Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Eco-Homesteaders

A young developer wants to bring New Urbanism to the Spokane Valley. But she needs everyone's help.

Luke Baumgarten
Cassie Price, left, and her father, Ross Taylor, walk their family property in Spokane Valley. [Photo: Young Kwak]
Cassie Price, left, and her father, Ross Taylor, walk their family property in Spokane Valley. [Photo: Young Kwak]
Cassie Price, left, and her father, Ross Taylor, walk their family property in Spokane Valley. [Photo: Young Kwak]

The land rises until the field becomes a hill. It rises until the trailers and split-levels lining its north end give way to the McMansions bordering its south. It rises away from the infrastructure of the Sprague/Appleway couplet until the roads become dirt and the communities become gated.

This is the land Cassie Price’s family homesteaded.

For nearly 100 years, her ancestors have owned various parcels of this ragged rectangle until, in 1991, all 195 acres came to belong to her father, Ross Taylor.

It is this land — the largest spit of dirt left in Spokane’s urban growth boundary — that Price and Taylor want to develop into a low-impact, mixed-use, cooperative-built, neighbor-focused, LEED-certified green community. It is land she and her father are in danger of losing altogether.

If things go to plan, in a little under a month, father and daughter will have raised the $2.5 million they need to shore up their debt and begin a project that they believe will create a neighborhood akin to Browne’s Addition or South Perry just off Park Road near the Dishman Hills Natural Area. If things go to plan, you — 26,000 of you, whoever you are — will have pitched in some cash.

If things do not go to plan, in a little under 45 days, Taylor’s lender will seize the property.

And while father and daughter talk about their last-ditch effort with the conviction of believers, both acknowledge that nothing has gone to plan in a long time.

At the turn of the century, the family’s land supported a pig farm, a dairy, a slaughterhouse, a rendering plant and an illicit still for moonshine in the woods above the valley floor. Price’s grandfather was born on this land in 1916. His parents were among the six original families that settled the area. Her grandmother and her great-grandparents came in 1928, from up the hill in Chester.

The land is still out of the way, but it’s also within the urban growth boundary. From here, it is only three minutes to Millwood and 11 minutes to downtown Spokane. Park Road already has a bike lane. “We didn’t even have to ask for it,” Price says.

Taylor says the neighbors are still friendly, the way they were when he was growing up. It was a community back then. It ceased to be a community, Taylor says, “when everything got cookie-cutter.”

The man has, for decades, wanted this to be a community again. Price says it wasn’t necessarily a green project that percolated in her father’s mind all those years, but “he’d always envisioned a mixed-use village sort of thing.” A development not just with houses and streets but with sidewalks and trails and a little stream with a bridge over it and lots of common spaces. A development with a town center — restaurants, cafes, offices — a place where people could live, work and play and not need to drive. Price wants the buildings to have a net-zero energy footprint, meaning they make as much energy — with solar power and geothermal — as they use.

The land here — the 195 acres owned by the Taylors and another 19 kicked in by like-minded neighbors — can support 1,100 units of residential. Price wants to cap it at 700, leaving the rest of the space for commerce, recreation and gathering, open to anyone.

That’s the dream. Then there’s the reality.

In November 2006, Taylor borrowed $2 million to get his dream off the ground. He began plans for Phase One of construction, engineering and infrastructure. By 2008, there were signs that the market was starting to collapse. That spring, Taylor’s health started to go with it. He got pneumonia in May, then suffered two pulmonary embolisms in July. “You’re apparently not supposed to survive those,” Price says.

He signed over power of attorney to his daughter, but her focus for the next few months was caring for him. They were paying $20,000 a month in interest on the loan, and when her attention turned back to the project, she realized the money that was supposed to get them through building infrastructure wasn’t even enough to start.

And it isn’t true to say the land is pure upside. There’s basically nothing around it. The closest grocery store is two miles away, if you count Costco as a grocery store. The closest coffee shop is a mile. The closest place to buy a book is a porn shop that probably doesn’t stock Little Women. The closest bank is a Citibank ATM.

But that’s their main reason for wanting to create a town center. Taylor and Price want to draw people to their community whether those people live in it or not. But that might be a problem. Jim Frank of Greenstone Homes worries, without having specific knowledge of Taylor’s plans, that the area around the development doesn’t have the density to support a lot of retail. Regardless of how utopian and beautiful the plan, he says, “You still have to use the normal principles of retail development.” That means several thousand households within a mile radius of a grocery store, for example.

Proponents of New Urbanism — which values walkable, compact, mixed-use development — say that you can get by with lower density in areas where people are committed to driving, which people in the Valley certainly are. Wal- Marts in the Dakotas draw people from 100 miles away. Taylor and Price just need to draw them from five or 10, where there are 70,000 and 140,000 households, respectively.

Price thinks that’s not unreasonable. She thinks their land can become a magnet for folks in Opportunity and Millwood and maybe even Greenacres and Lincoln Heights.

“There are a lot of people hungry for community,” she says.

For four years, people have been telling Taylor and Price that their dream is a good dream, if it wasn’t for the reality of things.

A market analysis conducted by RCLCO, a national firm that advises on real estate and development, rated the project an “A-” overall, saying that a “master-planned community that follows the theme of sustainability” would do exceedingly well at the price points that Price and her father have worked out. It rated the project favorably against all other comparable projects in Spokane and the Valley, including Greenstone Homes’ River District development.

Greater Spokane Incorporated issued a report last week saying that the Taylor project would create jobs in the area’s green sector. The chamber of commerce estimates the housing aspect of the project alone will bring nearly $180 million in economic activity. The mixed-use and retail side of the plan — which is years off — would add close to another $2 million, along with 25 new jobs and over $500,000 in salaries.

Local green builders and architects are excited about it, too.

While the location worries him, Jim Frank says the commitment to building common space is a smart one. People have begun to see the value of sacrificing a little private space for greater public space, and the people who like the idea — Generation Y and retirees — are the fastest-growing segments of the housing market. “You don’t walk your dog in your yard, you walk your dog on the trail with your neighbor,” Frank says, “It’s not for everybody, but a lot of people like that value proposition.”

Gavin Tenold, the owner of Pura Vida Homes, a sustainable builder, says, “I’m excited to see someone step up to the plate and attempt to use energy efficiency in the development model rather than just the construction side of things.” He says he’s not worried about a project like that taking off in this economic climate. He started Pura Vida just as everything went to hell. Tenold says it has grown “completely because we offer energy efficiency.”

Everyone who needs to believe in Taylor and Price’s project for it to succeed already believes in it. Everyone except the money people.

The list of people Price has approached to invest since 2008 runs on for three pages. “[I’ve talked to] brokers, banks, investment bankers, people on the Forbes [100] list,” she says, “I’ve written letters to Brad Pitt. ... I can’t believe he never got back to me.” Most of them say the same thing, she says. “It’s, ‘Cool project, too bad it’s right now. Wait five years.’” But Price and her father don’t have five years. When people say no, they say it “like they know I’m going to lose [the land] and any other thoughts are delusional,” Price says.

After all this, Price believes her last shot to save the family homestead is you. This week, started a funding drive on IndieGoGo, a crowdsourcing site like the ultra-popular Kickstarter. She is looking for $2.6 million dollars (the $2.5 million she needs plus the $100,000 the site will take as commission). Representatives for IndieGoGo have told her that the average donation she should expect is $100, which means she’s looking for 26,000 backers.

The conventional wisdom of crowd-sourcing is that 1 percent of everyone who sees your campaign will donate to it, which means Price needs to get 2.6 million sets of eyes on it.

Under normal circumstances, Price says, it’s not a good idea for developers to talk publicly about their problems. So much of getting financing is about lender confidence. She has already been turned down by everybody, though. There’s no one left to say no.

And so, although crowd-sourcing a housing development is not a traditional path, it feels like the only one left to her.

“Honestly,” she says, “it seems easier to get $100 from 26,000 people right now than to get 2.5 million from a single bank.”

Also in News

Local Limits

What stands between your shopping cart and local farmers

Heidi Groover |
Wednesday, May 15,2013

Feds Come Knocking

The feds scare a medical pot store from opening up; plus, how to help those displaced by last week’s fire

Heidi Groover, Deanna Pan |
Wednesday, May 15,2013

Rats Giggle Too

And that's a bigger deal than you might think

Daniel Walters |
Wednesday, May 15,2013

There's Not Enough Poverty In Kids' Books

A Whitworth researcher studies how picture books reflect the reality of American poverty

Deanna Pan |
Wednesday, May 15,2013

We Can Turn DNA into Music

An Eastern Washington University professor creates audio interpretations of living things

Seth Sommerfeld |
Wednesday, May 15,2013

Also By Luke Baumgarten

Accretion Formula

Daniel Orozco possesses the best parts of Charlie Sheen and a tortoise. He writes very slowly, and he is always winning.

Luke Baumgarten |
Wednesday, June 29,2011

Partly Cloudy

Luke Baumgarten |
Wednesday, August 30,2006

Disorder and Disarray

Luke Baumgarten |
Thursday, September 11,2008

Myles _on_

Luke Baumgarten |
Wednesday, June 14,2006


There are some major issues here: why are they about to lose their land? Before you invest your money, you may want to do your research and talk to some of the surrounding residents and find out why they oppose this so much. (This coming from someone who has resided in the "mcmansions" for 25 years.
How is building on top of virgin, wildlife filled land sustainable when we have places like the Ridpath that desperately need renovation and are a much more logical for this type of project? How is it more sustainable to build new construction when there are so many pre- existing homes on the market right now that cannot sell? And lastly, who is going to buy all these pre- built homes when there are so many pre existing on the market already? This project has a dark cloud looming over it for a reason. Please please do your research before "investing" in it. There is so much more to it than what is mentioned in this article. Apr 02, 2012 | Reply to this comment

 

I wrote this letter to Luke. Jennifer, this might address some of your points.

A couple of thoughts on the letters that you are getting. Since I haven’t seen them first hand, I’m going to take a guess at what they are referring to.
At the hearing for the preliminary plat (hearing sounds like litigation, but it’s routine for getting something approved), there were several people that stood up and said negative things. There were at least twice as many that stood up and said positive things.
I think what it boils down to is a case of NIMBY-ism. (Not In My Back Yard).
There were a few people that stood up and asked specific questions regarding traffic at a specific intersection or street or placement at schools.
The majority of the comments were “I don’t want it there because that’s the way it’s always been.”
I get where people are coming from because it’s the same place my family has dealt with for the last 100 years as they saw the land that used to be dairy and the orchards of the valley be turned into housing…. the houses that the people complaining now live in. It’s actually a sign of good urban planning, as the population of Spokane has increased, even though it can be hard to take.
There has never been a question about if this land would be developed. The question is by whom and when and most importantly, HOW. It has been zoned R-6 (6 units per acre) residential since zoning was introduced in Spokane the early 50’s. All but one parcel is within the growth management boundary since the line was struck in the early 1990’s. It is literally an island of bare land with houses surrounding it on all four sides.
Saying that it shouldn’t be developed is like saying that nothing south of 12th and north of 22nd should have been developed on the South Hill or the Valley.
The cogs have already started turning. The estate taxes and the property taxes and insurance are too costly to leave it as is. The debt makes it impossible to not develop it. If we didn’t develop it, and my Dad died, I would be forced to sell it to pay for the taxes, and I would have 9 months before the tax was due. As it is, the property taxes and the insurance are too costly for someone who is living on social security. The land, while beautiful, isn’t remarkable enough to do anything but develop in some capacity. My dream is that it’s developed ecologically and socially responsible.
If we lose the land, anyone who winds up with it will turn it into the maximum of density…1100 units. Or they could go try to put apartments there, since that is the only thing developers can get loans for right now.
At least if it stays with us, we are open to people having a say. That’s what we are proposing with the charette design process.
I have a heard a rumor that there were real estate agents that promised people that they land would never be developed or that it was state land. I can’t help that. It’s not true, and it’s never been promised or been of discussion. If people have had that experience, they need to go talk to who told them those things.
The best thing that the people writing you letters can do is it get behind the IndieGoGo campaign and support it. That way it stays with us, rather than going to someone who has no attachment to it. At least with us we have been crystal clear about our desire to develop it in a green and conscious way.
Apr 03, 2012 | Reply to this comment

 

I find it disheartening that this seemingly well-cared-for land, which includes a floodplain and supports indigenous wildlife, must be bulldozed and developed in order to be seen as valuable or "put to good use." most of the homes in the neighborhood were built in the 1970´s or earlier. Sustainability was not necessarily part of the vernacular at that time and I do not agree with the argument posed that, "They did it, so I get to." This is not the 70´s or the 90´s for that matter. Communities need to talk about these issues and consider the consequences of urban sprawl. Once that marshy field is gone, we cannot get it back. Let´s focus on the environmental impact. This land is not necessarily suitable for new development because it has a floodplain. The construction would have an adverse effect on the environment. Further, development would disrupt the migratory path of wildlife including deer and fowl, which continues through my own yard and into the Dishman Hills. I found moose droppings in my yard for God´s sake! If people want to donate their money toward green development, let´s rehabilitate older neighborhoods and places where the fields are already long gone rather than destroy another piece of nature. I will have no part in disrupting the ecosystem in my neighborhood! Apr 03, 2012 | Reply to this comment

 

Harvard: I couldn´t agree more. That is one of the main concerns from the surrounding community. This directly affects myself and many residents who have resided very close to where this will take place.

Cassie: As much as I completely agree with everything you mentioned and I TRULY WANT TO be of support to you, I cannot. If it was different circumstances, I would have no problem and would throw down on the cause. I like where your mind is at however, this directly affects a lot of people, their lifestyles and most of all wildlife. Those of us opposed, don’t want to give up, like you. If the banks get involved and try to go crazy with developing, we will fight it then too. At this point, it’s just a matter of taking it day by day.

Everyone has moved to the area because of the wildlife, the privacy, the quiet, and the lack of crime. Your plan completely changes that. The "not in my backyard" mindset is totally warranted and all of us that feel that way have every right to! It´s our home! We sure do have a right to such a big change taking place when we have put in the time and money to be here. You know that there are plenty of people that live in the "mcmansions" above that have the means to donate for this cause, but after much research, and the fact that this land is being developed for a completely personal agenda nobody wants to be a part of it. We understand the hardships that have gotten it to this point but why do we all have to suffer because of it?

But logically, even without being personally connected to this, I still have a hard time with it because of the fact that we have so many fannie mae owned homes out there right now and things like the Ridpath sitting in the middle of a metro area being used for nothing. As an investor, I would be very concerned because this screams “High Risk” due to the state of our economy and the fact that there are so many homes on the market now that STILL cannot sell. It just doesn’t make sense to develop untouched land when we have so much existing real estate lingering out there. There aren’t many places left like the Dishman Hills area/Park Hills Park Meadows area and to those of us that realize how much of a gem it is, want to keep it that way.


Apr 04, 2012 | Reply to this comment

 

Truth is there were people up in arms when those mcmansions went up in the virgin wilderness 20 years ago. Really the point is do you want a low density development now or a high density development in ten years, you arent going to be able to stop it unless you buy it. Its not your land , you own your land maybe you should buy it when it goes back to the bank. For the life of me I cant figure out how the a dilapidated old hotel in the heart of downtown figures into this equation? The population is still growing, people still need homes and maybe it would be good if people supported a different kind of development (for a change). It sounds like a place I would like to live. That being said some areas are more special than others and it would be nice to see a spot such as this just stay as it is, but... it will be developed by somebody, question is who? Apr 05, 2012 | Reply to this comment

 

Wow. Yes, the population is growing but we also have many homes on the market right now that those people can buy. For years perfectly good homes haven't been able to sell due to strict lending regulations and the state of our economy. So what, now we build more homes that will have a difficult time selling? How is that a responsible business plan? The Ridpath was brought into the equation because it is a perfectly good existing building that needs some renovation and could be used for sustainable condos or businesses....whatever. The fact is, why develop a perfectly good chunk of property right now when we have so many already vacant homes because of our state of economy? I find this wasteful. If it gets developed in 10 years, fine. It will be dealt with when it comes but for now, this mcmansion dweller won't be donating a dime along with the rest of them. nnThe land is about to foreclose. The banks clearly have a reason for not wanting to refinance. One word, RISK. So now their option is "crowd sourcing". To me it seems like pan-handling. The writing is on the wall. Knowing what I know about this specific situation, the developers are in this unfortunate situation because of their own choices. I don’t think it is my responsibility or anyone elses to get them out of it with my money let alone sacrificing a lovely chunk of nature over it.n Apr 06, 2012

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close