TIC misrepresentation of apartments for those of modest income?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
G

garfangle_IHB

New member
<p>Has TIC not lived up to its promise to make available apartments for workers of modest income? In a May 2000 <a href="http://www.irvinecompany.com/aboutus/plan012345/index.htm">brochure</a> on why TIC's efforts to master plan Irvine's housing works for its residents, a sidebar piece (see below) outlined how the new IAC apartment community, Oak Glen, would be affordable to renters who make incomes of $35,000-$40,000 ($43K-$49K inflation adj.) a year. While that may have been the case when the complex opened, today that is not the case, with <a href="http://rental-living.com/Communities/Oak-Glen/Prices-And-Floorplans/">rents</a> of $1490-$1890 per month. The salary needed to support such costs at three times rent would be $53,640-$68,040 or 24.7% to 38.9% above inflation-adjusted incomes. Meaning, 41.6% of your income is devoted to paying rent ($1490) if you make $43K; 46.3% of your income is devoted to paying rent ($1890) if you make $49K. Those percentages are not healthy for anyone, especially a person of modest means.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><img alt="" src="http://www.irvinecompany.com/aboutus/plan012345/images/page7_01.gif" /></p>
 
It is possible that they made a deal with some gov't agency that they are no longer honoring. It might be that if a big stinko was made, something might happen. However, sometimes these govt appeasements have a time limit to them, so maybe the deal is over.
 
The problem here in Irvine is that the Irvine Company strongly influences (read controls) the local government. Any candidate who screws with the Irvine Company will see a great deal of money flow into the campaign coffers of their opponent.
 
Oak Glen walking distance to Irvine Spectrum?? Hiking maybe. I live in Oak Park, I should know. ;p





Paying up to 50% of your income for housing sounds about normal. Note I didn't say "sounds about right".
 
As I understand it, the Irvine Company had offered to provide affordable units in most of it's apartment complexes in Irvine many years ago. If you look around, you'll see that most IAC (irvine aparment commun) communities do have a set aside of affordable units. I believe this is a documented agreement between the Irvine Co and the City of Irvine, you can probably find it on the city records website, i'm too lazy though. But, i guess my point is, the IAC implemented this program as a gesture of good faith to the city the were essentially building.



There are three affordable rent rate tiers ,moderate, low and very low and are calculated by the state or maybe city or maybe county (all this affordable stuff is very ambiguous). Moderate rent rate is roughly equal to 1/3 of 120% of the area median income, in Irvine i believe it's city median income, in LA it's County median income. These will be leased as moderate; low and very low income units are significantly cheaper and attract...errr....undesirables. (I used to live a few blocks down from some in Irvine, near the culver 99 ranch mkt, and i would actually see drug deals in the culdesac).



Very doubtful they will receive affordable housing tax credits, as a developer must apply to the state for these and it's a competitive, brain damaging process and I believe most credits are awarded to communities that provide 100% affordable housing. However, per SB 1818, a developer is entitled to certain incentives if they provide 25% moderate income housing in their development which could mean density bonus, height increase, fee reduction, etc. Not sure if IAC can take advantage of that due to the building code or due to the City having no idea how to implement this 3 two year old state law, at least they didn't when i was working on projects there.



IR, I really wish that were true, but this here Great Park (ya know the overside ballon ride) is going downhill fast due to some pretty terrible local government officials and it's affecting the Irvine Co as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top