Guest Opinion: A Village Trustee Weighs In On Trumansburg Housing

By Rachel Kennedy

A recent opinion piece in The Ithaca Voice was, I believe, given an unfortunate title: “22 Residents Say ‘Yes in My Backyard.’”
The title obscured the purpose and sentiment of the piece, which is not a call to rubber stamp the proposed development at 46 South St. in Trumansburg, or any development, but to reflect on life in Trumansburg, and who it is for. It was triggered by a letter distributed door to door, in reaction to the proposal, that warned of outsiders and change in discriminatory language. That letter called for the preservation of the “Trumansburg Way of Life.” But, as the 22 residents ask, what is the Trumansburg Way of Life, and who decides?

The authors and signers of the opinion piece are open to the proposed project, but no less alert to the importance of the planning process, which all agree should be rigorous, thoughtful, and public. As of this writing, there is not yet a plan for review on the planning board table. An application is anticipated in mid-August. Based on concept plans presented at a community meeting in May (available to view at SouthStreetProject.org), residents are trying to hash out what a change like this will mean for the village they love.

The neighborhood may feel and look differently than it does now. The view from some backyards bordering the property could change dramatically. Understandably, there are questions and opinions about density, traffic, design, environmental impact, and the processes in place for the village planning board to shepherd a project of this size to a satisfying conclusion. And, threading in and out of the conversation are concerns about who will live at 46 South St., as the proposal offers a range of options for affordability. I write this not in the hopes of addressing every concern, but in an attempt to balance out the claim some have made that the fabric of the community is threatened. I would argue that the change we fear, a degradation of Trumansburg “character,” may come if more affordable choices do not arrive.

A stable community is one that has a diversity of housing, for different circumstances and for all stages of life. Among those who want to live in Trumansburg are young adults who were once children here, seniors who wish to downsize, and those who work in or around Trumansburg. For some, renting is a preference. For others, it is a necessity because of traditionally lower costs. And for many young families, it is an opportunity to save toward a future home purchase. Without affordable rental and for-sale options, Trumansburg may cease to be a place where people of all ages and means can make a life and grow into the long term residents who sustain the community. New housing opportunities will keep our streets and schools lively, and strengthen our Main Street business district, which we cherish, and which can’t be taken for granted. I would argue that our community may be threatened, rather than preserved, by the current housing situation.

According to the Tompkins County comprehensive plan, median home purchase prices in the county almost doubled between 2000-2013. In 2014, nearly 1 in 3 homeowners and 2 in 3 renters spent more than 30 percent of income on housing, which is more than the standard for affordability established by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 2014, according to the New York Times, Tompkins County had the 11th highest housing costs relative to income in the nation.
Last month, the National Low Income Housing Coalition reported that the national Housing Wage, or the hourly wage a full-time worker must earn to afford a modest two bedroom apartment at HUD’s average fair market rent is $21.21 per hour, or just over $44,000 annually. This is more than twice the current New York State and Tompkins County minimum wage of $9.70 per hour.

Cost of housing is outpacing wage growth, and many people who want to live in Trumansburg because of family ties, because they work here, or because they want to work here can’t afford to. A development like this could help close this gap, with mixed income housing options available for rent and for sale. To achieve a mixed income development, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service, one of the partners proposing to develop here, sets aside rental units for people at various income levels, from low to moderate, based on county medians. Rent is based on 30 percent of income, and there is a minimum and a maximum income allowed for each type of unit.

The numbers for “affordability” are surprising.
According to INHS, to qualify for the moderate income tier of 3 bedroom apartments, the maximum allowable income is $68,000. This bears emphasizing. Your income could be $55,771, the median salary for a school teacher in the T’burg district, and your family may qualify for affordable housing. Costs are that high. And certainly, units are also made available to workers earning at or closer to minimum wage, for whom the obstacles to housing security are profound.

Speaking to density and housing types, it is true that this proposal does not emphasize detached single family homes, which have been a building block of the American dream for decades, but are by no means the only good option, nor necessarily the best option for the future. Who is to say the American dream cannot be reshaped?

The “missing middle” is the term given to the housing gap that exists between single family housing and multi-story apartment buildings. Filling in this missing middle may help solve some of the problems associated with affordability and environmental costs associated with sprawl, or the creeping expansion of development into rural areas.

This model for housing is relatively dense, and located so to optimize walkability. The units have smaller footprints and therefore use fewer materials and less energy. The proposed location in Trumansburg is close to the village center, and to public transportation, which may respond to higher demand with increased service. Every teenager may desire a car, but excuses will be fewer if they live within walking distance to school and community amenities.

A neighborhood of this scale may strengthen community through its shared spaces and the opportunities for socializing that are sometimes missing in the model of housing that prioritizes single family homes on relatively large lots. Interestingly, the density of the current proposal, at upward of 80 units on 19 acres, is approximately 4 units per acre, or a lot size just over 10,000 square feet.

This is not unusual in the village; more than 20 percent of existing residential lots are smaller than 15,000 square feet. Simply for comparison, using a neighborhood with which most of us are familiar: Fall Creek in Ithaca has a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet, or more than 14 units per acre. With multi-family units, the housing in the proposed development may be concentrated differently than the village norm, but this allows for more continuous green space within the lots.

The world is changing. This is an argument that is used to justify all sorts of things, and I will use it here to justify the need for new housing types in our village. I’ve heard some opponents of this proposal say, essentially, that they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to live in Trumansburg, and therefore others should. I would suggest that bootstraps are getting longer.

A house in Trumansburg currently valued at just under $230,000 according to Zillow.com was purchased in 1999 for $110,000, so the value is estimated to have doubled in a little less than 20 years. On another side of town, a home currently valued at $360,000 was purchased in 2010 for a little more than $200,000.

Granted, these home values are estimates, and home improvements can dramatically impact value, but a quick glance at estimated home values, as well as historical assessment and sale data for our village and county, tells a story. Our village comprehensive plan prioritizes economic and cultural diversity and affordable housing options, and we will need creative solutions and commitment to achieve such goals. And again, while I respect the need for a rigorous planning process, I believe this proposal is a step, albeit a big one, in the right direction toward a strong, vibrant future for Trumansburg.

A second community meeting with developers Claudia Brenner and INHS is scheduled for 7-9 p.m., July 13, at the Trumansburg Conservatory of Fine Arts, located at 5 McLallen St.
The Trumansburg Planning Board meets at 7 p.m. on the 4th Thursdays of the month in the Village Hall.
– – –
Rachel Kennedy is a trustee of the Village of Trumansburg; this is her opinion, not a statement from the village board.