Debbie Brasket: Preserving Affordable Rentals and Mobile Homes

» Susan on 08.04.09 @ 09:18 AM

I wonder if it is true that some of the “affordable housing”, for example the housing development off Hope in Santa Barbara, goes to market value after 10 years.  Is this true?  And if so, how is that fair if they get to buy “affordable housing” knowing in ten years they can sell for market value?  Then, we lost affordable housing..  Anyone have the answer?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Go Figure on 08.04.09 @ 11:35 AM

The whole “affordable Housing” industry is developers and government scratching each others backs. Preserving true affordable units is a threat to the system because it leaves out re-building. It’s actually cheaper for governments to just buy existing rundown units than hire all the bureaucrats and inspectors who get payed to review, plan, and approve new projects.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 08.04.09 @ 02:01 PM

Affordable housing advocates are their own worst enemy. The biggest cause of the affordability gap is supply and demand. There is a huge demand for housing here even in the economic downturn. It far out strips supply, so much so that you could not satisfy it by building out the demand. Unfortunately, the no growth and preservation advocates have exasperated the situation by curtailing even small or moderate growth. Further exasperation occurred when the no growth zealots in a hurry to kill housing growth through such instruments as down zoning and resource restrictions, left landowners only one alternative, commercial and industrial growth. That coupled with the explosive growth of local government and public institutions left our area rich in public and private jobs, but poor in housing. The result is a huge commuter influx on a daily basis.
So you still have all the problems of growth, traffic, resource shortages and escalating prices, only no new homeowners to tax for mitigation. In comes the affordable housing advocacy. They recognize the problem and see a slight mitigation to it by promoting more housing growth to at least balance the jobs. I commend them for their efforts. They get it. They see a solution, they try to execute a program to implement the solution and that’s when they hit the brick wall. The same selfish, self centered, greedy, myopic rats that helped create the situation are there ready to stop any resolution. It does not matter that the motive for their original obstructionism is already moot, you have all the crap you though growth would produce, without the growth to tax to fix it. On top of that, most of the new housing advocated by those who get it is the very stuff that sends the obstructionist into a full on fit, high density growth in low density neighborhoods.
Sorry folks, but you just couldn’t plan shooting yourself in the foot as well as this community has done by fiat. BTW – there is a way out, but you ain’t gonna like it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» S.B housing will drop 50% on 08.04.09 @ 03:21 PM

We dont need affordable housing, because the town is way over priced. The housing will probably drop another 50%, and that will make it affordable. The people who cant afford to live here should move to a cheaper city—Hello—big government at work////

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» cost saving option on 08.04.09 @ 07:00 PM

That’s the whole point of why this is the answer to truly affordable housing - an $80,000 coach has the value, luxury and space of a three bedroom two bath home which would be worth $500,000 plus if it was on land. Why does the City keep building new condo units on prime City land instead of just providing land for this truly affordable option?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Wanna be home owner on 08.05.09 @ 09:02 AM

I have lived in SB for ten years and have never seen the rents so high. Five years ago earning way less than I am earning now I could afford my own one bedroom place dowtown and it was very clean and well maintained. I paid about $1,200.00 a month in rent. Now, earning a great deal more, I cannot find a place to live that is clean, well maintained and affordable. By affordable I mean under $1,400.00. I am a your professional with a cat and I might as well be a lepor, I see people walking with pets everywhere and yet I can’t find one place that will let me rent when I have a cat. I don’t want to live in a studio or a converted garage. Many, many places don’t even offer a stove….what do you cook a real meal with, a hot plate!!??? My friends that have their own place and can afford rent have been there for years (more than 5) and the landlord has not raised rent, if that happened then they would have to move out. So to the person who said “if you can’t afford to live here move to another city”, if that happened the city would shut down or traffic would get so bad that you would not be able to get into SB.(wait, that is already a reality.)Part of any city’s charm is due to the diversity of the people live with in it, so please make housing affordable. I see these new high rise buildings going up down town, yet I don’t see too many people actually living in them. So the city allows a build yet not one problem is solved, I don’t get it. At this point my friends and I are all considering moving to different cities. FYI, my frinds and I all have college degrees,and are architects,financial advisors, engineers, not bad. But yet we struggle with housing. What really concerns me is all the people doing a great amount of good in the community, non profit employees, how do they make it??? I know they earn less than average, make a difference daily, how do they afford housing??

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 08.05.09 @ 05:51 PM

We could house the entire commuting work force in this town right now with little impact on services. The reason is simple, they are already here 5 to 6 days out of the week, driving on our streets, shopping in our stores and using our facilities. There is plenty of room for them to live here and pay taxes here as well. The benefit is we will add to the revenue stream so that critical infrastructure is up graded and properly maintained and we won’t have to spend obscene amounts of money building commuter transportation systems, not to mention a much healthier environment since enormous amounts of fuel will not have to be expended to move people in and out of the area every day.
So where do we put the 25,000 commuters coming into the south coast every day? Put 5000 in the Carpentaria Valley (mid to low density housing), another 8,000 in the city of Santa Barbara (mid to high density, mostly around the downtown core). 6000 would be housed in the city of Goleta (mid to low density) and finally another 6000 scattered around the unincorporated areas (mid to low density).
Wow, that sounds like an awful lot of people! It is! But like I said they are already here jamming up streets, using water and services, so they might as well have a home here too. But housing for 25,000 is no small feat and it would alter the landscape indelibly forever, sort of like how it was transformed for the hordes of residents currently living here. And that is why I find the preservationist/no growth community here so damned repugnant. The urban landscape was permanently altered (and in a much more careless manner) to accommodate the 200,000+ people living here now and I don’t see any reason why, with the tools we have today, we can’t accommodate another 10%.
Now I told you, you wouldn’t like it. But once all the selfish I-got-mine-screw-everyone-else loud mouths get over it, we need to make sure what we build here is targeted to that coveted taxpaying, community supporting, child raising bastion of moderation, the middleclass working stiff. Yes that includes you doctors, engineers, bankers, accountants, tradesmen, technicians, nurses, cops, firemen, managers and so on. We seem to have plenty of housing for the very wealthy and those at the top of the socio-economic game and plenty of advocacy for the lower end of the spectrum, so now its time to nurture the middle. For those of you worried about all that illusive charm you think these 25,000 will destroy here, I think the hobos, gang bangers and your local government have already finished that off. No point arguing to preserve something you don’t have.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.