Latest news with #ScottFadness
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Fishers, Carmel don't think renters deserve single-family homes
Hamilton County cities are scapegoating Wall Street so they can award affluent buyers and existing homeowners with exclusive access to single-family houses and keep away unsavory renters. City officials in Fishers and Carmel argue it's necessary to ban renters from subdivisions where single-family homes hit 10% renter-occupied. It's every American's right to treat shelter as a financial instrument, they argue. If we can't all leverage hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to purchase a home in hopes that it behaves like a mutual fund, are we even a country? 'That's been a part of the middle class kind of American Dream for a long, long time,' Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness said, per Fox59. "We're just simply trying to put policies in place that would protect it.' First Fishers, now Carmel The Fishers City Council on April 21 unanimously approved a 10% rental cap. Now, Carmel is taking up the crackdown on renters, with City Council President Adam Aasen echoing Fadness. 'There are a lot of people who are renting, who want to buy, and they just can't find homes for sale,' Aasen said, per IndyStar. 'When they do find reasonably priced homes ... they're outbid by a corporate investor who wants to turn it into a rental.' The problem, in this view, is that Wall Street firms are treating homes as investments, making it more difficult for individual buyers to … treat homes as investments. Briggs: The Braun-Beckwith plan to abolish Carmel Wall Street isn't the actual target here. Fishers and Carmel are making a qualitative distinction between homeowners and renters as resident classes. Proponents of single-family rental caps say homeowners take pride in their properties while renters neglect them, causing houses to fall into disrepair and dragging down neighborhood values. City officials avoid directly disparaging renters by blaming the ills on out-of-town landlords. This is where the logic gets tortured. The pro-rental cap theory is that investors are making housing unaffordable by bidding up prices and buying all the homes while simultaneously causing property values to fall by letting them go to hell. So, which is it? Are the investors causing prices to go up? Or down? Wrapping your mind around these mutually exclusive claims can feel a little like circling the roundabout at 96th Street and Allisonville Road until you crash. Ban, baby, ban! Carmel is following Fishers is considering a 10% cap on single-family rental homes in subdivisions. The most generous interpretation of these 10% rental caps is to view them as a response to bad landlords letting properties fall into disrepair and forcing tenants to live in poor conditions. This is a real problem, and I've reported on it extensively. I can't believe I have to say this next part, but I guess I do. The solution to bad landlords isn't to ban rental housing. That's like saying the solution to drunken driving is to bring back Prohibition. Instead, cities should enforce housing codes and penalize landlords that violate them. Of course, Indiana doesn't let cities do that. When Indianapolis tried to crack down on derelict property owners in 2020, the Indiana General Assembly responded with strict legislation preventing cities from regulating landlords. Briggs: Mike Braun got suckered into a tax-cut promise he couldn't keep Landlords hold all the power in Indiana, and neither tenants nor cities can do anything about it. It is ironic, then, that the Indiana General Assembly in April briefly considered a measure that would nullify rental caps like the one Fishers passed and Carmel is considering. Cities want to ban rental housing because the legislature bans them from regulating landlords, so now lawmakers want to ban cities from banning single-family rentals. That about sums up the relationships between municipalities and state government in Indiana. 10% caps make the housing problem worse Of course, this isn't a story about landlords or Wall Street. Homeowners don't want to share neighborhoods with renters, so Fishers and Carmel are codifying their preference and justifying it by tapping into the moral panic over institutional property owners. This obsession is disingenuous. Based on Carmel's figures, only about 2% of the city's housing stock is owned by institutional investors. Investors are neither juicing nor destroying home values. They're one out of a hundred factors influencing housing economics. If you want to look deeper, then we can also talk about how building costs are rising and interest rates are higher than they used to be. Lending approvals are tightening, making homeownership available only to people with high incomes, down payment cash and excellent credit. As I wrote in March, the average homebuyer age hit 56 last year, according to the National Association of Realtors. Increasingly, the only single-family housing option for young families is renting. Fishers and Carmel are making desirable single-family subdivisions inaccessible to those families — something they might want to be wary of as Hamilton Southeastern Schools is suddenly soliciting students from outside of the district to combat falling enrollment. Housing is unaffordable because we don't have enough of it. It's that simple. Restricting the pool of people who can occupy homes in Fishers and Carmel will reduce the incentive for builders to construct new housing, because there will be fewer people who qualify to live in them, exacerbating the supply problem while pushing renters into communities that value them, like Brownsburg. If you don't want renters, fine. Just say that. Don't ban them and pretend you're doing it to protect the American Dream. The only thing Fishers and Carmel are protecting is homeowner exclusivity. Contact James Briggs at 317-444-4732 or Follow him on X and Bluesky at @JamesEBriggs. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Fishers, Carmel 10% rental caps make housing crisis worse | Opinion
Indianapolis Star
06-05-2025
- Business
- Indianapolis Star
Fishers, Carmel don't think renters deserve single-family homes
Hamilton County cities are scapegoating Wall Street so they can award affluent buyers and existing homeowners with exclusive access to single-family houses and keep away unsavory renters. City officials in Fishers and Carmel argue it's necessary to ban renters from subdivisions where single-family homes hit 10% renter-occupied. It's every American's right to treat shelter as a financial instrument, they argue. If we can't all leverage hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to purchase a home in hopes that it behaves like a mutual fund, are we even a country? 'That's been a part of the middle class kind of American Dream for a long, long time,' Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness said, per Fox59. "We're just simply trying to put policies in place that would protect it.' First Fishers, now Carmel The Fishers City Council on April 21 unanimously approved a 10% rental cap. Now, Carmel is taking up the crackdown on renters, with City Council President Adam Aasen echoing Fadness. Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. 'There are a lot of people who are renting, who want to buy, and they just can't find homes for sale,' Aasen said, per IndyStar. 'When they do find reasonably priced homes ... they're outbid by a corporate investor who wants to turn it into a rental.' The problem, in this view, is that Wall Street firms are treating homes as investments, making it more difficult for individual buyers to … treat homes as investments. Briggs: The Braun-Beckwith plan to abolish Carmel Wall Street isn't the actual target here. Fishers and Carmel are making a qualitative distinction between homeowners and renters as resident classes. Proponents of single-family rental caps say homeowners take pride in their properties while renters neglect them, causing houses to fall into disrepair and dragging down neighborhood values. City officials avoid directly disparaging renters by blaming the ills on out-of-town landlords. This is where the logic gets tortured. The pro-rental cap theory is that investors are making housing unaffordable by bidding up prices and buying all the homes while simultaneously causing property values to fall by letting them go to hell. So, which is it? Are the investors causing prices to go up? Or down? Wrapping your mind around these mutually exclusive claims can feel a little like circling the roundabout at 96th Street and Allisonville Road until you crash. Ban, baby, ban! The most generous interpretation of these 10% rental caps is to view them as a response to bad landlords letting properties fall into disrepair and forcing tenants to live in poor conditions. This is a real problem, and I've reported on it extensively. I can't believe I have to say this next part, but I guess I do. The solution to bad landlords isn't to ban rental housing. That's like saying the solution to drunken driving is to bring back Prohibition. Instead, cities should enforce housing codes and penalize landlords that violate them. Of course, Indiana doesn't let cities do that. When Indianapolis tried to crack down on derelict property owners in 2020, the Indiana General Assembly responded with strict legislation preventing cities from regulating landlords. Briggs: Mike Braun got suckered into a tax-cut promise he couldn't keep Landlords hold all the power in Indiana, and neither tenants nor cities can do anything about it. It is ironic, then, that the Indiana General Assembly in April briefly considered a measure that would nullify rental caps like the one Fishers passed and Carmel is considering. Cities want to ban rental housing because the legislature bans them from regulating landlords, so now lawmakers want to ban cities from banning single-family rentals. That about sums up the relationships between municipalities and state government in Indiana. 10% caps make the housing problem worse Of course, this isn't a story about landlords or Wall Street. Homeowners don't want to share neighborhoods with renters, so Fishers and Carmel are codifying their preference and justifying it by tapping into the moral panic over institutional property owners. This obsession is disingenuous. Based on Carmel's figures, only about 2% of the city's housing stock is owned by institutional investors. Investors are neither juicing nor destroying home values. They're one out of a hundred factors influencing housing economics. If you want to look deeper, then we can also talk about how building costs are rising and interest rates are higher than they used to be. Lending approvals are tightening, making homeownership available only to people with high incomes, down payment cash and excellent credit. As I wrote in March, the average homebuyer age hit 56 last year, according to the National Association of Realtors. Increasingly, the only single-family housing option for young families is renting. Fishers and Carmel are making desirable single-family subdivisions inaccessible to those families — something they might want to be wary of as Hamilton Southeastern Schools is suddenly soliciting students from outside of the district to combat falling enrollment. Housing is unaffordable because we don't have enough of it. It's that simple. Restricting the pool of people who can occupy homes in Fishers and Carmel will reduce the incentive for builders to construct new housing, because there will be fewer people who qualify to live in them, exacerbating the supply problem while pushing renters into communities that value them, like Brownsburg. If you don't want renters, fine. Just say that. Don't ban them and pretend you're doing it to protect the American Dream. The only thing Fishers and Carmel are protecting is homeowner exclusivity.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Fishers' rental cap is another way to keep out people with low incomes
Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness in 2023 touted the $16 million Geist Waterfront Park as the city's last opportunity to create public access to Geist Reservoir, the man-made lake best known for luxury waterfront homes. In an odd way to promote public access, the city charged non-Fishers residents $50 to park their car there. Fadness claimed the parking fee was necessary to limit summer crowds, ensure safety and prioritize the limited parking for Fishers taxpayers. But this was not the truth. Attendance at the new park was a fraction of what the city estimated that first summer season. There was never a capacity issue in the parking lot. Clearly, the real purpose of the inflated parking fee was to discourage the people who can't afford it. Today, Fishers is trying to discourage the people who can't afford it from living in Fishers. Fadness is proposing a rental cap that would limit the number of rental properties in Fishers. This policy would be the first of its kind in the country. By limiting rental supply, this policy could inflate the cost of tenants' rent. Why would a growing Indiana suburb with a high demand for housing want to restrict rental supply? In an odd way to address a housing shortage, the rental restriction would apply to townhome and condo neighborhoods in addition to single-family homes. Why would a community lock a highly desired type of housing out of the most conducive neighborhoods? Fadness' rental cap proposal has been quietly presented to citizens as a benign 'rental registration program' – his solution to encourage homeownership, protect the character of residential neighborhoods, eliminate blight and address institutional investors who purchase single-family homes. But this is not the truth. Briggs: Fishers' attack on investor-owned homes will lock out families The last time a Fishers single-family home was purchased by an out-of-state institutional investor was over two years ago. Home ownership in Fishers is already 'exceptionally high' and exceeds national and state averages, according to the city's own housing study. Of course, exterior maintenance issues are not exclusive to rental homes. There are city code enforcement procedures and a fine system in place to ensure that all Fishers homes are maintained, owner-occupied and rentals alike. Fishers is branded as a 'smart, vibrant and entrepreneurial' community and is a desirable place to live. When I was a Fishers City Council member in 2023, I stated my opposition to the $50 parking fee. I said, "My strong concern is that it sends a message to people outside of Fishers that they are unwelcome here.' Today, I state the same opposition to a new proposed Fishers rental cap policy, which would have a much greater negative impact if approved. Fishers residents can choose to oppose this rental cap or not. They can attend the Monday council meeting and let the decision-makers hear their opinions. But they deserve to know the truth. Fishers is trying to discourage the people who can't afford it from living in Fishers. Jocelyn Vare is a renter and a Fishers resident for over 25 years. She is a former at-large member of the Fishers City Council and former member of the City of Fishers Housing Task Force. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Fadness' rental cap idea follows Geist Waterfront Park fees | Opinion
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Boardable Expands Indiana Footprint; Announces Global Headquarters in Fishers
FISHERS, Ind., Feb. 20, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Boardable, the leading nonprofit board management software company, is proud to announce the opening of its new office in Fishers, Indiana. This milestone reflects the company's deep commitment to investing in its local community while continuing to deliver innovative solutions for nonprofit organizations around the globe. "Central Indiana is where our story began, and it's where we're building our future," said Jeff Middlesworth, CEO of Boardable. "By establishing our new office in Fishers, we're doubling down on our commitment to this vibrant region, which has been instrumental in our growth and success." Boardable's new office is located in the Switch Building (8626 E 116th St), and features over 5,600 square feet of Class A office space. This space creates a central hub for the company's expanding team, fostering collaboration and supporting continued growth for both its local employees and those working remotely across the country. City of Fishers' Mayor Scott Fadness welcomed the expansion, saying, "Boardable's growth in Fishers highlights the innovative spirit of our tech ecosystem. Their work with nonprofits, specifically, embodies the positive impact tech can have on communities worldwide, and we're proud to see them continue their journey right here in the Nickel Plate District." Investing in Our Backyard Since its founding, Boardable has proudly called Central Indiana home—serving as a testament to the region's thriving ecosystem of tech innovation and nonprofit excellence. With over 2,000 customers worldwide, Boardable has become a vital partner across its top industries—education, healthcare, and community and social services—helping them to achieve their missions more effectively. This commitment to impact is reflected in the recent international growth and the expansion announcement in Fishers. In the past six months alone, Boardable's Canadian service area has achieved a remarkable 300% increase in clientele. The decision to expand in Fishers underscores its confidence in Central Indiana's potential to remain a national leader in technology and social good. A Vision for the Future Boardable's investment in its new Fishers office is just the beginning. The company remains steadfast in its mission to empower nonprofits with tools that make board engagement simple, streamlined, and effective – all while continuing to foster local connections and support Central Indiana's economic growth. To learn more about Boardable, visit About Boardable Boardable empowers mission-driven organizations to achieve their goals with intuitive, purpose-built board management software. Founded in Indianapolis, Boardable serves thousands of nonprofits globally, helping them streamline communication, enhance engagement, and drive impact. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Boardable Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Fishers is getting a second Target. Here's where
A new Target is coming to Fishers' east side. The 148,000-square-foot store will be at 136th Street, south of Southeastern Parkway. It will be the city's second Target, just seven miles away from the other Target located downtown near 116th Street. Mayor Scott Fadness made the announcement during his annual State of the City Address at the Fishers Event Center hosted by the One Zone Chamber of Commerce, where he highlighted several other projects planned for next year. This year is Fadness' 10th as the city's first mayor. This story will be updated. Call IndyStar reporter John Tuohy at 317-444-6418. Email at and follow on X/Twitter and Facebook. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Fishers is getting a second Target. Here's where
