Community Post: Goleta Shows Us How
A community post from a dedicated reader:
===========================
Goleta CC has approved a bond issue to help fund rental housing near Old Town. 15% of the rentals will be priced for low income affordability. The bond is thought to be self financed from the economic income generated by the new tenants. 6 million towards a 45 million project to build 200 units. The county has just reassessed their position on providing subsidized homeownership that mostly benefits the landowners/developer crowd as opposed to the “American Dream” of homeownership.
Many times over the last six months, I was told that rental units were not feasible. What helped this project was a beneficial land price by the Sumida family, years ago. Maybe what it takes is some social arm twisting of the property owners that have complimentary parcels for sale and a commitment of all the local governments to pursue this approach for affordable housing. Rental units are not subject to the potential fraud (rife in the county at 30%+) of subsidized purchases. Is it time to go into some neighborhoods and start condemning substandard housing and assist in the rebuilding of affordable rental apartments?
===========================
Goleta CC has approved a bond issue to help fund rental housing near Old Town. 15% of the rentals will be priced for low income affordability. The bond is thought to be self financed from the economic income generated by the new tenants. 6 million towards a 45 million project to build 200 units. The county has just reassessed their position on providing subsidized homeownership that mostly benefits the landowners/developer crowd as opposed to the “American Dream” of homeownership.
Many times over the last six months, I was told that rental units were not feasible. What helped this project was a beneficial land price by the Sumida family, years ago. Maybe what it takes is some social arm twisting of the property owners that have complimentary parcels for sale and a commitment of all the local governments to pursue this approach for affordable housing. Rental units are not subject to the potential fraud (rife in the county at 30%+) of subsidized purchases. Is it time to go into some neighborhoods and start condemning substandard housing and assist in the rebuilding of affordable rental apartments?
Labels: Goleta City Council, housing
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 6/21/2007 09:07:00 PM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
8 Comments:
There is a lot of deceit and fraud in rental housing. The focus is on "subsidized purchases" but when it comes down to it, people will lie and cheat to get affordable rental housing as well. Its about what the focus in this moment in time is. I know of one Santa Barbara homeowner who, for a couple of decades now still has a "rent controlled" rental in Santa Monica...he sublets....Go figure. My post should not be taken to discriminate against rental housing. I beleive homeowners are fairly deceitfull and are caught up in a very fraudulent scheme know as "real estate equity" based on unfair tax advantages for those poor poor victimized homeowners. As a priveledge homeowner why should I be able to deduct home mortagage interest ....? Also you can check out all those poor subsidized City Housing Authority clients subsidized parking stalls...Gas guzzling SUVs..Twisted I know.
The County is incompetent, and their decision to cease for-sale affordable housing is no more competent than their management of their past for-sale housing. The County is just incapable of managing anything.
In this day and age incredible amounts of financial information are available by computer about people who want affordable housing. That the County cannot get its act together to use that info when we are in dire need is mainly a statement about the County's incompetence.
Sure would be nice if someone did a careful study of the City of Santa Barbara's management of its affordable housing. If my memory serves, there is very little fraud there, and consequently those who are anti-affordable housing ignore the City's program, because studying it does not serve their goals.
"Is it time to go into some neighborhoods and start condemning substandard housing and assist in the rebuilding of affordable rental apartments?"
Two questions there: time to start condemning in "some" neighborhoods? No, it isn't --- If there are "substandard" houses, then it may be time to encourage, by fines as has been done to once and still? slumlords, to rebuild to health/safety standards, not condemn.
Condemning would be another step towards encouraging (ha!) all low income folks to live in certain neighborhoods. An intention to spread the poverty throughout the city would be needed before condemning in "some neighborhoods" might be more acceptable.
And, yes, assist in the building of affordable rental units by a bond measure to be paid back by the rents.
No one has the right to live in Santa Barbara; nevertheless, it is to the city's benefit to have a (buzz-word) diverse city --- and some think low incomes or high incomes and certain ethnicities coincide....
Not sure if Goleta is "showing us how".....but whatever works.....
speaking of working, County CEO MIKE BROWN's new and fatter contract will be on the Board of Supe agenda this Tues, 6/26.....here's a peek at the perks:
http://bos-agenda.sbcgov.net/attachments/8218.pdf
Don't romanticize "rental housing" because this is where most of the city blight occurs - transient neigbhorhoods with no sense of pride, dumped sofas and moving trash left on the sidewalks, no neighborhood watch, litter, dumping, and cars parked all over the frontage.
No more. No thank you. There is already plenty of affordable housing in these neighborhoods - just start counting all the illegal units and converted garages.
http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/whats-smart-about-smart-growth/16507/
Above's a good description of "Smart Growth speak". I hope the various councils fall into this planning trap here in SB.
At least with rental apts., it fills a need for middle wage workers who are years away from commiting a huge down payment on a house or condo. I bet it helps maximise the property tax revenue for the city also. Now, before they fall into the "smart growth" trap, Goleta needs to think about real solutions for transit or the streets will be flooded with cars. I saw UCSB give a pitch to the SBCAG the other day. I hope the county does a better job of evaluating these next "visions" for growth. Clearly, the Uni didn't have an answer as to why the population "cap" limit should be raised just because the Uni wants to. They hide the fact that the additional 6700 will bring additional partners and family into the area. Did anyone ever think they'd see gridlock on Hollister, Storke, La Cumbra and Fairview...let alone the summer weekend traffic on 101. I can't wait.
I meant to say..."I hope the various councils DO NOT fall into this planning trap here in SB.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-transit30jun30,0,4693321.story?page=1&coll=la-home-center
Here's another story in the same vane. Mixed use and high density around transit corridors look good on paper but actually make things worse.
Anyone see the new condo on West Ortega which sucked the life out of the front yard set-back - smacko -- right in your face on the street.
This is the kind planning abuse the city has to stop commiting.
Just say no to any further modifications of the zoning ordiance would be a good campaign platform for any of the current partners in crime on this city council up for re-election.
Post a Comment
<< Home