33 replies to this topic

[Terry]

Terry

I understand your position. I was raised in around San Francisco, absolutely love the area (except for the traffic) and moved here because I couldn't afford to buy a home there, and compared to the Bay Area, Folsom IS affordable housing, or at least it was when I moved here.

I bought my house for $327,000, in 2001, compared to the median price of over $600,000 in the area I left. I wanted to move to a place where my kids could afford to live when they get older. Now, they both want to move elsewhere. One back to San Francisco, and the other, to LA!

I feel for those at the lower end of the economic scale. That's where I come from. I grew up in the inner city, and have many friends and relatives who still live paycheck to paycheck. Should the house next to me, which is worth over half a million dollars, be sold to one of the low income families for $130,000?

It doesn't make sense. I'd like to see more focus on bringing better income opportunities and proserity to the poor, so that they can AFFORD to live wherever they want to.

By the way, I believe the developers have an option of building, buying or contributing money to a city fund for purchasing affordable housing.

Would we like the city to be in charge of buying affordable housing? Do you think they'd buy properties in the Parkway? Empire Ranch?

Cal, I don't know exactly what the Mayor's position is on this, other than that the city has to obey the state law, so I don't know if I agree with him or not.

I won't even begin to address the social and economic issues that perpetuate low levels of education and income in California - that's a totally different subject.

Million dollars homes won't be sold to someone for $130,000 just to meet the affordable housing requirements. Individuals would have to qualify for homes that are on the lower dollar ends of the market. This may be in the form of down payment subsidies for those who want to buy (and they repay that subsidy when they sell), or subsidies in rents tomake up a SMALL part of what they qualify to pay in rent. This allows a lower income family to get into a starter home or to get into an apartment in Folsom for which they wouldn't otherwise qualify. The affordable housing system is NOT intended to get lower income earners fully integrated into any housing of their choice.

You're right, developers can build new housing for the purposes of meeting their affordable housing requirements, they can buy existing properties to meet the requirements (however, not out of the currently designated affordable housing properties already identified by the city), and/or they can contribute funds as determined by the city (in lieu funds) in place of building or buying affordable housing to meet the requirement. The in lieu funds could be spent by the city in buying existing properties (not already designated affordable) and then providing for down payment assistance to a qualifying buyer. I can't see that the city would buy a $500,000 home in the Parkway, or Empire Ranch and then helping someone qualify to get into it. That would be a gross misuse of the funds when they could possibly purchase two fixers and therefore provide for two families.

Lastly, none of this policy and process is new. Affordable housing requirements have existed in California for over 20 years, so it's not as though the city is making things up as they go along.

[Steve Heard]

I can't see that the city would buy a $500,000 home in the Parkway, or Empire Ranch and then helping someone qualify to get into it.  That would be a gross misuse of the funds when they could possibly purchase two fixers and therefore provide for two families. 

Buying two fixers would likely result in the same kind of criticism the developers are getting!

[CostcoLover]

What screw up?

Steve, as you know, we're new to California, but there must be a reason why the City of Folsom got sued by the state to comply with its affordable housing regulations. Perhaps if our fearless leaders had been complying all along and ensuring that it was built out as mandated there would be a more equitable distribution of affordable housing units throughout Folsom.

[Terry]

Steve, as you know, we're new to California, but there must be a reason why the City of Folsom got sued by the state to comply with its affordable housing regulations.  Perhaps if our fearless leaders had been complying all along and ensuring that it was built out as mandated there would be a more equitable distribution of affordable housing units throughout Folsom.

It was not the State of California that sued the city. The state is well aware of the fact that compliance with the state law is difficult to meet. In reality, very few cities in California meet the state's affordable housing requirements - and specifically, none of the cities in Sacramento county comply. These cities are all in various stages of being sued and/or working on methods to come into compliance. It was the Center on Law and Poverty that sued the City of Folsom. This firm has multiple other affordable housing cases against cities in northern California.

[donto2000]

The developers did comply with the affordable housing requirement....homeowners in the "pristine" area did not see any "affordable housing" next door to them.....i'm sorry...what is the controversy again????

Don

[Young Curmudgeon]

I'm inclined to go with the feeling that we live where we can afford to, and that communities and builders should not be forced to set aside homes for people who can't afford to live in the area.

Steve,

All deference to your very balanced track record around here, but the above comment seems patently elitist -- and not very practical. Surely you want your children's teachers, city employees and other vital Folsom professional and service workers in low income brackets to also have the same opportunity to live in the community, right? I know of few teachers who can afford to own a home in Folsom, but I've never met anyone who didn't put great weight in the importance of hiring and keeping good teachers in this area. What do you say to them? Poor career choice? What about a Folsom garbageman who has to live in Rancho Cordova? Maybe we'd want our children to strive a bit higher, but someone has to take the garbage, and it's an honest living by people that deserve to be included in the Folsom community. These people serve the community everyday, yet so few actually get to reap the benefits of their work! So many of these jobs take a commitment that exceeds the benefit of a regular paycheck.

If someone wants to attack conventional thought on affordable housing, I might join them. Apartments, for example, are efficient in theory, but the practicality of management often works to the detriment of the buildings' original purpose. Units become much less cost effective to maintain to their original standards after 20 years, and health standards seem only enforced on the most egregious offensives. And just like anything else, a shortage of housing or a monopoly on apartments in the area can create unreasonable spikes in rent to the point of exclusion of a great majority of the population they were intended to serve. I've lived in too many apartments that fell far short of a "decent, safe and sanitary accommodation that costs no more than 30% of gross household income after taxes." I'm no socialist, but it doesn't take an Ivy League economist to realize restraints are needed to lessen the impact of extreme market forces such as we have witnessed in California in recent years.

Affordable housing is a worthy torch for a local gov't to carry, though, because it's based in some of the best ideas Americans value most -- equality, diversity, and true freedom to pursue one's own happiness. I encourage all of you to get involved with the public discussion and offer creative alternatives rather than attacking the idea in general.

[donto2000]

just because it's a worthy torch for govt to carry, it does not mean they should...sometime doing the right thing is not a right thing to do.....many worthy torches, great causes and idea (have according to what one needs, not what one wants, rent control, affordable housing, universial medical coverage, ect) did not pan out in reality...most economists do agree that having govt doing the best thing for one individual is not as economically efficient as having the individual doing the best thing for himself....back to that waste collector working in Folsom and currently living in Rancho Cordova.....two years from today, he realizes that he now wants to live in a nice house in pristine Empire Ranch in Folsom....he then takes on another job, his wife works later in the day to earn OT..they save more...eat out less often....cut out more coupons ...watch every pennies they spent.....little winds here and there will enventually become a big hurriance....they have enough money now to get that dream house in Folsom and doing it w/o any govt assistance......

[Cloud9]

It was not the State of California that sued the city.  The state is well aware of the fact that compliance with the state law is difficult to meet.  In reality, very few cities in California meet the state's affordable housing requirements - and specifically, none of the cities in Sacramento county comply.  These cities are all in various stages of being sued and/or working on methods to come into compliance.  It was the Center on Law and Poverty that sued the City of Folsom.  This firm has multiple other affordable housing cases against cities in northern California.

I stand corrected on who sued the City of Folsom. Had our elected officials been 'on the ball', Folsom would have met its compliance requirements and there would have been no lawsuit.

[Cloud9]

1. Surely you want your children's teachers, city employees and other vital Folsom professional and service workers in low income brackets to also have the same opportunity to live in the community, right?

2. I know of few teachers who can afford to own a home in Folsom, but I've never met anyone who didn't put great weight in the importance of hiring and keeping good teachers in this area.

3. What do you say to them? Poor career choice? What about a Folsom garbageman who has to live in Rancho Cordova?

4. ...it's an honest living by people that deserve to be included in the Folsom community.

5. These people serve the community everyday, yet so few actually get to reap the benefits of their work! So many of these jobs take a commitment that exceeds the benefit of a regular paycheck.

6. I'm no socialist, but it doesn't take an Ivy League economist to realize restraints are needed to lessen the impact of extreme market forces such as we have witnessed in California in recent years.

1. Not necessarily. Let me know when it's a mandate that this be so. I'll go teach in Hollywood or other ridiculously expensive area and pick up a nice multi-million dollar house on the taxpayers back.

2. Every teacher I've ever met in Folsom has a car. They can drive to work like everyone else. Do you think all 7,000 Intel employees live in Folsom? Many live in the surrounding communities and drive there.

3. Yes, poor career choice. Works for couples where one party makes a lot of money and the other has the luxury of teaching, but to expect the same lifestyle as others on a teacher's salary is simply ridiculous. Garbagemen can't commute?

4. It's an honest living, yes. Deserve to be part of the Folsom community, yes, but that's a far cry from having the right.

5. Not everyone reaps the benefit of their work. Life isn't fair, get used to it.

6. Not a socialist? Hmm, I wonder, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Are you an economist?

[Brett911]

You took all those words right from my finger tips. Well said. An big ditto on point 5.

1. Not necessarily.  Let me know when it's a mandate that this be so.  I'll go teach in Hollywood or other ridiculously expensive area and pick up a nice multi-million dollar house on the taxpayers back.

2. Every teacher I've ever met in Folsom has a car.  They can drive to work like everyone else.  Do you think all 7,000 Intel employees live in Folsom?  Many live in the surrounding communities and drive there.

3. Yes, poor career choice.  Works for couples where one party makes a lot of money and the other has the luxury of teaching, but to expect the same lifestyle as others on a teacher's salary is simply ridiculous.  Garbagemen can't commute?

4.  It's an honest living, yes.  Deserve to be part of the Folsom community, yes, but that's a far cry from having the right.

5.  Not everyone reaps the benefit of their work.  Life isn't fair, get used to it.

6.  Not a socialist?  Hmm, I wonder, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt.  Are you an economist?

[Cloud9]

You took all those words right from my finger tips.  Well said. An big ditto on point 5.

When is the big day Brett? send a msg with location (once you're able to)

[jagayman]

Regarding #2, I (an Intel employee), could not afford to buy a house today -- luckily I got in in 1999. There are newer employees who may never be able to buy a house in Folsom unless the stock goes up. That's the price of living in CA. BTW, there is a huge Intel site near Portland, OR, where the median house price is still around 200k.

But guess what? An Intel engineer still makes too much money to be considered for affordable housing. Does that mean they can't afford to buy a house here, but anyone who might have possibly dropped out of high school and works for minimum wage can?

Before I bought a house in Folsom, I roughed it in a Rancho Cordova apartment complex until I had enough money for a down payment. That's how it's supposed to work and it still does.

I believe anyone considering purchasing a house in Folsom -- affordable housing or not --can afford a car and its upkeep. If not, they should probably look at Folsom's other cost of living expenses before deciding this is the best place to raise their family. There is also light rail coming to Folsom and a city and area-wide bus system, so transportation shouldn't be a problem even without a car.

And their is affordable housing California. You may just have to pick a different community to work or settle on a commute (something that millions of people in perfectly affordable areas of the nation do because their spouse works in a different area or they are attached to their community -- not out of a cost-of-living situation) -- living close to were you work is not a right -- it's a choice to work close to where you live.

So, about the low-wage earners (the Wal-Mart employees, the teachers, the garbage men, etc...). Well, my wife is currently a substitute teacher. I'd say that's considered low wage. Luckily, our combined wages can afford our little house. She can work a higher-paying job if she decided to, but she wants to be a mom someday and stay at home; so it's probably good to get used to living on one person's salary. If I lost my job and couldn't find similar pay in Sacramento, she understands that we would probably have to move out of town for someplace more affordable. I don't expect my Folsom neighbors to bail us out.

Basic economics class teaches us about supply and demand. If garbagemen decided they wanted to work close to where they live, and that means a huge shortage of people willing to work as garbagemen in Folsom, then the average salary for a garbageman would go up in this area. Since this doesn't appear to be the case, I guess that means there must be a ready supply of folks willing to do the job in Folsom even if it means commuting 15 miles to work. And I guess a family of two garbagepeople (garbageman and garbagewoman) would not qualify for affordable housing in California so one of them would have to remain unemployeed and avoid contributing to their social-economic situation.

Let's face it, people have many choices in this country -- nobody is forced into a low-wage job in a high-cost-of-living situation. With the price of these freedoms, comes the price of responsibility for yourself and your family (that's what separates us from the socialistic governments). People need to take responsibility and either make the best of what they have, or make a change. Don't ask everyone to make a change for you because you are unwilling to do it for yourself.


Jason

[tony]

Seems a lot of people think the solution to affordable housing is the automobile. Sure works well for all those people with the 4 hour commute from Tracy to Cupertino, or Dixon to San Francisco, doesn't it? Sure, Rancho is relatively inexpensive and convenient to Folsom, but whaty happens when prices there start to escalate like they have here? And with all those folks commuting to cheaper housing, we then have to deal with that much more traffic, and spend more money on bigger roads trying to keep it moving. And that's not to mention the air quality impacts of all those people commuting from community to community in their cars.

Folsom isn't just some small neighbornood enclave like Los Lagos; it a real live small city of 60,000 people (soon to be 70,000 and maybe much more), complete with a wide variety of jobs, businesses and amenities, not to mention a couple of prisons. If people of a wide variety of income levels matching those of the jobs available in the city are not reasonably accommodated, then the city will become merely an enclave of the wealthy (with a 2003 median family income of over 73,000, according to the city's web site, and median house prices approaching a half million, it's certainly not a working class city today). And it will be a poorer city for it.

Let's take the examples others have cited of pollicemen, firewomen, teachers and garbage collectors. If none of them can afford to live in our fair city (and this is a reality in many bay area cities already), here's how we all lose out: we end up having no off-duty policemen protecting us by their mere presence in our neighborhoods; our firefighters are miles away if needed to be called in for a big emergency; we lose the off-campus interaction between our children and their teachers, and between us parents and our children's teachers; our so well-educated children are deprived of learning respect for those nameless faceless people who do the less glamorous jobs for us, like picking up the trash, or caring for our lawns or our children. Here's a scenario to think about: little Johnny is caught defacing playground equipment at the neighborhood park (of course, in the "enclave", there would be no neighborhood park). In the "wealthy enclave", the maintenance crew that repairs the playground equipment is from Rancholand. Johnny is made to meet with the parks supervisor and mom and dad have to pay to fix it, and Johhny is grounded and forfeits his allowance for awhile. In the balanced community, maybe the parks supervisor lives down the block and just happens to be Johnny's brother's baseball coach. Which one do you think will have a longer lasting impression on Johnny?

These are just a few examples of the many ways that a diverse population makes for a richer community. And that's not to mention the benefits to fanily life of not having to spend long hours commuting every day. Commuting is not the answer to a state-wide problem with lack of affordable housing. When you have gainfully-employed people who are homeless, as is not uncommon in the bay area, then something drastic, like mandated affordable housing, is essential. This isn't about people living beyond their means; it's about housing costs stretching well beyond people's means. It's about the median house being well beyond the means of the family with the median income. This is not a sustainable situation.

[OctoberLily]

I think what is driving the debate against Affordable Housing is fear of what "kind of people" AH might bring to their community. I'm sure most of you would be surprised to find out that the people you fear are already living in your neighborhood rentals. Teachers, policemen, service workers, garbage men, and correctional officers.

Folsom was affordable 10 years ago. The reason it isn't now is because of all the Bay area transplants who have spiked the housing costs. They couldn't afford to live in the Bay area / silicon valley so they came to the Sacramento region and paid the over priced cost of housing because it was "cheaper" than the Bay Area and the developers knew these people would pay. In essence, the people who lived here for generations were pushed out of the market. Just like the Bay Area transplants were pushed out of the Bay Area.

If you speak to the locals in the area who have been here for years (20 years or more), you will sense their anger in what these "newbies" have done to the cost of housing in the area. People who have lived in Folsom for generations are having to move out because the "newbies" have pushed them out and want them out because they can't afford it anymore.

It's ironic how this vicious cycle works.

Some of you need to go to South Sacramento and see for yourself what happens when communities place all low / affordable housing in one area and the "pristine" communities in the other. A great example is the So. Lank Park/ Pocket/Greenhaven and Meadoview area. What is ironic in those communities is that most of the crime is perpetrated in the So. Land Park/Pocket/Greenhaven area. The "have nots" are deliberately taking from the "haves" because of the blatant message that they are not good enough to live in "our community" but they can work here. The community itself is segregated but the people and the children are not. Kids from the Meadowview area go to school in the Pocket area - so another problem exist. The idea given to the kids that they don't belong but we are forced to deal with you anyway. The elitist message is passed on to the kids by the parents.

If you want a balanced community, then you need to make a change. The change that Mayor Miklos is supporting is not one based on what is good for the community but what is good for the all mighty dollar (in the developer's hands). I'm not surprised that the Mayor supports this idea. He is a Mortgage Broker - so he is trained to look at things based on the all mighty dollar.

[Cloud9]

OctoberLily,

It's not fear - at least it's not for me. I understand, police, fire, teachers, etc.

My brother in law is a police officer in San Diego, his wife (my sister) is a teacher, they live in an $850k home. My wife's masseuse's husband is a fireman, they live in a $650k home. How's that possible? They were smart, built equity, those aren't their first homes.

We come from NY and there are many communities in NY that only the wealthy can afford. Do they fall apart? Are there no police, firefighters, teachers in those communities? Of course there are, and all of those people providing those services commute there.

Would they like to live in $1-$20M homes in those communities? Of course, so would we!

It's about doing your time, making the sacrifices, and finding where you can afford to live. This isn't the first place we own, it's our 3rd. For close to 10 years we saved and lived in apartments that we purchased. We left NY because we couldn't afford a house there. Silly me, I should just have petitioned for affordable housing in a wealthy neighborhood.

So here we are in Folsom. What are we saying that some police officer who went from H.S. to the academy, or a teacher that just got their credentials, or a firefighter who just finished his/her training should all get to live where they want without consideration as to whether they can afford to live there? Sign me up for living among the wealthiest in our nation.

Many if not most of us have made sacrifices to get to where we are, why should we be subsidizing those that haven't made the same sacrifices (with our tax dollars no less)?

Just let me know when and where these much talked about affordable housing units are available because I have a long list of relatives, and my wife and I will split up just to purchase 2 units. We can do math too. One salary, two separate lives = eligibility for affordable housing.

My mom/dad (an Air Force vet) in AZ can't afford to live here, so sign them up. My other sister in Texas and her husband (a 20yr Navy veteran) can't afford Folsom, so you can sign them up as well. While we're at it, we can sign up my brother in law, the police officer (former Marine vet), who although lives in an $850k house would be eligible.

All have served their country and communities, certainly more than someone that's a recent firefighter, police officer, teacher, etc. So make sure they get placed at the top of the list.

As you can see, none of those people expect a hand out, and when they can't afford to live someplace they move (AZ, TX) just like we did.