Letter to the Editor: The Sale to Avalon Housing of the City-Owned Property on Maple Rd. is a Bad Deal

by John Smith

Is Avalon Housing neutral when it comes to their political support for Mayor? My take on them is that the leaders of Avalon are pro-Taylor. If true, I find this to be offensive because they are sucking up public dollars and resources then support the Taylor Political Machine with political support.

The sale of the Maple Rd. parcel on Aug. 4, 2022 to Avalon Housing at cost ($260,000–the exact amount of the purchase) ignores the fact that there are probably better ways to use this money to support affordable housing, such as the construction of co-ops. Co-ops would allow residents to amass equity rather than amass income for a landlord.  

The question is relevant since on August 4, 2022 City Council voted in favor of selling 1.15 acres of public-owned property off of Maple Road for $260,000 (the exact amount of the purchase) to Avalon Housing. This price is probably well below current market rates. It’s another bad deal for the public and the people who will eventually live in these rental units. They should be owners, not renters whose dollars support a partisan bureaucracy that imposes their rules on the residents. If Avalon owns the buildings and land, this is equity that ultimately can be sold for a capital gain that will probably be used to support their rule-making staff.   

In addition, the land could be leased instead of sold. What is the difference? One thing that comes to mind is that one government unit cannot tax the assets of another (A2 cannot tax U-M property, for example). If Avalon purchases the property, it will be subject to tax from other governmental units such as the County, AAPS, AADL, etc.  The rent on the land could equal to what the property tax will be, but it would all go to City coffers. The rental deal could have included the City getting ownership of the buildings on the land after some period of time, say, 30 years. A deal like this (as opposed to the sale) would have ensured the land and buildings remained assets of the public, instead of an asset of a non-profit that is supported by the public.  

[Readers who want to submit a Letter to the Editor or an op-ed, can click here for more information.]