Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Goleta Housing Plan Rejected by State

Much was made of the 55% inclusionary rule for afforadable housing, which Jack Hawxhurst championed in both creatng Goleta's General Plan but also in his erstwhile campaign for reelection. According to a Martha Sadler article at The Independent, the State did not specifically reject the rule but they also had the benefit of knowing it will likely be changed by April 16th when the new council votes on general plan amendments. Let's hope the rule stays within the more reasonable 25-30% as the opposing candidates promised during the election and no less. Hawxhurst dreamed big but not realistic -- Goleta needs a high but attainable goal and my vote is for 30%.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the history of maintenance and condo management in these developments with high rates of affordable units?

Will they be tomorrow's urban slums? Has anyone audited them for adequate maintenance reserves?

I know one totally affordable complex where the condo monthly fees are only $50 and there are no reserves and the place is starting to look like hell in just a few years and some of the members are in arrears on their condo dues.

Plus no one is speaking to each other there and the only form of communication seems to be lawsuits.

Is the affordable dream worth it? What is happening long-term in other affordable complexes?

3/25/2007 11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zero affordable is reasonable. Anything more is a socialized housing give-away.

And a token band-aid that will never be enough for all those lined up with their hands out and even worse shows no measurable community economic value for the negative price it carries.

It provides only a windfall for a privileged few. What is the point of that?

3/25/2007 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Goleta Girl said...

Why does Goleta need ANY market-rate housing?

Why not 100% "affordable"?

What does Goleta and the greater community gain by any more market-rate housing?

The rich developers who bought the election gain plenty, but what does everyone else gain that is not fully negated by the impacts?

3/26/2007 12:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous in Goleta said...

Sara: I agree that the 55% inclusionary for affordable housing was probably too high. But do you have any basis for advocating 30%? Developers need to come clean with their numbers, be subject to independent economic analysis, and be pushed as high as it is economically feasible to go for affordable units.

Goleta Golden Girl asks the right question. Of course Goleta does not need any more market rate housing affordable only to upper income folk and speculators. Unfortunatley there is not enough state, federal and non-profit funding to only build housing for average income people who would like to live here.

3/26/2007 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Eckermann said...

I find it ironic that after acheiving its hard-fought land use independence Goleta now finds itself groveling before a state bureaucrat over matters of land use policy. Considering all the headaches concomitant with cityhood, control over land use destiny is really the only reason for a community to incorporate. If land use is to be determined by a single petit bureaucrat in Sacramento, why take all the trouble to accept responsibility for road maintenance, public parks, police, and zoning enforcement that comes with cityhood? It is odd that elected officials talk tough on the dias but cower before the pronouncements of a minor official who is really not as powerful as her bluff and bluster letters portray her to be. Goleta should build the community that the citizens of Goleta want. That is what being a city is all about.

3/26/2007 10:22 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Most cities in California use a 25% rule and it seems to me that we could try at least a little harder -- especially along the Hollister corridor as the last council suggested. We don't need high priced homes in Goleta -- but we perhaps need to discuss what affordable means.

Some people who comment here have it look like part of the welfare state. I look at it as not just subsidized housing for the poor but also housing that maybe two teachers could afford, or a police officer and their spouse could buy. Perhaps the work force housing moniker works better here as a form of affordable housing.

3/26/2007 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the idea of ALL affordable or nothing.

3/26/2007 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is time to put facts behind romanticized social theories. Picking numbers out of the air and hoping for an idealized population with no accounting for past failed project realities really has to stop.

When it comes with such a high ticket price as dedicating real estate. It should be penciled out like any real estate investment.

Do "a couple of school teachers" really want to purchase subsidized housing?

Do we really have a shortage of home grown teachers when school population is declining?

What happened to the dedicated police/fire housing on Las Positas?

Until that prior dedicated housing scheme is revisited to see what measurable economic benefit it brought to the community, one should call for a moritorium on these idealized romatic utopian (can't we all get along) grand housing plans.

And this is not saying a plan that can be shown to actually work and benefit the community at large, but let's please get off these fuzzy wuzzy justifications for bad planning that so far has not paid off other than degredation of its neighborhood.

City Housing Authority (toatlly controlled environment) can point to successes. But inclusionary housing as a feel-good response has yet to prove itself. (Except for what the county found as a launching pad for massive frauds.)

3/26/2007 1:02 PM  
Anonymous wineguy said...

Off-topic, but how many of you saw this post on Craig's List?

3/26/2007 1:52 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

"I look at it as not just subsidized housing for the poor but also housing that maybe two teachers could afford, or a police officer and their spouse could buy."

Didn't we see that the average teacher salary is 54K a year? That's 108K. How long should we ask them to save their money for a down payment? Same with police and fire. Are they "owed" a nice home with no commute right out of the gate? Shouldn't all residents get that break? I'd like a house in Hope Ranch for like $500K, I can afford that...who do I talk to? I don't mean to be flippant but this seems like an impossible problem to solve in this town as half of LA would move here if were "affordable". Looked at the price of homes down there lately? Nothing seems affordable at the average wage scales so I'm not sure where the answers lie. I think the only subsidized housing should be some decent sized apartment complexes, perhaps on Hollister and if one wants to own a home or condo, either put up the money, commute, or move somewhere else. Anything else seems too complex, inherently unfair to the lottery losers, and wide open for abuse. I don't remember so much talk about affordability back when measure "T" was in effect. SB was just as relatively expensive then too. I think the whole subject has gotten people worked up into thinking they can get something for half price (which they so richly deserve) without having to sacrifice like all others who figured out how to make it here. Just scream loud enough about how the city will fall apart without our precious low wage workforce and something will happen.

Let the employers figure it out. If employees won't work here because of the cost, employers will leave and that will take the demand off the housing.

3/26/2007 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Das' idea of government run housing is good too!

3/26/2007 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with workforce housing is where does it stop? Who is critical? Isn't everybody that pays taxes critical? Why are police officers more important than teachers who are more important that the CEO of some startup company who is busting his/her butt to employ people and give them benefits in this town. Isn't he/she the most critical? I say this because I once did that and I made much less money than the salaries of policemen.

I just think that there is an inherent problem with granting houses by an arbitraty system of who is more critical than who. Not to mention that the stunted equity from affordable housing makes it a terrible investment.

3/26/2007 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

City owned and managed housing is the only solution to our crisis.

Das is proposing a density plan that we all need to support!

3/26/2007 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's round out the salaries for those "two deserving teachers" who each make allegedly $54K a year --

1. for a nine month year, 3 months off - or could work elsewhere or summer school for more pay - perhaps $15-20K more a year, each (sounds like a down payment to me)

2. deluxe paid health insurance, tax free that is not taken out of that salary, like other working folks have to pay out of pocket for - approx $5000 each

3. Superb retirement benefits paid for off the top tax free and also not taken out of their take-home pay like other working folk who have to scrape out $3000-5000 each a year for an IRA which does not even come close to STRS - State Teachers Retirement benefits

4. Paid vacations
5. Paid sick leave
6. Professional growth benefits

And now we also want to make sure they don't have to pay full rate for housing?

Let's all think about this again.

3/26/2007 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Arne' we supposed to think about raising taxes for everyone and paying teachers salaries that let them live in Santa Barbara, rather than dedicating subsidized housing to create a windfall for the lucky few?

Who wants their taxes raised so we can build housing for everyone who wants to live in Santa Barbara?

Sounds fair - what the city is doing right now - parceling out a few units here and a few units there to anyone who wants to get in line is what sounds crazy.

Why have we let them get away with calling this a "compassionate solution"?

It is, has been and will continue to be total folly.

Only the developers are cheering them on to do more of this mischief. Time to say no, city council.

3/26/2007 6:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

City Housing Authority is a well run project -- but who the heck is it benefiting and what is the relationship of that benefit to the overall good of the community, besides picking up awards for good design?

Who exactly is benefiting from 14% city housing subsidies? What is their economic benefit (or drain) to this community besides the spiritual well-being it allegedly generates?

How much more spiritual well-being do we want to buy?

3/26/2007 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Waaaaa...I want to live in Montecito. I want to live in Montecito. How can they be so cruel and heartless and not let me live there. They have so much.

Shame on them for not giving me part of it and let me live there with them. And ones for all my friends too once I tell they they gave me a house because I couldn't afford one.

14% of Montecito MUST become affordable. ASAP Where is their compassion? Or else, I am just going to park my RV there and live there anyway. It is my right. I am entitled to live where ever I want.

And I will yell harassment if you tell me to move any place else.

3/26/2007 7:20 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

I didn't say anything about subsidized housing but housing could be made that would be more affordable. More rental apartments for one. You guys should try teaching for a year and see if you think it's so easy by the way -- you just sound jealous that they have a decent union!

3/26/2007 7:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Waaaaa...I want to live in Montecito. I want to live in Montecito. How can they be so cruel and heartless and not let me live there. They have so much.

Who, in their right mind, would want to live in Montecito?

If the posts on this board are any indication, a few RV parks and affordable housing units would do nothing but class that place up.

3/26/2007 8:09 PM  
Anonymous GVG said...


FYI, a recent survey by the Santa Barbara School Districts' real estate development advisor, UniDev, found that approximately 70% of the districts' teachers already own their own homes. This is far in excess of our area's overall ratio of homeowners to total population at 59%. In addition, the teachers union has not endorsed the school board's suggested plans to build teacher housing on the districts' vacant parcels in Hidden Valley and the Goleta Valley.

3/26/2007 8:18 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Ok, so maybe teachers were a bad example ('course they'll never say that) but I think there is something to be said for balance. In my younger employed days in SB, I had a lot of friends who would never make enough to afford to buy but were happy to be here working and renting a decent apt. It was relly nice to have them in town to socialize with. Seems I just can't win saying that the student pop in this town maybe getting out of hand. El Rincon made all my points for me in that regard. Nick Welsh wrote about Apt building buyouts. These investors aren't stupid. They know they can get nearly any price for rent with all the "sugar parents" able to pay the cost for their little honeys to come to UC"Party Central"SB. Money buys what it wants. You can have what's left over.

I think it's time for a rent control ordinance and for both Goleta and SB to put in place special incentives that encourage private developers to build and maintain affordable apt buildings for FT workers, not students. Not city controlled or owned. Gov't oversight is traditionaly poor so let's not even go there. Perhaps we can get our state reps to work a deal for prop tax breaks for the first five years and maybe an income tax break. There must be a way to make it financially feasible.

Just don't build it in my backyard dam it ! And don't make me pay for it with a prop tax hike either! (I heard you thinkin' about popin off there, anon)

3/26/2007 9:45 PM  
Anonymous donaldo de Santa Barbara said...

Well there is a lot of rhetoric going on in this discussion. Injecting my own retoric, I have to admit that I do not like our supposed "free market" economy, however, since that is what we have I like to look at things realistically.

I would suggest that the city de Santa Barbara dismiss all those homeowners who get their intestines in a bunch over their most immediate concern and that is their ability to get out of their own neighborhoods in their cars and the decrease of free parking. You are ruining the surrounding environment and you should strive to do better.

You have created your own problem and there is really something disengenuous about the poor poor cul-de-sac dweller thinking the world revolves around their own private issue while there are really many other issues local governments must consider.

Lobbying for affordable housing really isn't as bad as the insidious homeowner with a million dollar equity, crying about the impacts of their own largess of their home ownership and the
resulting profit. If it comes down to who do you feel sorry for the is not the homeowner.

I do not care much about Goleta. I beleive it was, Mayor Conklin who said many years ago that Goleta was designed to make guacamole for Santa Bah Bah Rah during annexation discussions. Goleta voted selfishly against annexation to Santa Barbara when voting for cityhood and so Goleta will struggle to find its own way for quite a while.

As for Santa Bah Bah Rah....You've let the "Chamber" run city hall for too long and there is not turning back with a +50% (?) rental population. The Chambers tax revenues have reaped a windfall to provide for many incredible luxury benefits while failing to provide for basic obligations including a sustainable housing market.

The City's Northside needs to contribute to the city's housing market and become a "Village" seperate and complete from "Downtown." This 2.5 mile strip mile needs to be demolished and redeveloped in a very big, serious and comprehensive way to include a competing housing market back into check. The new housing will have to be extremley regulated.

3/26/2007 10:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Time to downzone the northern side (mountain side) of State Street (A-1 and 2?) and put it back to what it was - Multi-family R-3/4. Apartmentville.

When the city for "population control issues" takes out huge chunks of land where apartments used to be allowed for denser development and then now demands more apartments, where the heck are you going to put them?

Let's stop all this fantasy talk about generalities and identify the exact location - and what zoning changes are necessary to allow more apartments to be built.

I vote for entire north side of State Street to be put back. Or city council, stop talking out of both sides of your mouth - protecting this recent Golden Triangle up-zoning, and at the same time claiming you want more affordable apartments.

It is time for Santa Barbara to seriously rethink whether it can continue to afford the major land use inefficiency - R-1 zoning. Dump it and let them all build granny flats on all that unused land. They use too much damn water and energy to upkeep all those lawns and gardens too -let along all the immigrant labor used to do their dirty work for them.

Most likely their property taxes are amoung the lowests - as their kids inherit the Upper East family home.

They are the drag on the economy here. Enough of them. They represent fewer and fewer votes these days as more and more people pack into and vote in R-4. R-4 will soon rule Santa Barbara as more and more housing gets crammed into it -- and there goes the majority vote.

See ya.

3/26/2007 11:11 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Ummmm, this post is about Goleta NOT Santa Barbara. Let's keep to topic or give me a community post on northside apartment development :)

3/27/2007 12:05 AM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

Seems I just can't win saying that the student pop in this town maybe getting out of hand.

SA: I'm getting tired of your hackneyed argument in this regard about UCSB's student population. Can it be clearer?: UCSB ENROLLMENT IS CAPPED BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION and as El Rincon pointed out, its rate of growth is LOWER THAN THE POPULATION GROWTH RATE of this area in general. Stop trotting out your weak argument about the student invasion!!! I suspect that giving up your argument, however, would require you to work to find another scapegoat to blame for the alleged decline in the Goletan "quality of life." Maybe when your new city council gets their way and trashes the slow growth plans, you can start blaming them for some of the woes that will be coming to the Valley.

Most telling of all is your exhortation to "put in place special incentives that encourage private developers to build and maintain affordable apt buildings" but "Just don't build it in my backyard dam it !".

Does your vanity licence plate read "NIMBY"?

I'll leave it to El Rincon to try to make more reasoned arguments about this situation.... at this point, I'm just fed up.

3/27/2007 8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara, right, this got off-topic.

How about a column about Santa Barbara 2030 - the general plan update?

3/27/2007 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This araa is a college town.

People here need to appreciate students being present and the funding this brings to create a stable economic foundation for this community.

Being a college town provides a very high quality of life for all the rest of us here. Worth a few occasional yeehaws in I.V. to get the rest of its benefits

Would you rather have an unstable, polluting, industrial economic base? A premier state institution like the Univesity of California is about as good as it gets to build your community around.

Please appreciate this community gift and stop kicking this gift horse in the mouth. Endless supplies of cheap student labor is not bad either.

Allegro is right, there is not an increasing growth in student age numbers. The numbers 18-20 age growth has been stable for some time.

State funding caps the growth of student populations too along with the coastal commission.

Must look somewhere else if you feel the quality of life is declining in Goleta. It is not because UCSB is your esteemed neighbor.

Maybe it was voting for state water.

3/27/2007 12:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Rent control?!?!?!? Show me a place that did not turn into instant slums when that went in and maybe I'll think about it.

Tell me again why market forces are inadequate to determine housing allocations? I missed these salient points.

Point to the community that mandated a utopian allocation of economic classes and affordablity so we can all learn from its strenghts and guard agaisnt its weaknesses.

Will East Berlin suffice?

3/27/2007 12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any plan should include incentives to reduce family size and their impacts on the environment.

3/27/2007 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need to get rid of building height limits and build in and build up!

3/27/2007 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about a 36 story apartment tower set against the hills to mask its bulk and scale with 400 sq foot condos going for $150K with $30 a month maintenance fees?

Any takers? Does it pencil out?

3/27/2007 2:50 PM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

Anon 2:22: you are only one of about 5 people in between Ventura and Buellton who thinks we should get rid of building height limits, so forget it. And I am not one of the 5. Height limits are about the one thing everyone agrees on. I would call it the BEST planning regulation this area has. Been to Newport Beach lately?

3/27/2007 3:45 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Allegro?...Puleeeze. Take a chill pill bro. It was ER (whom I believe to be well informed, just my hunch) who stated that CC has grown 50% and UCSB has grown 25% since 1990. Someone else stated that SB/Goleta pop growth has been flat. SBCC had 11K student in 2003 not sure what it is today but probably close to 15K. No on-campus housing of course. UCSB has 20,000. The city of Goleta is about 35K. SB is 95K. My contention is that about 10K residents have been displaced by students. Loose math perhaps but make of it what you wish. I'm pretty sure 10K jobs have not been added to this area.

As far as the NIMBY remark, you failed to see my ironic attempt at humour. But let me put it a little more in perspective for you...

All you bloggers that have 171 units of state subsidized condo's being built down the street, next to a nature preserve, please raise your hands..

Uh, I guess that'd just be me.

All you bloggers that have had a huge mom and pop busting retail center built down the street (with it's county wide traffic)please raise your hands...

Hmmm, just me again

All you bloggers that have 1200 homes proposed for building a half mile away, please raise your hands...

Dam, only me again???. I'm sure feeling lonely here.

So tell me Allegro, what sacrifices are you being made to accept for the good of the financially challenged? How much are you and all the anti NIMBY anons contributing to the state coffers this year to pay for all of this?

I'll say again that I've lived, loved and partied next to the Uni for 24 years. I respect the heck out of education. But don't lecture me about its worth. I've never put the Ivory Tower on a pedestal for worship, and I'm not about to start now.

3/27/2007 4:14 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

"Rent control?!?!?!? Show me a place that did not turn into instant slums when that went in and maybe I'll think about it."

Santa Monica and Manhatten come to mind.

"Tell me again why market forces are inadequate to determine housing allocations? I missed these salient points."

Because without some form of "affordable" housing, employers have a hard time filling middle wage jobs that may be essential to their economic viability. Especially smaller companies. If too many leave town, it will cause a loss of retail, tax revenue, entertainment venues and the like. At one time, we seemed to have this in better balance than today. With the price of gas and the two lane hwy into town, commuting has become a serious burden so something has to be done.

"Point to the community that mandated a utopian allocation of economic classes and affordablity so we can all learn from its strenghts and guard agaisnt its weaknesses."

I can't...sorry. I'd rather do nothing and reinstitute measure "T" but Sacromento wants pay back for bringing in state water. We're screwed.

3/27/2007 4:54 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

"This araa is a college town."
No, it's not. It is a long standing community that has a university and CC located here.

"People here need to appreciate students being present and the funding this brings to create a stable economic foundation for this community."

UC is notoriously low paying, that's why they need to subsidize housing for the faculty. They don't sell a product that generates sales taxes and they don't pay property tax. I appreciate the students, especially during summer at the beach. I remember Halloween in IV when the cops left town rather than deal with that was fun!

"Please appreciate this community gift and stop kicking this gift horse in the mouth. Endless supplies of cheap student labor is not bad either."

It's not a gift, my taxes and tuition paid for it. I'm not kicking the Uni at all. Honestly, I do value their many contributions. I just want them to control their expansion around the campus. They've moved into a variety of buildings on Hollister and I feel we need a better employment balance.

"Allegro is right, there is not an increasing growth in student age numbers. The numbers 18-20 age growth has been stable for some time."

Go to SBCC website and you'll see a big banner up top claiming the highest rate of transfers to UCSB. This is a way of getting around the UC 20K population cap everyone's so proud of defending. They also will tell you that student pop jumped 10% between '99-'03 alone.

"State funding caps the growth of student populations too along with the coastal commission."

Not to mention the Coastal Commission can change their mind at any time with no accountability. But I trust good gov't so no worries there.

I don't blame the university for high home prices or all the financially challenged in this town. I'd rather they not add to the problem though.

Have a nice day.

3/27/2007 5:24 PM  
Anonymous nomdecrayola said...

Dear No-Growthers:
You say you don't want growth, no more building, but isn't what you are really saying is that you don't want people to have families? What you really want is socially engineered population control. You're just too much of a coward to say it out loud.

3/27/2007 5:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sa 1

You assume all the college students here come from out of town and take up housing units. Not true. Why persist in this myth?

Lots are local and highschool numbers have increased too. Ergo, more local college age kids going to UCSB, Westmont, and SBCC.

The local economy is doing just fine, even with high rents so let's dump the myth of losing the middle class workers. Lots of them are being lost to outsourcing electronic efficiencies.

Let's see the actual data for each employment group and its inability to find workers due to the housing costs.

Are we sorry we lost the oil industry or the defense industry? And then replaced it with the more stable expanded higher education industry.

I like the current trends. And housing remains affordable for the middle class - they just don't get the 3 bedroom house in Goleta with the swimming pool. But they can get a nifty little condo.

So what are you really saying here.

3/27/2007 5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Santa Monica and Berkeley came to my mind -for reasons NOT to have rent control.

3/27/2007 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

USC analysis of Santa Monica rent control - be careful of what you ask for:

3/27/2007 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Local area has had a fairly steady 2% growth for years - higher ed student numbers grew along with normal population growth - see the Economic Community Project for more numbers.

Don't cherry pick just one segment (like students) of the local growth. Families are part of this internal growth as well. More families mean more local students attending local colleges.

We are a college town since they are collectively the largest employers in this area -and they put hundreds of millions of dollars into the local economy.

I like them better than smoke stacks or oil derricks or Goleta assembly plants with toxic effluvia.

3/27/2007 6:02 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Ok, fine. I guess we don't have any problems here. Let's just open it all up. I doubt you'll find anyone willing to develope property for much less than market rates though. So by all means, get those 500K down payments ready for your growing families because your teenagers are looking for a home here. I'm looking forward to seeing more cookie cutter 3000 sq ft homes on those 5000 sq ft lots. If your lucky, they might even throw in sidewalks, but don't count on it.

Rent control? you're right, who needs it. I don't. My house is almost paid for and I don't depend on the university for my income so who cares? I was just trying to brainstorm for ideas but why bother. It's all good.

"I like the current trends. And housing remains affordable for the middle class - they just don't get the 3 bedroom house in Goleta with the swimming pool. But they can get a nifty little condo.

So what are you really saying here."

You're delusional dilbert, go back to your cubicle. What say you middle class?

3/27/2007 8:40 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

"Let's see the actual data for each employment group and its inability to find workers due to the housing costs."

Ok, let's start with data that is causing the beneficent university to subsidize 171 half priced condos for its recruiting effort because just having a job at a prestigious university in a safe, perfect climate isn't enough.

Or how about the data from Cottage Hospital for its 115 unit housing project.

Maybe the plan for Goleta City workers that would cost 5 million for 18 employees will do.

Pick one.

"What you really want is socially engineered population control. You're just too much of a coward to say it out loud."

No, what I don't want to see is this area turned into another San Fernando Valley. What I would like to see is resposible family planning that includes living in an area where you don't need the tax payers to support your family or causes you to work three jobs so you aren't able to raise them properly. Is that asking too much?

3/27/2007 10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you just presented sa1 are INDUSTRY responses with their own resources and NOT public money responses to throw money at a random scheme of housing random people.

Yes, these specific industry responses to their own needs with their own money do get public subsidy with bonus density units, and technically UCSB is using public tax dollars, but these are specific institutions living within their own resources.

City public housing schemes are a shot in the dark going for numbers only with no relationship to any targeted economic benefit.

Could you dig a little deeper and thanks for trying, sa1

3/28/2007 7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cottage and UCSB are examples of market forces at work.

Maids Quarters and Gardener Cottages are other examples of market forces at work.

3/28/2007 8:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no shortage of workers. We have immigrants filling the jobs that SB folks no longer want to do, and they work for lower wages. So what's the problem?

3/28/2007 9:56 AM  
Anonymous nomdecrayola said...

Anon 9:56: DOCTORS are turning down jobs left and right. That's just ONE example. Open your eyes! This is not about immigrants. This is about critical workforce who are steadily leaving because they cannot afford to live here.

3/28/2007 11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd support public housing if it got the homeless off the streets and out of my face, but it is not. All that is happening is more are coming.

So why bother doing anything at all because it is never enough and does nothing to solve the first problem: send the message to get off the streets and out of my face.

3/28/2007 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So drive to where the doctors are - doh

3/28/2007 2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doctors who just want to make money don't belong here anyway. This is a false alarm.

Plus most people need to do more to keep themselves healthy and stop relying on doctors and their pill-pushing to do it for them.

And that is one way we will do just fine responding to doctors not wanting to move here. Don't let the developers drag you around by your nose.

Think some of these arguments through instead of immediately rolling over. Plus, where are you going to build housing dedicated just for doctors?

What is wrong with the work-force housing units now being built on Chapala. Not good enough for the doctors, eh? Then pray tell, what is.

Is it housing, or is it pay? Why do you keep thinking it is housing. Clue - the developers put that thought into your mind and you parrot it back apparently.

And you don't want to pay the extra in real wages - so whose problem is this and why do you keep asking the city to solve this for you.

3/28/2007 3:08 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

"What you just presented sa1 are INDUSTRY responses with their own resources and NOT public money responses to throw money at a random scheme of housing random people."

Agreed. They are an indication though of a systemic problem that small businesses face also, without the resources to fund housing. Those are the folks I'd like to see helped.

We've strayed a bit from the post subject that Sara brought up. The City of Goleta is under mandate to build over 2K new housing units. The state wants to see something around 25% of them to be "affordable". We don't know what affordable means though (someone does, I'm sure). These aren't funded by the public but rather the buyers of the market rate units included in the approved developement.

Sara, Hawxhurst wasn't dreaming big, he was attempting to be obstructional by putting the figure so high, no developer could afford to build because the non-"affordable" units would not be marketable due to cost. Meanwhile, the council could say it was trying to meet the state's demands. Good strategy as I'd like to see no more housing for my own selfish purposes as I've been open about in previous posts.(how's that for honesty?). It worked for awhile and got the point across that the city in general doesn't want to be dictated to by out of towners and irresponsible developers. I know we'll have to approve something to keep the Sacromento overlords from cutting off our share of sales tax and the other state taxes we're entitled to.

Unfrotunately, Sara, I think 30% is also financially untennable. If you were a buyer of a market rate condo, would you really be happy to know you were financing the neighbor's affordable unit? Would you be comfortable depending on that person to be able to pay their share of joint maintenance and emergency repairs? Would a developer be comfortable in today's enviroment that the "affordable-need" buyers would even be able to qualify for the loan? Seen what's happening in the sub-prime mortgage market lately. What happens if there is a rash of foreclosures in that developement? How do the remaining owners get by?

These are all the problems that make this so hard to figure out. This is why I'm worried about 171 units being sold to apparently low wage faculty. Once the developer sells out, the association is on it's own. At least with a rental apartment building, there is an assumed deep pocket that can control things a little better. The more I think about all this the more inevitable the worst case seems.

3/28/2007 5:17 PM  
Anonymous nomdecrayola said...

Not JUST doctors! Sheesh! Fire fighters, police officers, nurses, teachers, etc.

3/28/2007 7:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They built housing for police and fire personnel on Las Positas a number of years ago. This project failed. Why was that? Why should more be built again?

How many police, fire, teachers, nurses are already on the waiting list for Santa Barbara's 14% affordable housing units?

And if not, why not? What have we been doing so wrong here that we need more than 14% of our housing for police, teachers, fire and nurses?

3/28/2007 8:06 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

sa1 -- I understand Hawxhurst's intentions and have a place in my heart for them but they don't work when you are a representative of the people. This wasn't something the public called for and was an example of the prior council's "we know better than everyone else" attitude which lost them their seats. Goleta will go back to being slow to moderate growth -- but only with reps that listen.

3/28/2007 10:59 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

I hope the council is listening now because decisions are being made now. I just wish someone would publish pictures and plans of what the realistic options are. Then again "we" don't get to vote on it so why bother. The decision is made for us and we only get to chose after the fact to stay or move.

The smaller infill properties available will be problematic with your 30% desire and that is no less pie in the sky then my desire for no housing growth without some job growth. Unless we just decide to turn Goleta into the low rent dumping ground for SB county. I'm sure everyone who doesn't live would be happy to accomodate.

I know something about the Bishop Ranch proposal and most likely that's what's going to happen. Money gets what it wants. I just hope they use some design creativity and stay away from the stucco box with a tile roof. That stuff is so uninspired but cheap and that's what we've become all about. Let's not work hard and be creative... Just take the easy road and if you can get someone else to pay for it, so much the better.

Fortunately I don't drive much but I'm sure 101 is going to become a parking lot over all this. I wonder if they have any help for the not quite rich...there's this place in Summerland I've been thinking about...

3/29/2007 7:15 AM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Sara- I just read some of the Los Caneros Village EIR just posted on the Goleta City web site now. It looks like a lot of what you were asking for but I'm not sure the site next to the tracks and between factories is all that great. 212 condos (of course) and 63 rental apts ...What's a mother to do.

Thanks Goleta Observer for linking to it.

3/29/2007 9:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Low value land is best used for low-income housing. This is economic reality. See, even handouts are never enough. Makes one not want to do anything.

RE: complaint about housing going in between railroad tracks and "factories".

There are "factories" in this southcoast area??? And talk to the Biltmore and Bonnymeade about living next to the railroad track .......gheesh.

3/30/2007 7:28 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Sorry for not being more expicit for you anon #4008. If you'd read the EIR, the condo's are to market rate, not low income. The land will need to be rezoned from light industrial (call it what you want) and will displace two 100K sqft "factories" previously approved. More cheap looking three story condos and quick developer jobs.

3/30/2007 8:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What more does Santa Barbara need to do about low-income housing?

Sounds like it is a primary industry for this community. And created three times the original number of homeless, now demanding they be taken care of as well.

Keep this in mind, Goleta.

4/03/2007 4:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home