Here's how much affordable housing Fort Pierce high rise needs to circumvent local laws
The Live Local Act, a state law passed in 2023, allows developers to circumvent local governmental approvals, such as height restrictions, if a project contains at least 40% affordable housing.
The Fort Pierce City Commission fears that provision might allow the construction of five high-rises slated for the Causeway Cove Marina on the Indian River Lagoon at the southeast base of the Fort Pierce South Bridge.
To qualify for the zoning exemption, more than 400 of the project's proposed 1,000 apartment units need to be set aside for affordable housing.
That would mean those units would have to house people who earn 120% or less of the area median income. The median family income in Fort Pierce is $87,800, according to Fannie Mae.
Housing is considered 'affordable' when the occupant is paying no more than 30% of their income on housing costs, such as rent or mortgage payments.
Those who spend over that threshold are considered 'housing cost burdened,' according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
About 57% of middle-class Floridians are considered cost burdened under the HUD definition.
The affordable housing shortage is even more stark for extremely low-income renters, meaning those living under the federal poverty line.
In Florida, there are roughly 26 available units for every 100 extremely low-income renters, data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition show.
Fort Pierce is no exception. Roughly 26% of the city lives below the poverty line — that's more than double the rate in Port St. Lucie, according to Census Bureau data.
Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Live Local Act into law despite widespread pushback from local governments, such as the Florida League of Cities, which represents 411 local governments, including Fort Pierce.
The bill overwhelmingly passed the Legislature in 2023, 40-0 in the Senate and 103-6 in the House.
"The act aims to significantly bolster the availability of affordable housing options for Florida's dedicated workforce, allowing them to reside in the very communities they tirelessly serve," according to the Florida Housing Coalition.
Fort Pierce commissioners decried the bill, saying it has tied their hands from stopping the five high-rises proposed for South Hutchinson Island.
"It's a developer's dream,' said Mayor Linda Hudson.
However, the sky's not the limit for development — but it can get close.
Under the law, developers can build up to the maximum height allowed on any property within a mile of the project. The tallest building within the one-mile radius of Causeway Cove tops out at 192 feet. That's more than four times taller than the zoning district's normal height limit.
The Live Local Act also provides $406 million for the construction of affordable and multifamily housing.
Those funds are distributed by a private-public partnership with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, which oversees the state's two largest affordable housing programs:
The State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program: provides low-interest loans to build affordable housing.
The State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program: assists low-income residents with home purchases, repairs and other housing needs.
The Finance Corporation is tasked with helping developers overcome the hurdles of building affordable housing.
Causeway Cove: 17-story high rises are part of 5-building complex proposed for South Hutchinson Island
What to know: Proposed 5 high-rises,192 foot building on South Hutchinson Island
Here's some of what the Finance Corporation can do under the bill:
Provide a maximum $5,000 tax refund on building materials used to construct affordable housing.
Collect tax liability payments from businesses, up to $100 million as donations annually, to build affordable housing.
'Every $1 million in tax credit contribution funds approximately 20 additional units of affordable housing for families and elders throughout the state,' according to the Finance Corporation.
Jack Lemnus is a TCPalm enterprise reporter. Contact him at jack.lemnus@tcpalm.com, 772-409-1345, or follow him on X @JackLemnus.
This article originally appeared on Treasure Coast Newspapers: Is Fort Pierce Hutchinson Island affordable housing coming?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Buy and Hold Investors Shouldn't Overlook Roper Technologies' (ROP) Consistency
Roper Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ROP) is included among the 10 Best Dividend Stocks to Buy and Hold Forever. A software developer looking out a window while confidently typing away on their laptop. Roper Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ROP) is a group of technology businesses that hold strong positions in specialized niche markets. Its portfolio includes application software, network software, and technology-enabled products, all designed to deliver essential solutions that become deeply integrated into customers' operations. These offerings typically lead to high switching costs and generate steady, recurring revenue. In the second quarter of 2025, Roper Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ROP) reported a 13.2% increase in revenue, driven by 7% organic growth and a 6% boost from recent acquisitions. GAAP net earnings rose by 12%. Management pointed to balanced growth across all major segments, crediting strong product innovation, successful integration of past acquisitions, and ongoing demand for recurring software solutions. Roper Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ROP) has garnered investor attention because the company has a strong dividend policy. On June 11, the company declared a quarterly dividend of $0.825 per share, which was in line with its previous dividend. Overall, it has raised its payouts for 33 consecutive years, which makes ROP one of the best dividend stocks to buy and hold. The stock has a dividend yield of 0.60%, as of July 31. While we acknowledge the potential of ROP as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Times
27 minutes ago
- New York Times
Business of Football: John Textor's new grand plan, and Premier League made to fork out for lawyers
You would be forgiven for thinking that news of John Textor quitting all positions of authority at Lyon, selling his stake in Crystal Palace to Woody Johnson, and putting his Florida mansion on the market might suggest that this self-styled cowboy was riding off into the sunset. For the Multi-Club Kid, however, these apparent setbacks are mere flesh wounds. He is getting a new posse together to buy Botafogo and RWDM Brussels, his Brazilian and Belgian clubs, from his partners at Eagle Football Group. He is also trying to rope in a new English club, mix in his facial-recognition turnstile technology, and then drive the whole herd to market in New York to make a killing. Advertisement As well as all this, on July 4, Textor filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Iconic Sports, the group of investors that gave him $75million (£56.5m) to help him buy Lyon in 2022 in exchange for a minority stake in Eagle. Textor's complaint is against Iconic and its two principals, American investors James Dinan and Alexander Knaster, and it is for alleged securities fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with a put option — the right to sell something at a fixed price by a certain date — they agreed with Textor in 2022. This Florida action came after Iconic hit Textor with a similar claim in London the day before; a claim it had been unable to publish as it sent it to the Jupiter Island property Textor bought from Microsoft founder Bill Gates for $4m in 2018 and is now selling for $23.5m (because he has built an even bigger one nearby). Under English law, you cannot publish unserved lawsuits. Iconic says it informed Textor of its desire to get out via the put option in July 2023, reminded him and Eagle's board about it in December 2023, and then again in March and July of 2024, by which time Textor was meant to have completed the buy-back. He did not, which is why Iconic believes it is owed nearly $94m and has written to Eagle's board with share-transfer documents for Textor's 65 per cent holding in the whole shebang. Textor, on the other hand, says Dinan and Knaster breached first. He says they knew they would never be able to meet the conditions because they had been unable to get any banks to underwrite the transaction. Textor's initial counter-suit was thrown out by the Florida court on July 10 because of some shoddy work by his legal team, but he was allowed to refile it a day later. And following Iconic's letter to the Eagle board on July 15, Textor hit back with a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Iconic on July 22. Advertisement On July 28, the court rejected Textor's request for the simple reason that the original Textor/Iconic agreements make it clear that any disputes between them should be hammered out in the English courts, as Eagle is an English company. In the meantime, Lyon have finally filed some partial accounts for last season, which show they are going to make another huge loss despite selling all of their best players. This, understandably, has greatly upset the rest of Eagle's initial investors, including Ares Management Corporation, the huge American investment firm that loaned Eagle $425m to complete the Lyon purchase. Ares has already snaffled nearly all of the proceeds from Textor's sale of his Palace stake, but is still owed about $300m. Given the collapse of French football's latest domestic TV deal, Textor's sale of Lyon's indoor arena and women's football teams, and Rayan Cherki et al, can Lyon cover that amount? The answer is probably 'non'. Textor, however, is nothing if not resilient. He also genuinely likes football, and in Botafogo, the 2024 Brazilian and South American champions, can point to a success story. His response to all of the above is to buy Botafogo and RWDM Brussels from Eagle. He would then move these clubs into a new Cayman Islands-registered Eagle entity, throw in his Facebank technology company that has moved into facial recognition ticketing systems, and push for his long-promised New York IPO. Oh, and he will try to add a new English club (teams like QPR, Southampton, or Watford, as opposed to Sheffield Wednesday) to the mix to make something that should fly off the New York Stock Exchange's proverbial shelves. Football plus tech, a unicorn combo. And, just to complete the vision, he may hold onto his two-thirds share in the old Eagle — Lyon, in other words — or be open to suggestions from Ares and Co as to how much those shares are worth (about the same as Botafogo, perhaps?). Advertisement Or, as has been reported in Brazil this week, he might just merge his new Eagle with Greek billionaire Evangelos Marinakis' multi-club group (Olympiacos, Nottingham Forest, and Portugal's Rio Ave), although he might not have run this past the Greek billionaire properly, as it has come as news to Forest. No spoilers, I promise, but the Brad Pitt character in the film F1 (great fun, by the way, much better than the actual sport) has a line that becomes part of the plot, 'sometimes when you lose, you win'. For the Premier League, it seems the opposite can be true, as it found itself almost £1m out of pocket on fees related to its successful prosecution of a profit and sustainability case against Nottingham Forest in March 2024. Ordinarily in these circumstances, the losing party would pay for the winner's legal costs, or at least a big portion of them, and the cost of the PSR hearing. And that is certainly what the Premier League had in mind when it sent Forest a bill in excess of £1.4m. The majority of this was a fixed fee the league negotiated with Linklaters, the global law firm it has used for all of its recent PSR cases. For the Forest case, the league agreed to pay the firm £1.1m, but that was reduced to £985,000 because Linklaters did not need to put in quite as many hours as initially estimated. And there was also a bill of just over £140,000 for a report from an expert. The club, however, said words to the effect of 'that's a bit steep, isn't it?', as their bill from their well-known legal firm, Squire Patton Boggs, was about half as much, and their expert report cost a third of the Premier League's. After all, Forest noted, we confessed to the PSR breach pretty fast, so did the Premier League need to 'lawyer up' for this one at all? Long story short, Forest lawyered up for the costs row, calling in Nick 'The Wolf' De Marco for a costs hearing in May. Advertisement And despite failing on his attempt to argue that Forest did not really lose the PSR hearing, he successfully argued that the Premier League's legal bill was too high and it did not need the expert report at all. So, when the three-person panel's result was published last month, it revealed that the league had been awarded only £530,000 of its claim, 37 per cent, and had been ticked off for overspending on lawyers and experts. This would be only mildly embarrassing if it were a one-off, but it was not. The league also only got about a third of its £4.9m legal bill for successfully prosecuting Everton's two PSR breaches in 2023 and 2024. For those keeping count, that is more than £4m in unrewarded legal costs for cases the Premier League actually won. The mind boggles as to how much a defeat would cost them. No pressure, then. There should be no giggling about the Premier League's legal bills over at the English Football Association, as it has recently been dumped on its backside by De Marco, too. I am not talking about his win in the high-profile Lucas Paqueta case. No, this was an appeal by the FA to an earlier decision by a disciplinary panel into a case involving Accrington Stanley's inadvertent use of an unlicensed agent in a transfer deal in 2024. The unnamed agent was representing the player but had recently failed his agent's exam, so had lost his licence. When the FA got wind of this, it charged the League Two club and Accrington initially admitted the charge, asking only for a personal hearing to discuss mitigation. But while they waited for this hearing, they reconsidered. After all, the rules state that nobody should 'engage or appoint' an unlicensed agent and they did not hire the agent. The player might have a case to answer, they thought, but we did not 'engage' the agent, he did. So, they changed their plea and won. Advertisement The FA then appealed against this ruling, saying 'engage' really means 'engage with', as in have any dealings with someone. That is why there is an 'or' between 'engage' and 'appoint' — they mean two different things. But, as we learned in the Leicester City case, words matter, especially prepositions. The appeal panel, and it is all explained in their written reasons, decided that 'engage' is not the same as 'engage with', handing Accrington a reprieve and De Marco another head for his trophy cabinet.
CNET
5 hours ago
- CNET
Tesla to Pay $243M After Jury Finds It Partly Liable for Fatal Autopilot Crash
Table of Contents Tesla to Pay $243M After Jury Finds It Partly Liable for Fatal Autopilot Crash A federal jury in Florida has found Tesla to be partly liable for a fatal car crash that occurred in 2019 involving its self-driving feature Autopilot. Elon Musk's electric vehicle company must now pay $243 million in damages as a result of the judgment, multiple reports Friday said. Prosecutors filed charges back in 2022 alleging that the driver didn't brake in time when approaching a T-intersection while driving his Tesla Model S with Autopilot active, and as a result killed two passengers in the car he collided with. A Tesla spokesperson told TechCrunch Friday that the verdict is "wrong" and will "set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology." Tesla plans to appeal, according to the statement. Tesla didn't immediately respond to CNET's request for comment. In California, Tesla is currently in the courts for another case involving Autopilot, where the state DMV is suing for allegations of false advertising and misleading customers. The California DMV alleges that Tesla is misrepresenting the capabilities of its advanced driver assistance systems by naming them "Full Self-Driving" and "Autopilot," and is seeking a 30-day suspension of Tesla's license to sell vehicles in the state.
