My wife and I are disgusted by the practice of requiring such housing in exchange for issuing permits for upscale developments. One can bust their arse all their life to escape a certain demographic and the planning gods say “no you can’t”.

We were looking at some master plans for Santaluz, for example, and the low income housing is identified.

It is such a turn off to us that in the future we would not buy anywhere near. I’m not sure everyone is willing to be so honest, however.

It may explain the continued attraction and prices of older upscale areas even when the houses are out of date. People aren’t buying the house, they’re buying the demographics of the neighbourhood and schools.

My wife and I are disgusted by the practice of requiring such housing in exchange for issuing permits for upscale developments. One can bust their arse all their life to escape a certain demographic and the planning gods say “no you can’t”.

We were looking at some master plans for Santaluz, for example, and the low income housing is identified.

It is such a turn off to us that in the future we would not buy anywhere near. I’m not sure everyone is willing to be so honest, however.

It may explain the continued attraction and prices of older upscale areas even when the houses are out of date. People aren’t buying the house, they’re buying the demographics of the neighbourhood and schools.

[quote=faterikcartman]My wife and I are disgusted by the practice of requiring such housing in exchange for issuing permits for upscale developments. One can bust their arse all their life to escape a certain demographic and the planning gods say “no you can’t”.

We were looking at some master plans for Santaluz, for example, and the low income housing is identified.

It is such a turn off to us that in the future we would not buy anywhere near. I’m not sure everyone is willing to be so honest, however.

It may explain the continued attraction and prices of older upscale areas even when the houses are out of date. People aren’t buying the house, they’re buying the demographics of the neighbourhood and schools.[/quote]

fat erik, even “older upscale areas” have their share of section 8, even if it is in an adjacent zip code. Case in point: 92110 is adjacent to 92106 and has both a huge complex of military multifamily housing AND multiple Section 8 complexes. The “naked eye” can’t tell a “Section 8” complex or the “market-rate” units from the “subsidized units.” They are truly one and the same. The vast majority of these tenants are law-abiding working stiffs.

I know it was the OP and not you that posted it, but I believe it is DISCRIMINATORY to require a Section 8 applicant to submit to a background check (criminal investigation). If I were you, I would be far more concerned about renting my upscale SFR I owned to unsuspecting associates of the Mexican drug cartel. These are the applicants that have first and last months rent, as well as a large damage deposit in cash for you … no problem. But curiously, their rental application reveals that no one in their family has any paying “job” or other “legitimate and verifiable” income.

The “poor” or “near poor” are NOT the tenant-applicants you need to worry about in SD … we don’t have any “public housing projects” here.

[quote=faterikcartman]My wife and I are disgusted by the practice of requiring such housing in exchange for issuing permits for upscale developments. One can bust their arse all their life to escape a certain demographic and the planning gods say “no you can’t”.

We were looking at some master plans for Santaluz, for example, and the low income housing is identified.

It is such a turn off to us that in the future we would not buy anywhere near. I’m not sure everyone is willing to be so honest, however.

It may explain the continued attraction and prices of older upscale areas even when the houses are out of date. People aren’t buying the house, they’re buying the demographics of the neighbourhood and schools.[/quote]

fat erik, even “older upscale areas” have their share of section 8, even if it is in an adjacent zip code. Case in point: 92110 is adjacent to 92106 and has both a huge complex of military multifamily housing AND multiple Section 8 complexes. The “naked eye” can’t tell a “Section 8” complex or the “market-rate” units from the “subsidized units.” They are truly one and the same. The vast majority of these tenants are law-abiding working stiffs.

I know it was the OP and not you that posted it, but I believe it is DISCRIMINATORY to require a Section 8 applicant to submit to a background check (criminal investigation). If I were you, I would be far more concerned about renting my upscale SFR I owned to unsuspecting associates of the Mexican drug cartel. These are the applicants that have first and last months rent, as well as a large damage deposit in cash for you … no problem. But curiously, their rental application reveals that no one in their family has any paying “job” or other “legitimate and verifiable” income.

The “poor” or “near poor” are NOT the tenant-applicants you need to worry about in SD … we don’t have any “public housing projects” here.

[quote=faterikcartman]My wife and I are disgusted by the practice of requiring such housing in exchange for issuing permits for upscale developments. One can bust their arse all their life to escape a certain demographic and the planning gods say “no you can’t”.

We were looking at some master plans for Santaluz, for example, and the low income housing is identified.

It is such a turn off to us that in the future we would not buy anywhere near. I’m not sure everyone is willing to be so honest, however.

It may explain the continued attraction and prices of older upscale areas even when the houses are out of date. People aren’t buying the house, they’re buying the demographics of the neighbourhood and schools.[/quote]

fat erik, even “older upscale areas” have their share of section 8, even if it is in an adjacent zip code. Case in point: 92110 is adjacent to 92106 and has both a huge complex of military multifamily housing AND multiple Section 8 complexes. The “naked eye” can’t tell a “Section 8” complex or the “market-rate” units from the “subsidized units.” They are truly one and the same. The vast majority of these tenants are law-abiding working stiffs.

I know it was the OP and not you that posted it, but I believe it is DISCRIMINATORY to require a Section 8 applicant to submit to a background check (criminal investigation). If I were you, I would be far more concerned about renting my upscale SFR I owned to unsuspecting associates of the Mexican drug cartel. These are the applicants that have first and last months rent, as well as a large damage deposit in cash for you … no problem. But curiously, their rental application reveals that no one in their family has any paying “job” or other “legitimate and verifiable” income.

The “poor” or “near poor” are NOT the tenant-applicants you need to worry about in SD … we don’t have any “public housing projects” here.

Here’s a local link (Board letter) I found dated 2003 that states that in order to receive a “Section 8” voucher, an applicant must have submitted to a criminal background check. However, these tenants did not have to keep their criminal background check current during their tenancy. Supvsr Cox proposed that these recipients should have to report any criminal conviction they sustained while a tenant to the County Housing Authority. Don’t know if this new ordinance was ever passed by the BOS.

Of course, enforcement could be problematic and also labor-intensive.

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/bos1/legislation/leg040211.html

Here’s a local link (Board letter) I found dated 2003 that states that in order to receive a “Section 8” voucher, an applicant must have submitted to a criminal background check. However, these tenants did not have to keep their criminal background check current during their tenancy. Supvsr Cox proposed that these recipients should have to report any criminal conviction they sustained while a tenant to the County Housing Authority. Don’t know if this new ordinance was ever passed by the BOS.

Of course, enforcement could be problematic and also labor-intensive.

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/bos1/legislation/leg040211.html