Oakland Township Resident Urges 'No' Vote on Blossom Ridge Development

This was submitted by Francis P. Hughes of Oakland Township regarding the Aug. 6 vote on the Blossom Ridge development.

Remember to  vote  “no“ on Aug. 6 for the several reasons listed in this letter. This proposed development idea only exists  because some of our township trustees of the previous Board of Trustees and some members  of our Planning Commission, without any rhyme or reason, made foolish changes in our zoning law or ordinance. 

The ordinance allowed only a two story building on the land involved. They, of course, changed it to three stories. The ordinance allowed only a width of 135 feet on any proposed building; they changed that to an incredible 450 feet of width. The ordinance required a minimum of 800 square feet in each living unit, they reduced that to 650 square feet which is  absolutely ridiculous,  because all of these living units or apartments in this oversized building, must be fully handicap-accessible and large enough to safely accommodate the residents. Many of them will be infirm, handicapped with wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, prosthetics, etc.  

The ordinance allowed a living unit density of 3-5 living units per acre they increased that to 6.2 living units per acre. One might say they gutted our zoning ordinance. That is exactly why most of the previous board of trustees were voted out of office.

Public housing?

If you include all of the senior housing developments in Rochester Hills, Rochester, Shelby Township, Sterling Heights, the Lake Orion and Oxford areas, Romeo and northern Troy, there are at least 35 of them. Actually there is a glut of such housing in the combined area. Historically, when that happens, especially during a recession, some of the companies owning these developments end up filing bankruptcy because of their high vacancy rates and lack of unit purchasers. That was certainly the case back in 1998 and 2007-2009 for both large companies and smaller ones. Quite often they were church-affiliated. The result was hundreds of seniors lost their owned units or lost their deposits on their unfinished units. The banks involved foreclosed their liens/construction mortgages. The seniors’ claims, needless to say, were secondary or subordinate to the bank mortgages. 

Five years ago in 2008 the number one and two developers/owners of senior housing were Brookdale and Sunrise. In 2013, Brookdale is still No. 1 but sunrise has slipped to No. 4. In 2008, the CEOs of both of these companies admitted they were on the edge of bankruptcy. The reality is that senior housing will likely continue to be in a feast and famine cycle for years to come. The other reality is  that to avoid bankruptcy, some of these companies  have requested and have been granted  rezoning to general /public housing which allows them to fill their empty units with all age groups, including children (of course we all know public housing usually has a negative impact on property values of nearby single family  homes).

How about tax revenue?

Well, we know who the proposed builder of Blossom Ridge is, but we do not know who is going to end up owning it other than it will be the highest bidder. And, if the owner happens to be a section 501(c)(3) church, church group or non-profit company, it does not have to pay property taxes (no school taxes, no township taxes, no county taxes).

And even if we can presume that the development will  not be section 501(c)(3)-owned, should we ignore this fact when the builder has preached that his proposed oversized senior housing is going to produce  three times the tax revenue of the 61 homes that could be constructed on the 42-acre site? Well, 61 homes in that area ought to be paying $6,000+ each in annual taxes. That adds up to $366,000 and three times that is $1.098 million. Keeping in mind that most of the living units are planned as 650-square-foot rental apartments in a three-story building. What are the rental rates going to be for these cubbyhole apartments with taxes that high and what is going to happen to the vacancy rate if the rents are too high?  If you guessed a higher vacancy rate, you are right.

Traffic nightmares?

The 61 single-family homes that can be built on the 42-acre parcel would add 153 motor vehicles to the local traffic (2 ½ vehicles per home) whereas, Blossom Ridge with 154 apartments, 84 cluster homes and 100-120 employees and independent contractors working there on a daily basis would add 442 motor vehicles to local traffic and do not forget that there will have to be parking spaces for all those vehicles belonging to visiting friends and relatives of the residents.

Fire safety and fire hazards?

The development would result in an additional 180 emergency calls per year. Residents could not use the second- and third-floor elevators  during a fire  and you are not going to be able to safely evacuate residents on the 3rd floor if they are confined to wheelchairs  or otherwise infirm or physically disabled (wheelchair  ramps  would not be above the second floor) unless you individually carry them down the stairwells (not easily done).

Shortage of senior housing?

There is no shortage of senior housing in the greater Rochester area or, for that matter, no shortage in the surrounding communities. Many seniors living in big houses simply downsize to a single-story, ranch-type home or a ground-floor condo. There are hundreds of such homes and condos available in the greater Rochester area and in the surrounding communities. Seniors should not be warehoused!!

Sincerely yours, 

Francis P. Hughes
Oakland Township

How do you feel about this upcoming vote? Let us know by posting a blog.