[quote=CA renter]You’re missing my point about not concentrating all the low-income housing like that. I’m sure there are some SFH landlords in CBD who will take Section 8 tenants, but in all the years I’ve lived here, I’ve never seen one. They don’t need Section 8 because our rental market is very strong, and they can just as easily find truly qualified renters who are just about as reliable as Section 8, but who won’t damage their homes.[/quote]
Lol, CAR, I must have been “threadskimming” yesterday and did not see your post below. I really don’t think the complexes shown on the City’s website could be considered “slums” but of course, I don’t live around there or drive by them.
I DO understand why “casitas” developers built as part of an SFR but with no separate entrance cannot be considered fulfilling their “affordable housing set-aside” requirements. Usually, these rooms are inhabited by relatives of the homeowner. They are NOT available to the general public on the basis of income. Therefore, they are not available for public consumption.
However, two things have always bothered me about public/private partnership decisions to place *new* affordable housing in particular areas.
First of all, why does a low-income or Section 8 tenant “deserve” *new* construction? What’s wrong with older construction? Many working families making $80K to $200K per year own and/or reside in older construction which actually needs repairs they cannot yet afford.
Secondly, why does a low-income or Section 8 tenant “deserve” to live in zip codes and micro-areas where the average price of a condo is currently $350K+ and the average price of an SFR is currently about $650K?? What’s wrong with 92105 or 92114?? I understand these zip codes already have a LOT of low-income housing. But I am hard-pressed to understand where the incentive is for a single parent or family to try to “earn more” and “move up” in life when if they do so, they will no longer “qualify” to rent their spacious 3-bdrm apt in Carlsbad with “full amenities” for $322 per month?
Piggs, if you happened to qualify for one of these units, wouldn’t you keep your “documented” income within guidelines forever so as not to lose this “deal of a lifetime??” WTH, don’t bother with that FT or “better” job. Just go surfing instead!
If a developer has to have a “low income set-aside” for a certain number of units in order to obtain permits to build SFRs in a desirable area, then why can’t they build those “set-aside” units in a less desirable area (ie build SFRs in 92011 and their required LI units in 92025 or 92105, overlooking I-15)? Or, at the very least, build them in the same or adjacent zip codes but under high power lines, next to an industrial area or other lesser-desirable (read: cheaper) land? Why do all these areas that upwardly mobile buyers/tenants “aspire to” have to have hundreds of low-income units located within them?
It’s not just Carlsbad, it’s also coveted areas like Pt Loma (although not *newer* apts) where this phenomenon prevails.
I was always of the mind that people should “pay their dues” in life first in order to enable them to “move-up” to the next best area.
I believe many current “low-income” residents of Section 8 and other “low-income” units have become unjustly enriched at the expense of the working middle class, due to public policies to spread these housing benefits around nearly everywhere.
As I’ve posted before, this is also true for very young “low-income” active-duty families who live in military housing areas located at Silver Strand and Loma Portal. However, the Navy has owned all of this land for more than 60 years and there is nothing anyone can do about this. They are entitled to do with it whatever they wish.
[quote=CA renter]I don’t know why this isn’t mandated as “affordable housing” in new developments. It’s more practical for most families to have their grown kids or elderly parents live near home than it is to have them far away in some apartment or nursing home. This way, instead of clustering apartments that meet the “affordable housing” requirements — often leading to congested areas with higher crime, etc. — the renters can be spread out where the landlords would be more inclined to maintain the properties better (because they live next door), and they can help friends or family members who need an affordable place to live. It would greatly reduce the creation of new “slums.”[/quote]
***************
I also disagree with making the Bressi Ranch condo complex available only to “low-income” buyers under strict guidelines and with all those restrictions. Cities of El Cajon and Santee have had similar programs for newly-built condos and there have been MANY foreclosures in these complexes.
It has been proven time and time again with CHFA, the fmr “Union Bank Economic Opportunity Mtgs,” and the “City of SD Silent Seconds” (92105, 92113 and 92114) that low-income buyers (esp 1st-time buyers) DO NOT stay in their properties for the long term, CANNOT pay back “silent seconds” for violating occupancy and length-of-ownership rules and BALK at having to sell their property to another “low-income qualifying buyer” at a pre-determined sales price out of their control. This severely limits their buying pool and often the reason they are selling is desperation. They are selling due to moving for work or family reasons or are no longer able to afford the mortgage. These agencies aren’t doing these “low-income” homeowners any favors. Many don’t even need the MID for a tax writeoff and are actually taking the EIC on their tax returns!
There is so much public hype over the concept of “affordable housing” and “homeownership for all” that potential “low-income” buyers are actually being sold a “bill of goods” when they are “selected” by lottery to participate in these programs (usually for poorly-built and badly-located new construction), IMO. They don’t realize this until months/years after they have moved in.
For a lowish-income first-timer, why not just try to qualify for an FHA loan and buy a home for your family through a “traditional sale??” Or save enough $$ until one has the necessary 3.5% down plus closing costs?
FWIW, I’m not saying here that having a “low income” is a crime or that “low income” people are somehow subhuman. Some Piggs might consider me to have a “low income,” lol. And level of income has nothing to do with honesty and integrity. I just believe everyone should be able to live within their means and nothing more. Otherwise, there is no incentive to make one’s life better … because the *better lifestyle* is already available at a very low cost to those who can’t afford it.
