78 replies to this topic

[Redone]

Hmm....I'm curious now, what's price is considered "affordable"?

Is there more than one neighborhood that fits this description? Or are you referring to the area between Wales & Montrose? If so, perhaps it is because they were warned, like I was, to stay away.

No, that area may be affordable in current market price, but it's not designated affordable. That's the point. Current market price or affordability has NOTHING to do with what is labeled as affordable housing.

Affordablity is based on Income first, then price or rent. 50% of the median is Very Low Income, and 80% of median is Low Income.

https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/refmaterials/hudmedinc/

The actual list in Folsom is here :

http://www.folsom.ca.us/depts/community_development/housing/ab_987_affordable_housing_database.asp

[Redone]

Or are we building housing so that people that don't have jobs and don't want jobs can live here?

Another good point, you don't need a job to qualify for this housing--- whether buying or renting.
Theoretically, a person could be on any number of assistance programs.

[FiscalConservative]

......

It DOESN't cost us more money for or housing, it comes out of the profits of the developer as a cost of doing business.
....

I have a bridge that I would like to sell you also !

[caligirlz]

This town has a lot of nice normal hard working people but it also has a lot of "trust fund babies" who grew up privileged and spoiled.

So far, everyone I've met has been great. At the moment, I can't think of any Folsom snobs I've actually met.

<
<
<

I was thinking today about the term "cookie-cutter" developments that we mentioned above. Every track home which the buyer selects from a predetermined list, is "cookie-cutter". However, each development (& year) brings in a new or different style. Older homes in many cases have been remodeled so much that the original "cookie-cutter-ness" is no longer recognizable.....The only homes that aren't "cookie-cutter" are custom built.

[ducky]

So far, everyone I've met has been great. At the moment, I can't think of any Folsom snobs I've actually met.

<
<
<

I was thinking today about the term "cookie-cutter" developments that we mentioned above. Every track home which the buyer selects from a predetermined list, is "cookie-cutter". However, each development (& year) brings in a new or different style. Older homes in many cases have been remodeled so much that the original "cookie-cutter-ness" is no longer recognizable.....The only homes that aren't "cookie-cutter" are custom built.

My gauge for telling if you live in a cookie-cutter neighborhood is if you drive down the street in the fog and you can't tell which house is yours or even if you're on the right street:)

[Robert Giacometti]

We'll just disagree on who is actually paying for this type of law.

With regards to EDH, you made my point. It's not being addressed the same in every community thereby making the intent less effective from original intent.

El Dorado County is the Agency responsible for ensuring that their area of purview is in compliance for Affordable housing. Suing El Dorado Hills, would be like suing Empire Ranch for non compliance. El Dorado County faces the same scrutiny the city of Folsom faces. The Agency that approves development is the agency that is responsible for compliance in their area of purview, not some neighborhood.

Lets talk about who is paying for this type of Housing. If the typical 3 bedroom 2 bath 1500' is selling for $300,000 and it cost the developer $150,000 to build, what will it probably sell for? Can we agree probably $300,000? If this same home is selling for $400,000, yet still cost $150,000 to build what will it probably sell for...probably $400,000. If this same home is selling for $600,000 and still costs the developer $150,000 to build what do you think it will probably sell for...you are right, $600,000.

Here is where it gets tricky for some....let say this typical 3 bedroom/2 bath 1500' home is selling for $300,000, but now it costs $180,000 to build...what do yo think people are going to pay? The market price of $300,000 or are they going to pay $30,000 above the market because the developers costs have gone up?

Generally people will pay what they feel is the fair market value for a home, not what it costs to build. That is why sometimes they might be willing to pay $600,000 for a home that may have cost $150,000 to build and its why in some cases today people are paying LESS than the actual costs to build a home.

This is why it really doesn't affect consumers when developers have to build affordable housing. It does however have a huge effect on developers profits and THIS is the reason why they are so opposed to having the Inclusionary componet kept in the housing ordinance.

What many on here can't seem to grasp is that the City of Folsom isn't going to stop affordable housing, its simply they have removed the inclusionary componet that makes developers provide this housing as they develop. The reason why we are being sued is the council removed the inclusionary componet to the housing element. This componet was the key to settling the previous lawsuit.

The city painted itself into a corner by agreeing to the previous settlement and now are going to try and argue its not needed despite NOT having any permanent funding mechanism or the availabe land N50 to do so. I just can't see the city winning this unless they can get the judge who threw out the citizens measure on voting S50 to try the case.

[Robert Giacometti]

I have a bridge that I would like to sell you also !

Maybe you could share with us with your knowledge on how this works? I'm always open to learning?

[caligirlz]

My gauge for telling if you live in a cookie-cutter neighborhood is if you drive down the street in the fog and you can't tell which house is yours or even if you're on the right street:)

Folsom doesn't get real fog . ... at least, not in comparison to zero visability Tule Fog.

[supermom]

No, that area may be affordable in current market price, but it's not designated affordable. That's the point. Current market price or affordability has NOTHING to do with what is labeled as affordable housing.

Affordablity is based on Income first, then price or rent. 50% of the median is Very Low Income, and 80% of median is Low Income.

https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/refmaterials/hudmedinc/

The actual list in Folsom is here :

http://www.folsom.ca.us/depts/community_development/housing/ab_987_affordable_housing_database.asp

That list in your second link...I'm not sure it is complete. I only say that because I know there are a few "private", "church funded", "mental health", "domestic respite" and other special needs homes that are not published, but are partially funded by the state, and owned by people(those trust-fund babies do actually offer philanthropically, every now and again), corporations (apartment complexes), or special groups (churches).

These groups target specific short term or long term assistance for very below income families.
In fact many of them do not allow the people who receive assisted housing to own a car (even if it is fully paid for), a cell phone, or more than 2 suitcases of personal belongings per person. They are not allowed to work more than 15 hours a week. They must see a state licensed therapist (all family members), whether it be for drug addiction, abuse, or mental health needs.

Did you know that? They are forced to stay entirely dependent upon the housing office of the apartment complex they are in, if they want to remain under a roof.

This is no walk in the park for those in housing assistance.

Now, the subsidized loan program for median income families is another thing. But I just wanted to be clear that there is a difference between these programs being mentioned.

[old soldier]

if somebody put a trailer park together would that count as affordable housing. you could get a piece of land over by the prison, fence it off haul in some units and folsom would get affordable housing points on the board.

[Johnny_come_lately]

I didn't want one point that I think is critical to the discussion here to get lost - there is a difference between affordable for-rent housing and affordable for-purchase housing. They are not the same thing. If we're talking about providing adequate land so that someone, at some point could construct affordable (which let's face it is really a dressed up term for subsidized) for-rent housing, then that's a different story than forcing a homebuilder to construct and sell below-market homes to buyers who cannot, and would not, qualify to own a home. Remember, not everyone is entitled to own a home. The ownership rate is the US is historically about 64%, so that means that 36% of people rent.

That said, I've never heard a sound argument of how constructing a new home, all of a sudden makes every other home in the community "unaffordable"? I'm not being an *** about it, I've just never heard anything that makes sense. Affordability, by pretty much any measure, is at an all time high.

If affordable housing advocates and government entities want to build such housing, no one is preventing it. They can acquire land, construct a building and charge whatever they want. To those who argue that there is a compelling public interest to have "affordable housing", I wonder why this logic doesn't apply to air travel or automobiles or any other good or service. What is so special about housing that it is uniquely singled out for price controls and extortionate regulation?

I'm not familiar with Folsom's program, but generally these "affordable" programs include silent seconds or other "equity sharing" components, whereby when the affordable homeowner sells the home (in 5, 10, or 30 years or whenevr) they need to surrender all or some of any equity earned and return that to the City or agency or non-profit. Aren't they then, just glorified renters? What other quantifiable objective is achieved by having these affordable buyers own homes?

[Steve Heard]

Its too bad the rich folks worked harder to get the money, but the government has the power to force this distribution through taxes.

we may get to the point where the rich folks finally realize that hard work is not worth it and they will to kick back and let the government give them handouts as well.

It is a fallacy that the poor don't work as hard as the rich. How many of us had fathers and grandfathers who struggled in poverty? Were they lazy?

Ever seen a farm worker? A roofer? Busboys, dishwashers, laborers, janitors, food processors and movers are among the hardest-working people I've ever known, yet some have the image of them kicking back waiting for handouts. Working hard isn't what gets you out of poverty. You can work hard and still get low wages.

I lived in some really frightening and impoverished areas over the years. I lived in those areas because that was what I could afford. I commuted to work and did not take any government assistance. Now, after years of "paying my dues," I am fortunate enough to be able to afford to live in a great community. I EARNED that. There is no implied "right" to live in a nice neighborhood, nor is there a "right" to have your housing subsidized.

Same here.

You'd think there were nothing but mansions and millionaires in Folsom the way some of you are painting it.

There are lots of affordable houses in Folsom that were built in the '50s. They don't have a lot of square footage, but they are good little houses close to schools and not all that far from light rail or a bus to get you to light rail. I'm always surprised we don't see more young families and couples buying them.

This is true! The Central District of Folsom can be quite affordable. A home with a $200,000 mortgage, at 5%, plus tax and insurance should cost no more than about $1400 per month. Two people earing $10 an hour could easily qualify for that. There were 25 such homes sold within the past year.

As for why more young couples aren't buying them, I think it's a combination of factors. Age, size, condition, crime, number of rentals, prestige and neighborhood appeal are among the things that come into play.

If your target is a price range of around $200K, there were 60 homes sold in Rancho, built since 2000 within the past year.

So, for the same price you'd pay for a smaller, older home in Folsom, you could get a newer, larger home in Rancho Cordova and have your kids in the same school district as Folsom.

If you do want to stay in Folsom and don't want the Central District, another $250 per month will get you into Willow Creek Estates, Cobble Ridge or Broadstone.

[tony]

El Dorado County is the Agency responsible for ensuring that their area of purview is in compliance for Affordable housing. Suing El Dorado Hills, would be like suing Empire Ranch for non compliance. El Dorado County faces the same scrutiny the city of Folsom faces. The Agency that approves development is the agency that is responsible for compliance in their area of purview, not some neighborhood.

Lets talk about who is paying for this type of Housing. If the typical 3 bedroom 2 bath 1500' is selling for $300,000 and it cost the developer $150,000 to build, what will it probably sell for? Can we agree probably $300,000? If this same home is selling for $400,000, yet still cost $150,000 to build what will it probably sell for...probably $400,000. If this same home is selling for $600,000 and still costs the developer $150,000 to build what do you think it will probably sell for...you are right, $600,000.

Here is where it gets tricky for some....let say this typical 3 bedroom/2 bath 1500' home is selling for $300,000, but now it costs $180,000 to build...what do yo think people are going to pay? The market price of $300,000 or are they going to pay $30,000 above the market because the developers costs have gone up?

Generally people will pay what they feel is the fair market value for a home, not what it costs to build. That is why sometimes they might be willing to pay $600,000 for a home that may have cost $150,000 to build and its why in some cases today people are paying LESS than the actual costs to build a home.

This is why it really doesn't affect consumers when developers have to build affordable housing. It does however have a huge effect on developers profits and THIS is the reason why they are so opposed to having the Inclusionary componet kept in the housing ordinance.

What many on here can't seem to grasp is that the City of Folsom isn't going to stop affordable housing, its simply they have removed the inclusionary componet that makes developers provide this housing as they develop. The reason why we are being sued is the council removed the inclusionary componet to the housing element. This componet was the key to settling the previous lawsuit.

The city painted itself into a corner by agreeing to the previous settlement and now are going to try and argue its not needed despite NOT having any permanent funding mechanism or the availabe land N50 to do so. I just can't see the city winning this unless they can get the judge who threw out the citizens measure on voting S50 to try the case.

I'd like to take this opportunity to agree with Robert. The issue here is not whether the state law requiring affordable housing is fair, correct, necessary, etc. The issue is whether our city's actions are in compliance with the law. I frankly don't know, but, as Robert mentioned, the very fact that the inclusionary component of the housing element was put in place to settle the previous lawsuit, suggests that the city is pushing its luck and likely to end up spending a bunch of money defending its actions, all because the developers were whining again.

if somebody put a trailer park together would that count as affordable housing. you could get a piece of land over by the prison, fence it off haul in some units and folsom would get affordable housing points on the board.

I don't know if they "count", but there are already at least four mobile home parks in Folsom.