Irvine loses appeal - more affordable housing on the way

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1256039285]What I'm saying is that the "government" has said that discrimination (the exact term used in the prior posts) by using price (only!) in housing is legal. </blockquote>


Eva... it was a smartass comment. It was funny, too... until you killed all the funny.



<img src="http://www.whatchuneed.com/images/GiftShop/SadSam-24150.jpg" alt="" />
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1256040169]



Eva... it was a smartass comment. It was funny, too... until you killed all the funny.</blockquote>


Dude, why do you think I spend so much time on IHB? It's not like people invite me to their parties. ;-P



Anyway, maybe we save the politics for the politics forum?
 
<img src="http://www.thebluething.com/games/files/you-make-bunny-cry.jpg" alt="" />



When she worked in Irvine, 0/7 of the staff engineers who worked in my wife's office lived there, and most of them would of qualifed for 'low income' under Eva's standards. My wife was the only one who lacked a MS or higher.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1256131700]When she worked in Irvine, 0/7 of the staff engineers who worked in my wife's office lived there, and most of them would of qualifed for 'low income' under Eva's standards. My wife was the only one who lacked a MS or higher.</blockquote>


Don't you know? If they would have had any sense, they would have invested well and made tons of money. If they didn't invest well, then all the smarts in the world don't matter. Money talks and BS (or Ph.D) walks.
 
While I don't actually agree with the court's decision nor the mandatory amounts of low income housing required for Irvine, this thread is full of ridiculous amounts snobbery and pretension. Many of you guys need to take a step back and think about what and how you are saying. It seems to me that you are complaining that the low income residents wouldn't fit into the idealized citizenry of Irvine but I would assert that neither do arrogant pretentious elitists.
 
I would absolutely love to have a Rolls Royce. Unfortunately, I am not able to afford one at this time. Should Rolls Royce have to offer me a new Rolls Royce for $50,000 with the rest to be subsidized by the government?



This may not be the best example, but the general idea is this: If you can't afford to live in Irvine that is okay. There is nothing wrong with that. You are no less of a person than the people who can afford to live in Irvine. That being said, I dont think you have a right to live in Irvine if you cant afford it. Also, I certainly do not think that Irvine should be forced to provide a certain number of "affordable" housing units.
 
[quote author="Minimorty" date=1256170326]I would absolutely love to have a Rolls Royce. Unfortunately, I am not able to afford one at this time. Should Rolls Royce have to offer me a new Rolls Royce for $50,000 with the rest to be subsidized by the government?



This may not be the best example, but the general idea is this: If you can't afford to live in Irvine that is okay. There is nothing wrong with that. You are no less of a person than the people who can afford to live in Irvine. That being said, I dont think you have a right to live in Irvine if you cant afford it. Also, I certainly do not think that Irvine should be forced to provide a certain number of "affordable" housing units.</blockquote>


I agree 100000000000000000000000000%
 
[quote author="Ameesh" date=1256167932]While I don't actually agree with the court's decision nor the mandatory amounts of low income housing required for Irvine, this thread is full of ridiculous amounts snobbery and pretension. Many of you guys need to take a step back and think about what and how you are saying. It seems to me that you are complaining that the low income residents wouldn't fit into the idealized citizenry of Irvine but I would assert that neither do arrogant pretentious elitists.</blockquote>


i came from a very poor family and we have all worked hard to get where we are today. we didn't always live in irvine or newport. current low income residents has the same opportunities my family had bc "HARDWORK" and "Sacrafice" does not cost anything! If they want to live in Irvine they should work for it. It shouldn't be given to them on a silver platter.
 
[quote author="Minimorty" date=1256170326]I would absolutely love to have a Rolls Royce. Unfortunately, I am not able to afford one at this time. Should Rolls Royce have to offer me a new Rolls Royce for $50,000 with the rest to be subsidized by the government?



This may not be the best example, but the general idea is this: If you can't afford to live in Irvine that is okay. There is nothing wrong with that. You are no less of a person than the people who can afford to live in Irvine. That being said, I dont think you have a right to live in Irvine if you cant afford it. Also, I certainly do not think that Irvine should be forced to provide a certain number of "affordable" housing units.</blockquote>


Now you know why a majority of the people living in Irvine are Republicans and not Democrats :-)
 
Somewhere in woodbury, there's a meeting going on with just SFR (detached) owners trying to move the following people out...renters, owners (condos, SFR (attached))



They're saying that if you cant afford a single detach house, you need to get the heck out of IRVINE!



PS. I dont want to go!
 
[quote author="rickhunter" date=1256180916]Somewhere in woodbury, there's a meeting going on with just SFR (detached) owners trying to move the following people out...renters, owners (condos, SFR (attached))



They're saying that if you cant afford a single detach house, you need to get the heck out of IRVINE!



PS. I dont want to go!</blockquote>


You shoulda heard some of the resident's comments to the TIC when they were in Woodbury proposing new housing. "Attached" and/or "Affordable" would have been deemed offensive used in a yo mamma joke among these borders.
 
[quote author="Matchbox" date=1256182680][quote author="rickhunter" date=1256180916]Somewhere in woodbury, there's a meeting going on with just SFR (detached) owners trying to move the following people out...renters, owners (condos, SFR (attached))



They're saying that if you cant afford a single detach house, you need to get the heck out of IRVINE!



PS. I dont want to go!</blockquote>


You shoulda heard some of the resident's comments to the TIC when they were in Woodbury proposing new housing. "Attached" and/or "Affordable" would have been deemed offensive used in a yo mamma joke among these borders.</blockquote>
Oh no, the SFR owners want to kick me out of Irvine...what am I gonna do???
 
[quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1256039285][quote author="Nude" date=1255842684]First, since when has "true" been required for something to be "funny"?



Second, the very term "affordable" determines the kind of discrimination (price) that government is trying to avoid. The code you quoted strives to ensure that those "affordable" houses aren't simply reserved for straight, white, Christians folks but it says nothing about discriminating against people because they are poor. If you could legislate against that kind of discrimination, the bill would have been made law decades ago.



Third, the reason my edit is funny is obvious; championing the right of the poor and downtrodden has been the hallmark of the Democratic party since... forever. You would be hard pressed to find the Republican party arguing that private landowners should set aside a portion of their land to sell at less than market rates. Since the Democrats have largely controlled the state legislature for the last generation, implying that they *are* the government is both fitting and funny.



<blockquote>...



(Eva whips it out... again)



...



There are plenty of <u>true</u> things that one can criticize the government and Democrats about that I don't think we need to misrepresent the law to do so.</blockquote>


Did I misrepresent it? I don't think *I* said anything other than the Democrats are the de facto government in the state and that they are against "price discrimination" preventing anyone from being able to live in new developments. All I see is you getting riled up and, to be honest, I don't see what your cites have to do with the discussion. Who here equated sex, race, or color discrimination with the demand for affordable housing? Am I missing something or are you reading something in to it?</blockquote>


What I'm saying is that the "government" has said that discrimination (the exact term used in the prior posts) by using price (only!) in housing is legal. ... the government could have made price discrimination in housing illegal. ... They could have made discrimination by price illegal, but did not.</blockquote>


I was a little confused by the argument, but I get it now. not really sure what the point is, other than price "discrimination" is legal.
 
There is definitely more than meets the eye with regards to affordable housing. I've studied the tax code for affordable housing. It is like one of the biggest tax giveaways there is. In turn bidding for affordable housing projects can be quite fierce. There is $$$$$ to be made in affordable housing.



My first question with regard to the original posters article is who exactly is SCAG and who is pushing them to force the city of Irvine's hand in doing these projects?



Was affordable housing legislation really passed because our representatives are trying to help poor people?



What organizations are giving money to lobbyist to pass affordable housing bills?
 
[quote author="Mcdonna1980" date=1256200318]My first question with regard to the original posters article is who exactly is SCAG and who is pushing them to force the city of Irvine's hand in doing these projects?</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.scag.ca.gov/Housing/index.htm">SCAG's housing info</a>.
 
[quote author="Mcdonna1980" date=1256200318]There is definitely more than meets the eye with regards to affordable housing. I've studied the tax code for affordable housing. It is like one of the biggest tax giveaways there is. In turn bidding for affordable housing projects can be quite fierce. There is $$$$$ to be made in affordable housing.



My first question with regard to the original posters article is who exactly is SCAG and who is pushing them to force the city of Irvine's hand in doing these projects?



Was affordable housing legislation really passed because our representatives are trying to help poor people?



What organizations are giving money to lobbyist to pass affordable housing bills?</blockquote>


SCAG stands for the Southern California Association of Governments. There are regional councils of governments around the state that fulfill a pseudo-governmental role. In this case, regional councils of governments are given the power by the housing element law to be the sole "decider" of each jurisdiction's housing allocations.



In answer to your question about intentions, I believe the answer is yes, the original legislators who drafted the housing element law did have the best of intentions, and meant simply to provide more housing for low-income residents. However, as is often the case, even the best intended legislation lends itself to another law - the law of unintended consequences.



I wish there were well-paid lobbyists who were advocating for the residents who would most benefit from this housing. However, what you've termed a big tax giveaway is really rather deceptive. The only reason that these units get built at all is because of the tax credits (at either the 4% or 9% levels, depending on which type of credit a developer is seeking). The remaining funding typically comes from a variety of federal loans. Many of these projects require upwards of 7, 8, sometimes even 10 separate funding sources, each with their own requirements. Imagine if you had to answer to 10 different mortgage holders, who were each requiring different paperwork on different timelines, EVERY YEAR you owned your home. The only exception is that the constructions loans typically come from a actual bank (B of A, Wells Fargo, etc.)



The residency and reporting requirements for these projects are so onerous that the majority of the developers are non-profit entities. The benefit of this model is that any "profits" from the properties that come after years of maturity can be put back into new projects. There is NO significant financial incentive for for-profit developers to do this work. They only do that when a jurisdictions requires them to include some affordable units in a martket rate development.



If there were actual financial incentives to do this kind of building, the market would have taken care of providing affordable units years ago. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case.
 
Yes, and those 4-9% credits are available every year for 10 years. If you get a 9% credit you would recoup 90% of your cost to build the affordable project. Tell me how recouping 90% of your costs is not a aggressive tax advantage? It's certainly not without headaches, though. There is a ton of compliance to meet, hoops to jump through, and California has limits on how much they can dish out in credits each year.



I'm not trying to make a case against or for affordable housing. I was just annoyed that so many here were whining about poor people are getting a break from the government when clearly well off people are getting their share of the tax dollars too.
 
[quote author="Mcdonna1980" date=1256205212]Yes, and those 4-9% credits are available every year for 10 years. If you get a 9% credit you would recoup 90% of your cost to build the affordable project. Tell me how recouping 90% of your costs is not a aggressive tax advantage? It's certainly not without headaches, though. There is a ton of compliance to meet, hoops to jump through, and California has limits on how much they can dish out in credits each year.



I'm not trying to make a case against or for affordable housing. I was just annoyed that so many here were whining about poor people are getting a break from the government when clearly well off people are getting their share of the tax dollars too.</blockquote>


As I understand it (and I very well may be wrong), the developer of the project <em>sells</em> their tax credits to a company that needs tax credits and then uses that money to fund, in part, the project. It struck me as a racket the first time I heard it, but I guess it works.
 
[quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1256208488][quote author="Mcdonna1980" date=1256205212]Yes, and those 4-9% credits are available every year for 10 years. If you get a 9% credit you would recoup 90% of your cost to build the affordable project. Tell me how recouping 90% of your costs is not a aggressive tax advantage? It's certainly not without headaches, though. There is a ton of compliance to meet, hoops to jump through, and California has limits on how much they can dish out in credits each year.



I'm not trying to make a case against or for affordable housing. I was just annoyed that so many here were whining about poor people are getting a break from the government when clearly well off people are getting their share of the tax dollars too.</blockquote>


As I understand it (and I very well may be wrong), the developer of the project <em>sells</em> their tax credits to a company that needs tax credits and then uses that money to fund, in part, the project. It struck me as a racket the first time I heard it, but I guess it works.</blockquote>


Seraphim is correct. Here is the very brief description of the complicated federal tax credit program from the website of the CA Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC):



"For 2009, each state has an annual housing credit ceiling of $2.30 per capita for 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits. In addition, States may qualify for a pro rata share of credits available annually in a national pool comprised of states' unused credits. Also, any credits returned to a state from a credit recipient may be allocated to new projects. From the total ceiling amount available to California, the Committee allocates credit amounts based upon assessments of eligible project costs, as defined by IRC Section 42. The housing sponsor uses or sells ten times the allocation amount, since investors can take the annual credit each year for a ten-year period. Although the credit is taken over a ten-year period, the Internal Revenue Code requires that the project remain in compliance for at least 30 years."



And, again, I have to stress that the primary players on the development side here are non-profit agencies. I'm assuming that's who you are referring to when you mention "clearly well off people". Except, the management of these non-profits make salaries commensurate with their peers at other large non-profit agencies across the country. They also cannot make any commissions or bonuses from anything their agencies do with any of their developments. They make a salary and get the same benefits as the other employees. You can check Guidestar.org to see the IRS 990 Forms that all non-profits are required to file. These forms show the salaries and benefits earned by the top 5 employees of any non-profit (that part is usually a few pages into an average sized 990 form).



The investors who provide the capital raised with these tax credit incentives make a relatively modest return on their investment. Obviously they wouldn't invest if they didn't make something, but if people were getting rich off of affordable development, I'm sure the yahoos at Goldman Sachs or Lehmann Brothers would have jumped on that bandwagon long ago.



As a side note, Orange County is traditionally a weak player in the tax credit rounds each year. Through most of the 1990's, there were almost no O.C. projects applying for tax credits. Even in the 2000's, O.C. had a very weak showing. Areas like L.A., the Bay Area, SD and some rural areas in the Central Valley and up north (due to some big farmworker housing projects) have really been the biggest recipients of tax credit allocations in the last 15 years or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top