Sunday, May 31, 1998

Fairway Oaks apartment proposal draws more fire

By ROBERT KALAFUT / Guest Columnist

I chuckled after reading the "Apartments drawing fire from Fairway" article in the Abilene Reporter-News on May 17. The author attempted to scold the owners of "Fairway's tony homes" for their resentment to the construction of low-cost housing immediately contiguous to Fairway Oaks.

The writer of this article categorically stated that this project "won't be a federally subsidized haven for welfare recipients."

Let us expose this statement to some sunlight and factually examine its assertions.

First, is the project "federally subsidized"?

It is elementary that the project is federally funded. Those who will profit from this apartment complex are selling their tax credits to third-party taxpaying corporations for approximately 65 cents on the dollar.

The corporations that purchase these tax credits then receive credits on their tax from Uncle Sam for 100 percent of the tax credit.

Our liberal-prone government is therefore subsidizing the construction of these projects to the tune of 35 percent of the value of the credits. This can come to millions of dollars.

It is now incumbent to examine the assertion of whether the project will be a "haven for welfare recipients," as the writer denies.

As proposed, individuals and families would be eligible for occupancy to these subsidized units if they earned less than $13,150 for a one-person household; less than $15,000 for a two-person household; or less than $20,220 for a three-person household.

There are slight variations to the above; however, for purpose of this demonstration they are sufficient.

It should be noticed that the earnings of the proposed occupants must "not exceed" the amounts noted above. It should therefore be assumed that an individual earning $10,000 would qualify for a one-person household and a family earning $14,000 would qualify for a larger apartment.

Pursuant to the 1998 Department of Health and Human Services guidelines, a family of four earning less than $16,450 is living in poverty. It is therefore evident that the individuals who will be tenants in these government-subsidized apartments will be those whom the government classifies as poverty-stricken.

The article misleads the public and is not quite truthful when it states that the kind of people who will live in these apartments would be working families with "salaries like those of a starting policeman or teacher."

The starting salaries of teachers and policemen are abysmal, but it is a revelation to discover that the actual amount is less than $13,150 and $15,000 respectively.

The increase in real estate taxes in Fairway Oaks has been astronomical over the past several years. There can be no rational doubt if Elm Creek Village Apartments come to fruition that property taxes will continue to increase due to a dramatic influx of children into the Wylie school district.

Valuation of the homes will go down, but taxes will increase.

The residents of Fairway Oaks are not insulated from reality and/or responsibility. They are cognizant that the poor and underprivileged are the responsibility of a civilized society.

If the builder and real estate broker were so conscious of their obligation to the underprivileged, why didn't they consult with the leaders of Fairway Oaks?

Why was it necessary to discover the clandestine efforts of the builder through a legal notice in the local newspaper on April 14?

The problems of the needy are real. However, they will not be solved by half-truths by their advocates.

Robert Kalafut of Abilene is a retired judge of the Struthers, Ohio, Municipal Court.