My experience has been that these projects which need a “set aside” of a certain number of units for rent or purchase by low-income individuals and families (in order to get a permit to build at all) are invariably situated in smaller cities who want to “grandstand” that they’re “doing something” about the cost of housing. I’ve seen this type of “set aside” in complexes in Del Mar and Coronado (yes, Coronado). And there are several in Carlsbad. They serve as political “showpieces” for these small governments who can now say they did! “And look, [visiting dignitaries] … here it is! Let me take you on a tour of the grounds. We’re so proud of it!” Of course, they don’t advertise the fact that those new sucker “owners” are going to lose their a$$es on their “investment” in this debacle.
I’ll bet if the same developer wanted to put up low income rental units on 69th Street or Skyline Dr in SD and sell them to non-profits and let the local housing agency manage them, the City of SD would not only give them tax credits to do so but PAY THEM a BIG BONUS to tear down and clean up the unfinished albatross the last “low-income” housing developer left behind 20+ yrs ago when they went belly-up! They could REALLY MAKE A DENT in the “affordable housing” problem there. They won’t HAVE to “set aside” a “token” amount of units built on expensive land. It may have an existing teardown but they can likely still get a very suitable parcel for these projects in 92105, 92113, 92114, 91945 and 91977 … yes even today.
My personal feeling (however “unpopular” it may sound) is that housing in CA coastal cities has traditionally been tiered in a “caste system.” The “dues-paying” homeowners (ones with prior “sweat equity” in two or more CA coastal properties or those who are otherwise independently well off) are the ones who are likely to have the cash and stamina for the long haul to purchase and maintain a SFR in the most coveted coastal areas.
A “transplant” family of four making <$50K should not expect to waltz into one of these counties and demand to live in a beach area or other coveted, established area, unless they can otherwise afford it. They can start their property-shopping (or rental shopping) expedition on 47th St in SD (or other similarly situated areas), just like I did. And a “native” family of four making <$50K can often employ their local relatives' help in obtaining and getting a nearby available fixer ready for them to occupy. Many young locals DO go this route, especially those who want grandparents nearby (for childcare). Some Piggs might be shocked to learn that if they took a door-to-door survey of longtime homeowners on the best streets in SD (WTH, start on Rutgers Rd in LJ) they would learn that many of these owners bought their FIRST properties in nondescript tracts on very "humble" streets in 92102, 92104, 90105, 92115 and 92116.
Everybody has to start somewhere.
I'm not referring to the OP here (don't know how old they are or their preferences) but too many Gen Y entering the housing market today seem to just want the best areas or nothing. Or brand new construction or nothing. Their "expectations" are very often unrealistic for their earning capacity and asset level, IMHO.
The most desirable CA coastal cities have never been "set up" to house families who can't afford to live there. They're not for everyone.
That's what places like Fresno, Victorville, AZ and TX are for 🙂
