include new construction, acquisition with rehabilitation, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. Owners of and investors in qualifying developments can use the credit as a dollar-for-dollar reduction of federal income tax liability. Allocations of credits are used to leverage public, private and other funds in order to keep rents to tenants affordable.

Today, I asked additional questions from the SC Housing Authority and was given these timeframes:

* Preliminary scores for each project should be posted mid-to-late June
* Awards are anticipated to be announced in mid-August

Of the 42 projects that applied, funding will only be available for 20 projects.

I appreciate your feedback here on the website, via email and particularly emails and letters sent to SC Housing.

As usual, I will keep everyone informed.

(Note: Very similar project was not approved years ago in our area).

Back again: Proposed Housing Development submits application

Letter

URGENT: DEADLINE TO HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD IS THURSDAY, APRIL 7th

Readers may recall a few years ago, a federal-tax credit development was proposed for our area. By law, Members of the General Assembly are to be notified of applications made in their districts.

These developments have been trying to pop up in Chapin and Irmo for some time. Including 1 currently proposed for Chapin.

Just as I did years ago (and actually last month when I received a letter from a consultant working for this development group), I shared what you have asked me to share in the past. Our community does not have a need for these facilities nor do we have the current infrastructure in place to support it.

We have a lot of growth as it is that goes unchecked or unquestioned at the county level. I’m glad members of the General Assembly are dialed in on these federal-tax credit projects so that we can speak for the community and not have a local council or commission approve a change without the community knowing about it.

While I do not get a “vote” on these matters. I do get to share my response and ask that you share yours as well.

To have your voice heard, you can do one of two things:

1) Email me directly at NathanBallentine@schouse.gov with the title “The Park and The Pointe” (names of the 2 almost identical proposals) and I will forward you emails to the SC State Housign Finance and Development Authority

or

2) Email Laura Nicholson directly (please cc: me at email above) at her address: Laura.Nicholson@schousing.com

There are currently more than 40 developments vying for tax credits. These 2 or our community along with 1 in Irmo (Lake Murray Boulevard/Lexington) and 1 in Chapin.

For a complete list of all 40+ projects in the state, click here and then select 2016 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program List

The Pointe

UPDATE on proposed housing development in Ballentine

*** UPDATING you (Monday, March 18th, 4:30pm) from an earlier post on the website. My additional comments are listed beneath the letter I am sharing today ***

The South Carolina State Housing Finance and Development Authority has responded to my letter and Senator Courson’s letter which shared our objection to the proposed Wendover development. The letter reads:

“The Authority is in receipt of your letter opposing the proposed development by Wendover Housing Partners, LLC called Bickley Manor (#13042) on a site across from Ballentine Elementary School. The Authority received a total of 65 applications fro proposed developments throughout the state as part of the Auhtority’s 2013 Tax Credit Application Cycle. The tax credit funding cycle is an annual competitive funding cycle which is governed by a document called the 2013 Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP).

One of the requirements of the QAP is that the site be properly zoned for the proposed development and that the developer have site control. Both of these preliminary requirements have been met. As Applications continue on through the review process, they must also meet market and financial/underwriting criteria to ensure financial feasibility. Further, the QAP outlines other criteria all developments must meet in order to be considered competitive and are point scored using the same criteria. A copy of the criteria is attached ( Part One , Part Two ). At th eend of the review process, Applications having the highest point scores receive an allocation of tax credits. The Authority anticipates making aware announcements in July and anticipates funding 16-17 developments.

In recognition of your objection, we have asked a representative from Wendover Housing Partners, LLC to contact you to discuss the concerns of both you and your constituents as it relates to the proposed development.”

(end of letter)

From Nathan: I called the Authority again this morning and spoke directly to Laura Nicholson and Valarie Williams. They shared the same information that is listed above and attached. I wanted to also share my “takeway” from today’s conversations.

1) Apparently the land IS zoned for this development AND there is a current sales contract. Those are 2 of the “first hurdles” for developers. For those of us against the project (and I’ve yet to hear anyone from this area say they are FOR the project), this news is not good.

2) The “good news” I heard is that there are 65 applications throughout the state for these projects and the state will und between 16-17 projects. (Of course, that still means “there’s a chance” this happens but less likely than I had feared). Basically, one-in-four will get funded AND that assumes all 65 applications are scored with the same score such that all 65 are competing against each other. If 20 scored “perfectly” but Wendover did not; Wendover would not get the tax credit. I would feel that would severely change Wendover’s desire to build but would need to ask our local councilman to keep us informed if the contract for purchase of land still went through.

3) For those that clicked on the links above, you’ll see how these applications are “scored”. I was told last year out of 82 applicatinos, 65 had “perfect scores”. That meant only 65 of 82 projects were even considered. And of those 65 “perfect scores” the state only funded 15.

4) Our feedback is not a PRIMARY factor involved in the ‘scoring process’ but it will be taken into account in any “tiebreaker” situations. What I learned that meant was “all things being equal” (scoring of projects) those projects with OPPOSITION would not be considered for funding over projects that did not have opposition.

What does this all mean (at least MY OPINION), this is obviously not a “done deal” yet (although I was concerned to hear the zoning is ok and there is a sales contract pending) and it appears to me there’s a long way to go for this out-of-state developer to get his tax credits approved. (Again, state should only have funding for 16 or 17 of these 65 applications; Wendover project being one of those 65).

Please feel free to share your input (opposed or supportive) to the Authority as outlined in my earlier post last week. I will obviously work with our local County Councilman Bill Malinowski and our Senator, John Courson, and other area elected officials to keep everyone informed as I learn more.

Your input on proposed housing in Ballentine?

Below is an email I received from the Ballentine-Dutch Fork Civic Association. It appears it’s a forward from our local County Councilman, Bill Malniowski asking for your input on a proposed Housing Development in our area.

As information, here is the letter I sent last week on your behalf. As Councilman Malinowski mentions, a letter from you can also help.

*****

This relates to the previous e-mails regarding the low income apartments they want to put across from Ballentine Elementary school. This would be 56 apartments of low income housing. There are already new apartments on 176 which have 316 units as well as new apartments on Marina Road of 216 apartments. The developers claim that their “market research” indicates this type of housing is needed in Ballentine due to the increase in “retail business”. Is this what you want your community to be for the future, consisting of continual apartments. This is not the right direction for our town of Ballentine.

Subject: Wendover Housing Project

Please have as many people as possible IMMEDIATELY write letters of objection to the housing project across from Ballentine Elementary school. While it may not be possible to get them all in one envelope for a thicker, more impressive stack of letters, at least get them sent out ASAP.

They should be addressed to Ms. Laura Nicholson, Development Director, SC State Housing Finance & Development Authority, 300-C Outlet Pointe Blvd., Columbia, SC 29210.

The letter should state why he/she feels Wendover Housing Partners, LLC of Altamonte Springs, Florida should be denied their request for Low Income Housing Tax Credits to construct 56 units of just over 3 acres across from Ballentine Elementary School.

Some of those reasons could be the overcrowding of schools already at or exceeding capacity, increased traffic delays and congestion, the lack of need for this type of housing in the Ballentine area, and no public transportation to get residents to jobs that will obviously be located somewhere else in the Midlands area since there is no real job market here.

If you had time to review the market research/analysis conducted the person who did it is comparing the need for this type of housing to already existing and filled developments in the Harbison area, stating it is only 6 miles away. That is a totally ridiculous comparison in an effort to skew the figures. It would be like saying a need for low income housing exists in Shandon or Forest Acres because they need it in W. Cola or Cayce.

Since their application was due at the Authority by last Friday get those letters out now.

Bill Malinowski

The Weekly Rewind: Week of April 5th

House Floor Review
April 7, 2022

The House amended, gave third reading and sent to the Senate H. 4608, the “Save Women’s Sports Act.” The bill expresses the intent of General Assembly “to maintain opportunities for female athletes…and to provide them with…numerous other long-term benefits that result from participating and competing in athletic endeavors.” Athletic teams and sports must adopt a sex-specific designation in order to “maintain fairness for women’s athletic opportunities.”

The following activities are covered by the bill: interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, and club athletic teams sponsored by a public secondary school or public postsecondary institution. Teams or sports must be expressly designated as one of the following: males, men, or boys; females, women, or girls; or, coed or mixed (both males and females). Male sports or teams may allow female participation; however, female sports or teams are not open to males.
For the purposes of the bill, biological sex is determined at a team or sport member’s birth. A birth certificate is considered to correctly state an athlete’s biological sex if it is filed at, or near, the time of their birth. Students subjected to retaliation or other adverse actions by a school, public postsecondary institution, or athletic organization for reporting a violation of the law may file a private cause of action for injunctive relief, damages, and other relief available under law. Schools or public postsecondary institutions that suffer direct or indirect harm as a result of a violation of this section may bring a private cause of action for injunctive relief, damages, and any other relief available under law against the governmental entity, licensing or accrediting organization, or athletic association.

The House sent H. 5215 to the Senate. The bill authorizes a “University of South Carolina 2017 and 2022 Women’s Basketball National Champions’ Special License Plates.”

H. 3205 Constitutional Convention of the States was ratified as R. 141, and then sent to the Governor for his signature. It authorizes making an application to the US Congress to call a convention for proposing constitutional amendments pursuant to the US Constitution, Article V. The scope of this convention is limited to proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and Congressional members.

The House approved and sent the Senate H. 5198, a bill to restructure the University of South Carolina Board of Trustees. The legislation provides for the terms of the current elected and appointed trustees to expire on June 30, 2023, and makes provisions for a reconstituted board that is reduced in number from twenty to thirteen voting members (with no holdovers allowed).

Under the revisions, the General Assembly elects one board member from each of the state’s seven congressional districts, rather than from the sixteen judicial circuits. The General Assembly elects four at-large members each of whom must reside in a county in which the University of South Carolina operates a branch campus. No board member can reside in the same county as another board member. The legislation establishes a two-year term for the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and provides that a Chairman may serve no more than two terms.

The Governor appoints two at-large members. In addition, the Governor cannot preside over any meeting of this board. In addition to these thirteen voting members, the reconstituted board has three nonvoting ex-officio members: the governor, the president of the Greater University of South Carolina Alumni Association, and the president of the student body of the University of South Carolina’s Columbia campus. In any event, the student body president’s term will last while they serve as such, and no longer.

Elections will be held to set up this newly-constituted board, and initial board members’ terms staggered so that all board positions will not expire at the same time again. Nothing in these revisions prevents current board members from seeking re-election to this board.

The House approved the proposed committee amendment, gave third reading and sent to the Senate H. 3840, a bill that establishes the “Audiology and Speech-Language Interstate Compact Act.” The purpose of this compact is to facilitate interstate practice of audiology and speech-language pathology with the goal of improving public access to the services. Among many things, this bill sets minimum education and training requirements for audiologist and speech language pathologist in member states. In addition, a participating licensee must have a current unrestricted license to practice in home state and must have no history of disciplinary actions or criminal records that violates the rules of the compact. The bill adds that the department shall require a national criminal records check, supported by fingerprints, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The House approved the proposed committee amendment, gave second reading, and sent to the Senate H. 4614, a bill that allows Sunday hunting on wildlife management area (WMA) lands owned by the Department of Natural Resources or leased from the USDA Forest Service. Currently, there is a ban on Sunday hunting. The department must submit a regulation dealing with Sunday hunting to be filed for General Assembly review no later than December 31, 2022. The bill also includes that prior to final regulation submission, the regulation shall be referred to the House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee for approval. This bill outlines that the purchaser/buyer of real property is solely responsible for investigating off site conditions of the property including but not limited to adjacent properties being used for agricultural purposes.
The House amended, approved, and sent the Senate H. 5057, annual tax conformity legislation. The legislation updates references to the federal Internal Revenue Code in state income tax law provisions to provide for coordination between state and federal income tax law provisions. For tax year 2021, South Carolina adopts the federal exclusion from gross income for targeted Economic Injury Disaster Loan advances received from the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the federal exclusion from gross income for restaurant revitalization grant amounts received from the SBA as provided in the American Rescue Plan Act.

H. 3730 was ratified as R. 142, and then sent to the Governor for his signature. This bill would provide the additional circumstance of “other on-track equipment” (e.g., maintenance equipment) that would require a driver of a motor vehicle to stop a vehicle approaching a railroad grade crossing in order to obey a signal that indicates an approaching train. The House earlier concurred in the Senate’s amendments to H. 3730. The Senate deleted a section that included restrictions and fines on railroad companies for loitering locomotives and tardy trains, believing this to be a federal prerogative.
H. 4618 was ratified as R. 144, and then sent to the Governor for his signature. The bill regards bus definitions and stopping requirements at railroad tracks. The House amendment also clarified stopping requirements involving hazardous materials. These changes conform with federal law.
The House amended, gave third reading and sent to the Senate H. 4999, legislation giving DHEC another method to address hazardous waste cleanup. The legislation introduces the option of doing a site specific cleanup approach using a risk-based methodology, which means that each site would be viewed individually and evaluated with respect to its specific circumstances and risks posed to that site, its neighbors, air, land, surface, and groundwater. Current and future planned uses would also be taken into account. Current hazardous waste cleanup laws have not been really updated in the last 40 years, and this legislation takes into account that incidents do not need the same clean up approach. This, as a result, allows for a quicker turn around in the cleanup process. It is noted that some hazardous waste cannot be cleaned up to a suitable level and would require land use restrictions for the property. [Read more…]