Irvine loses appeal - more affordable housing on the way

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="Mcdonna1980" date=1256205212]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>


Just stop. Poor people pay no taxes. Poor people with children get money from the government and they call it a tax "return". Poor people get assistance with food costs, child care costs, medical costs, subsidized housing costs. Clearly well off people don't get more for their tax dollars than the rest of the general public gets and in some areas of life, they get less. You can argue that they need less, but it is their tax dollars that are going to fund what is being "returned" to poor people. Why do they have to accept lower home values so that SCAG can meet their quota for "affordable" housing?



This isn't about poor people getting a break. This is about a quasi-government group dictating how private landowners and private businesses use their land and run their businesses for the sole benefit of people who would otherwise have to rent or own in less desirable areas. In this particular case, they are demanding it be built in Irvine. Why not use those tax credits to revitalize decrepit housing in areas that could use the face lift and provide some relief for those homeowners at the lower end of the spectrum? Why not offer to cover the moving costs to Detroit, with their $50k houses... it's not like SoCal has a better job situation for the lower class households. Why is the only acceptable solution less-than-market housing in Irvine?
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1256215153]Why not use those tax credits to revitalize decrepit housing in areas that could use the face lift and provide some relief for those homeowners at the lower end of the spectrum?</blockquote>


Actually... that is exactly what they are doing right now. Go click the link I provided above and poke around to see what they are doing.



FWIW, SCAG is big proponent in revitalizing "urban" areas. They really encourage in-fill projects for builders, which according to them equates to 71K units that currently could be built in OC, and as decay happens to other buildings that number increases.



And lastly, their population growth numbers are so Kool-Aid induced that whomever came up with them needs to be taken out back to be shot.
 
Nude, my point is not to say poor or rich are more deserving to receive the government assistance. I'm trying to shed light on why it is if one if against government subsidized housing projects, why is all the resentment directed at the low income residents? Why is there no one equally upset at people in the business of doing affordable housing at getting subsidize for it too? I don't believe affordable housing is for the sole benefit of residents. There are business people that have found a niche market in doing affordable and they make money off it and the government does help sponsor their venture.



OC 78, I looked up your site. I can not access the salary data with out a subscription. I did find an old article that listing the 2002 salary of CEO of non-profit of affordable housing company (that does business in Irvine)as $230,000. That seems like a decent amount of money for 2002. Maybe not Goldman money but good compensation.
 
I don't blame the residents at all. I don't think I went there, either. Obviously, if the businesses that are living off this get hurt, I'm not going to cry for them because there are plenty of other stimulus projects in the pipe on which they can bid.



I'm not even against government helping low income people buy homes, but this specific kind of housing doesn't benefit anyone in the long term, provides no upward mobility for the owners, and artificially suppresses property values that would otherwise be sold at market rates. I'd much prefer they focus in rehab and infill, which graph points out they already do, than demand a portion of someone's land. What happens when the county is built out? Will they start subdividing existing lots with large yards and demanding you build a second "affordable" house in order to get a remodeling permit?



Newsflash people, poor folks don't want a hand out, they want a *way* out. They want a job that pays them well enough to live in Irvine in a home they earned so that they can feel like a part of the community, not like a charity case.



Sorry Eva, I tried to leave the politics out, but they pulled me back in.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1256215153][quote author="Mcdonna1980" date=1256205212]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>


Just stop. Poor people pay no taxes. Poor people with children get money from the government and they call it a tax "return". Poor people get assistance with food costs, child care costs, medical costs, subsidized housing costs. Clearly well off people don't get more for their tax dollars than the rest of the general public gets and in some areas of life, they get less. You can argue that they need less, but it is their tax dollars that are going to fund what is being "returned" to poor people. Why do they have to accept lower home values so that SCAG can meet their quota for "affordable" housing?



This isn't about poor people getting a break. This is about a quasi-government group dictating how private landowners and private businesses use their land and run their businesses for the sole benefit of people who would otherwise have to rent or own in less desirable areas. In this particular case, they are demanding it be built in Irvine. Why not use those tax credits to revitalize decrepit housing in areas that could use the face lift and provide some relief for those homeowners at the lower end of the spectrum? Why not offer to cover the moving costs to Detroit, with their $50k houses... it's not like SoCal has a better job situation for the lower class households. Why is the only acceptable solution less-than-market housing in Irvine?</blockquote>


Poor people certainly do pay taxes. Now, they pay no <strong>income</strong> taxes, net, but they pay social security taxes, sales taxes, car registration fees, etc. Sales taxes in particular are regressive because poor people spend higher percentage of their money on physical items than rich people do. Also, capital gains taxes are less than regular income taxes. Warren Buffett pointed out that his secretary (who made $40k a year I believe, so not "poor"-but she would qualify for low income housing in Irvine) paid a higher percentage of her income on income taxes than he did.



And, yes, this is about giving poor (and middle class-Irvine's housing costs are very high) people a break. It is about building housing for sale at below market rates for poor(er) people.
 
WSJ today: Orange County -18.4% change in inventory, 4.2 month supply homes, -4.2% change in price, 9.1% jobless rate

______



Have access to CFOs of area's big home builders... some consensus that government will continue to fund home buying and home builders pick up building, commercial continue to be shippy,



real estate investments will cut losses and send properties back to bank, lot of buying of distressed properties and land on the cheap



actually, prolly don't need CFO access to predict what i said above
 
McDonna - A basic registration w/ Guidestar is free and takes about 2 minutes. It's always a good thing to have on hand, not only for researching blog info, but for anyone who gives money to a non-profit. Always good to have some idea of how your favorite charity is spending it's donors' dollars.



With respect to the last few comments, I think there is some confusion of the issue of affordable for-sale housing and rental housing. My primary concern is with rental housing. Without getting into a long tangential discussion of whether "poor people" should be assisted by society or not, I am personally of the feeling that low-income residents in CA need some help. Land use regulations make building affordable units for those with lower incomes unattractive, so it just doesn't get done. When housing element law was created decades ago, that was an attempt to level the playing field. I'm a big believer in affordable rental housing, as it fills a constantly needed niche, and is the kind of housing that people can move out of when they're ready to move up to something else bigger, nicer, or to purchase on their own.



Sure, everyone could move to Detroit, just about anywhere in the deep South, or North Dakota (or San Bernardino or Riverside, to use a local example). But, many residents in affordable units that I've met over the years were born and raised in CA, usually So Cal specifically, and wish to stay where their families and social networks are. I'm guessing most people would feel the same way, regardless of income.



I am not a believer in subsidized for sale housing. I think it artifically distorts the market. However, cities and counties love to fill their housing element allocations with for-sale product, because its an easy sell to neighbors. That's great for the 4 or 5 families that get a Habitat house, but sucks for the 50-100 or so families that could have been helped with the same amount of money used for a rental community. Plus, people will cycle out of those units over time, so many more families would be helped over the typical 55 year deed restriction of an affordable property/units. The same cannot be said for an afforable for sale unit, which could be occupied for decades to come.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1256218672]Sorry Eva, I tried to leave the politics out, but they pulled me back in.</blockquote>


It's ok. I understand. I'm thinking of respond to the panoply of comments here, but I'm afraid my response might be long enough to need a table a contents. :ahhh:



This warmed my heart, though:



<blockquote>Newsflash people, poor folks don't want a hand out, they want a *way* out. They want a job that pays them well enough to live in Irvine in a home they earned so that they can feel like a part of the community, not like a charity case.</blockquote>


I think there are a fair number of people who believe people are poor because they are lazy, criminal, or hedonistic. While I think that is true in some instances, in my experience that has been a minority of the population.
 
[quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1256256979]I think there are a fair number of people who believe people are poor because they are lazy, criminal, or hedonistic. While I think that is true in some instances, in my experience that has been a minority of the population.</blockquote>


You mean all those engineers who worked in my wife's former Irvine office? Everyone knows what a bunch of lowlife dirtbags Civil Engineers with PE and SE licenses are. Why would you want them in your community? On the surface, it might seem I'm being uber-sarcastic, but I'm not - I'm deadly serious. When you have mid thirties professional people who qualify for low income housing in the city they work, something is dreadfully wrong.



And then consider you are ignoring everyone below that wrung of society - the folks who mow lawns, do dishes, cook food, and work in retail - all that stuff that makes TIC planned living the utopian existence it is. When you can ship the underclass in at daybreak to do the menial work from Santa Ana, and then bus their underclass asses right back out at sunset, what's not to love? After all, is there really anything wrong with transfer costing your social issues to another city?



Praise the Lord for the TIC!
 
Oc78, the site requires a $1000 annual subscription to view the salary data. I did sign up for the free account and was blocked from the top exces salary section.
 
Irvine doesn't need to build any more low income housing. The city just needs to build a huge Tuscan/Roman parking structure in the shape of the coliseum in each new development to accommodate the excess cars that result from five families needing to squeeze into one 1600 sq ft home.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1256258467][quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1256256979]I think there are a fair number of people who believe people are poor because they are lazy, criminal, or hedonistic. While I think that is true in some instances, in my experience that has been a minority of the population.</blockquote>


You mean all those engineers who worked in my wife's former Irvine office? Everyone knows what a bunch of lowlife dirtbags Civil Engineers with PE and SE licenses are. Why would you want them in your community? On the surface, it might seem I'm being uber-sarcastic, but I'm not - I'm deadly serious. When you have mid thirties professional people who qualify for low income housing in the city they work, something is dreadfully wrong.



And then consider you are ignoring everyone below that wrung of society - the folks who mow lawns, do dishes, cook food, and work in retail - all that stuff that makes TIC planned living the utopian existence it is. When you can ship the underclass in at daybreak to do the menial work from Santa Ana, and then bus their underclass asses right back out at sunset, what's not to love? After all, is there really anything wrong with transfer costing your social issues to another city?



Praise the Lord for the TIC!</blockquote>


Yeah ... it means they don't know how to save for the future. They live for today, have nothing for tomorrow. I just read some article in money magazine (or somewhere else) that advocated NOT saving for your kids' college expense. Then it ran down the tax consequences and scenarios for high school seniors apply for college financial aid, and concluded kids can get all the funding they need, so it was the parents "duty" to put their money elsewhere...how dumb an argument is that?



oh, and everyone knows CEs are failed ElecEs who couldn't do C/C++ programming and passive RLC circuits. The laws of thermodynamics should have no place in society, but the study of RIGID BODIES is definitely important... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top