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 March 9th

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
March 9 – 11, 2021

The House approved and sent the Senate H. 3770, a joint resolution authorizing the expenditure of federal funds disbursed to the state to assist those who are unable to pay rent and utilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The legislation creates the South Carolina Emergency Rental Assistance Program administered by the South Carolina State Housing Financing and Development Authority (SC Housing), under the direction of its board of commissioners, and establishes an advisory panel to review and monitor the implementation and evaluation of the program and funding. Program assistance addresses renter households in which at least one individual: (a) qualifies for unemployment or has experienced a reduction in household income, incurred significant costs, or experienced a financial hardship due to COVID-19; (b) demonstrates a risk of experiencing homelessness or housing instability; and (c) has a household income at or below eighty percent of the area median. Priority is given to eligible households where someone has been unemployed for at least ninety days and households with income at or below fifty percent of the area median. The South Carolina Emergency Rental Assistance Program does not administer the share of federal funds that seven South Carolina counties claimed directly by completing the application process to run their own rental assistance programs. Program funds may not be awarded for residents of Anderson, Berkeley, Charleston, Greenville, Horry, Richland, or Spartanburg counties unless there are additional funds remaining after obligating funds to all other eligible residents in the state.

The House approved and ordered to third reading H.3105, the “South Carolina Religious Freedom Act.” This proposed legislation that was sent to the Senate this week deems religious services in houses of worship as essential services during states of emergency. As such, they would be allowed to continue operating throughout the duration of any declared states of emergency.

The House of Representatives concurred in Senate amendments to H. 3609 and enrolled the joint resolution for ratification. This joint resolution would restore teacher step salary increases that were suspended by Act 135 of 2020 (enacted by the General Assembly due to financial uncertainties caused by the COVID-19 virus). The legislation appropriates $50 million dollars from the 2018-2019 Contingency Reserve Fund to provide for teacher step increases for the 2020-2021 school year.

The House amended, approved, and sent to the Senate H. 3444, proposed legislation to clarify State Election Commission Statewide Authority. It would establish the ultimate authority of the State Election Commission to ensure standardized performance, conduct, and practices by county boards of elections and voter registration. In addition, the SEC would ensure that county commissions administer elections and voter registration in our state and comply with applicable state or federal laws, as well as all State Election Commission policies, procedures, and regulations.

The House amended, approved and sent to the Senate H. 3225, legislation that increases awareness of the rising maternal morbidity rate for African American women by enacting the “South Carolina Dignity in Pregnancy and Childbirth Act.” Among the bill’s findings: American women die in childbirth at a higher rate than in any other developed country and African American women have a three to four times higher risk of dying from pregnancy complications than other women. South Carolina maternal mortality rates among African American women have soared by over 300 percent in recent years. The bill creates a study committee to examine, a) the maternal mortality rate among non-Hispanic Black women in South Carolina and how this varies from the rates experienced by other women; b) the maternal mortality data associated with perinatal care, including by race or ethnicity, to determine any statewide trends, statistically significant differences in maternal mortality rates among races or ethnicities, and reasons for the differences; and c) all methods and practices that will improve rates of maternal mortality among non-Hispanic Black women in South Carolina. This thirteen-member study committee shall provide a report that outlines findings and recommendations to the General Assembly by January 1, 2022.

The House approved and sent to the Senate H. 3821, a bill to enact the “South Carolina Uniform Transfers to Minors Act.” This bill updates existing law and establishes a more modern method for, and a uniform manner of making, transfers of custodial property for the benefit of minors. This proposed legislation repeals existing, outmoded law covering these transfers.

H. 3925 was recalled from the Education Committee, subsequently amended, approved by the House and sent to the Senate. This joint resolution would waive the requirement that new homeschooled students must wait one year prior to participating in public school interscholastic activities for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. The bill specifically requires that eligible students must have been enrolled in a public school for the beginning of either the 2019-2020 school year or 2020-2021 school year.

The House concurred in Senate amendments to H. 3608 and enrolled the legislation for ratification. This joint resolution addresses a funding shortfall for the Public Charter School District as a result of the General Assembly enacting Act 135 of 2020 due to financial uncertainties caused by the COVID-19 virus. The legislation appropriates $9 million dollars from the 2018-2019 Contingency Reserve Fund to the Department of Education for distribution to the Public Charter School District, including the Charter Institute at Erskine, for per pupil funding for the 2020-2021 School Year. This funding shall not be used for administrative salary increases. The legislation also provides that, in the current fiscal year, a charter school sponsor may, but is not required to, approve charter applications that meet statutory requirements.

The House amended, approved and sent to the Senate H. 3024, legislation authorizing the issuance of mobile barbershop permits. This bill authorizes the Board of Barber Examiners to issue mobile barbershop permits, establish permit requirements, and provide for regulations of mobile barbershops. Inspections must be conducted on mobile barbershops and upon satisfactory inspection, the board shall issue a bi-annual permit to be affixed within the mobile barbershop as prescribed by the board. In addition, the board shall issue a permit card to be carried by the barber when practicing barbering through a portable barber operation. At all times, a licensed barber must be in charge and present during the operation of a mobile barbershop and is responsible for all barbering services provided at the mobile barbershop.

The House approved S. 287 and enrolled it for ratification. The Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation may require physical therapists and physical therapy assistants to have a state and national criminal records background check (supported by fingerprints) performed as a requirement for eligibility for initial licensure. The applicant is responsible for the costs of conducting these background checks.

The House amended, approved and sent to the Senate H. 3308, a bill that increases the watercraft idle speed wake distance to within fifty feet of a moored or anchored vessel or a person in the water or one