51 replies to this topic

[old soldier]

our country is hell bent on the redistribution of wealth and the folks receiving the distrubution are voting for the politicians that are pushing it..so we could take it a little further...and since south of 50 is the reason for the council vote probably to make the developers more profit.

ok here is the plan..you make the lots big and then you require a rich person wanting to build a house to build an affordable house on his lot. that would be the sort of tax on the rich person. the other thing big with our leaders these days is social engineering, like stopping don't ask don't tell in the military. the engineering with old soldiers program would be having rich folks getting to know the poor folks living on the affordable house on the rich person's lot. they could share the swimming pool, have combined bbq's etc.

the only downside might be the poor folks over a few beers might convince the rich folks its better to not work, have the government provide for you and vote for the politicians who support that program....the rich folks just might be convinced that the poor folks idea is better and after while we would have no more hard working rich folks around to buy the lots where the free affordable houses would go..

[Folsom Guy]

This decision, at best, smacks of utter incompetence or worst - deceit.

Either way, all those responsible oughta be recalled or fired. Nothing less.

How can EDHs be sued they aren't an incorporated City? They fall under the planning jurisdiction of El Dorado County, who is in compliance with affordable housing mandate. This was one of the biggest reasons why EDHs residents voted down incorporation a few years ago.

It was explained to me that the City of Folsom is one of the largest agencies in N CAL, preparing for rampant growth, that doesn't have the Inclusionary Affordable Housing componet in their Housing element .

This is why we are being sued!

Our Council is SCREWING over the existing residents on this issue to maximize the ROI for the landowners S50! Having a DA without the affordable housing Inclusionary componet would make the land S50 worth millions more to the landowners S50 to spin off the the builders. The Council took this gamble and now are paying for defending the lawsuit with OUR tax dollars.

Everybody knew this was going to happen, including the council! The outrage should be directed at the council who made this decision.

[Johnny_come_lately]

I feel like we've discussed this once before....like deja vu


There is no law that requires anyone (a city, developer, special interest group, etc) to actually build anything.

The agency (Folsom in this case) needs to provide for "adequate sites" (a defined term in law) for affordable housing (actually not a defined term, rather we're probably talking about low-income and moderate income housing). There's no requirement to build it or force anyone to build it, the City just has to ensure there's enough area (i.e., zoned land) so it could be built. Many agencies choose to force construction on the builder, because that's the easy answer. Other cities have builders pay a fee which they then use to construct (or more cost-effectively, re-hab existing housing stock and improve it and the neighborhood). Folsom is not shirking their duty to provide for adequate sites, they are instead looking at solving the issue in ways other than forcing a builder to build them.

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?

[andy]

What is so special about housing that it is uniquely singled out for price controls and extortionate regulation?

For starters, meeting these housing needs better ensures that the diversity in housing matches the diversity in jobs. If most jobs are modest in wages (like the retail/service jobs so prevalent in Folsom's sales tax-driven planning) then workers who can't afford to live here are imported from more affordable areas. This leads to poor air quality and traffic (think Hwy 50). It also causes an over-abundance of poorer housing in some communities, unfairly burdening them with the consequences of our community's actions. In short, a diverse community is better able to service its own needs. Its low-wage workers can stay local, its starting-pay teachers can live near their students, etc.

On a simpler or personal level, the diversity in housing costs will allow for families to stay connected as multiple generations at a variety of income levels can better stay close to one another. This builds communal strength and keeps people invested in local quality of life.

Honoring these housing requirements actually frees a community from a whole other set of burdens. Think of it this way...communities operate much like biology where diversity and complexity lead to a better ecosystem.

[Redone]

On a simpler or personal level, the diversity in housing costs will allow for families to stay connected as multiple generations at a variety of income levels can better stay close to one another. This builds communal strength and keeps people invested in local quality of life.

So, why would a person work to get ahead in life in your Utopia?


What if someone doesn't want to "stay close to one another"? Haven't you then restricted their freedom?

[andy]

So, why would a person work to get ahead in life in your Utopia?


What if someone doesn't want to "stay close to one another"? Haven't you then restricted their freedom?

uh...you can always choose to live somewhere else. It's not like a fence that keeps people from leaving. The point is to provide more options like starter homes, opportunities to downsize, a chance to stay connected if you lose your job and need cheaper housing.

I'm not asking you to support affordable housing initiatives, I'm just trying to explain why they exist and why their proponents think they are a good idea.

[old soldier]

the bottom line here is our tax dollars being spent on another lawsuite and the only reason for it is to eliminate the low income housing requirment so the s50 developers can make more money

citizen benefits vs developer profit, with this council, the developers always win. period

[gottasmile]

For starters, meeting these housing needs better ensures that the diversity in housing matches the diversity in jobs. If most jobs are modest in wages (like the retail/service jobs so prevalent in Folsom's sales tax-driven planning) then workers who can't afford to live here are imported from more affordable areas. This leads to poor air quality and traffic (think Hwy 50). It also causes an over-abundance of poorer housing in some communities, unfairly burdening them with the consequences of our community's actions. In short, a diverse community is better able to service its own needs. Its low-wage workers can stay local, its starting-pay teachers can live near their students, etc.

On a simpler or personal level, the diversity in housing costs will allow for families to stay connected as multiple generations at a variety of income levels can better stay close to one another. This builds communal strength and keeps people invested in local quality of life.

Honoring these housing requirements actually frees a community from a whole other set of burdens. Think of it this way...communities operate much like biology where diversity and complexity lead to a better ecosystem.

Great information and completely correct. A town is a community, its citizens the communal strength. Diversity is important.

I must disagree...and seem to be the sole voice doing so, that people who need affordable housing are asking for "a free ride". You have single parents, low-income wage earners, and many other hard working individuals who have the dream of owning a home. They aren't asking for a "free ride". Than you have the "middle class" workers (teachers, police, fire, etc) who are also working their butt off, but need affordable housing in Folsom to realize their dream of owning a home. Don't dare consider these wage-earners as asking for "a free ride". They are asking to be able to have a choice in being able to work hard to afford and have the choice as to where they will lay down their roots; to live in a nice community, with good schools, great outdoor trails, and many other factors.

To assume that affordable housing is only for welfare receipents or those seeking a free ride is offensive. I always wonder when discrimination will cease, but am constantly reminded that it will never die. <sigh>

[doj_gal]

So, why would a person work to get ahead in life in your Utopia?

I completely agree. I cannot stand this country where the poor/lower class want to steal from the middle class/upper class to make everything equal...socialism at it's finest.

What ever happened to the work hard, two..maybe three jobs, save...while living somewhere less than what you want and then eventually be able to purchase a home in the area that you want to live in and CAN AFFORD?

My hubby and I work our tails off to be able to afford a home. Unfortunately, that was not in the Orangevale/Folsom area, where I am originally from. Therefore, we went to a place where we could afford. I commute to work and we are able to live comfortably.

Eventually one day, when we are able, we will look back into living in the Folsom area. Our financial situation at this point will not allow us and I cannot stand people that want to force their way into a situation or place that they did not earn.

Our government and this entitled mentality is ruining our country and my generation of children in grown up bodies adults who assume that the government is there to provide a way for them to not only live but acquire luxuries on tax payers dime.

A home should not be subsidized. If you cannot afford to purchase a home in a certain market, you can rent a room, apartment or home. You can live with in laws or friends. There are a lot of choices but forcing a community to accommodate individuals that are unwilling to work harder and achieve more success without taking it from others...essentially enabling them to be able to purchase a home in a certain area that they cannot afford is RUINING OUR COUNTRY.

...And frankly, I have had it to the moon with all of these entitled, lazy people reaping the benefits of what others have sown and the idiot politicians the cater to these low income minded scum people...with the mindset that I just want a piece of the pie...it's not fair...every body should be equal crap...

I can't stand it!!! Boo fricken hoo! Life is not fair. You have to work hard. There should not be a government funded, forced, manipulated and stolen way to a sucessful life. Period.

[ducky]

Great information and completely correct. A town is a community, its citizens the communal strength. Diversity is important.

I must disagree...and seem to be the sole voice doing so, that people who need affordable housing are asking for "a free ride". You have single parents, low-income wage earners, and many other hard working individuals who have the dream of owning a home. They aren't asking for a "free ride". Than you have the "middle class" workers (teachers, police, fire, etc) who are also working their butt off, but need affordable housing in Folsom to realize their dream of owning a home. Don't dare consider these wage-earners as asking for "a free ride". They are asking to be able to have a choice in being able to work hard to afford and have the choice as to where they will lay down their roots; to live in a nice community, with good schools, great outdoor trails, and many other factors.

To assume that affordable housing is only for welfare receipents or those seeking a free ride is offensive. I always wonder when discrimination will cease, but am constantly reminded that it will never die. <sigh>

I don't think it's accurate to say that hardworking people with lower incomes can't afford to live in Folsom. We've had firefighters as neighbors (all three I can think of ended up moved into nice, new homes in other parts of Folsom, actually), we have teachers on our street, a police officer, and we've had prison guards.

So maybe those hardworking folks won't be able to start out in a brand-new home in Empire Ranch or American River Canyon, but owning a home is not out of reach for the people you mention. They're already doing it.

[Redone]

uh...you can always choose to live somewhere else. It's not like a fence that keeps people from leaving. The point is to provide more options like starter homes, opportunities to downsize, a chance to stay connected if you lose your job and need cheaper housing.

Maybe you could hook me up with a place to live in Beverly Hills or Montecito. Choices...

[4thgenFolsomite]

Steve Heard posted in another thread on foreclosures about how underemployed (I assume this means low income or affordable housing criteria) people can buy houses now in Folsom. I wonder if we can't reevaluate the current values and see if we don't already meet the requirements without having to build new complexes specifically for special needs (i.e. transitional housing, etc.)

[Robert Giacometti]

Steve Heard posted in another thread on foreclosures about how underemployed (I assume this means low income or affordable housing criteria) people can buy houses now in Folsom. I wonder if we can't reevaluate the current values and see if we don't already meet the requirements without having to build new complexes specifically for special needs (i.e. transitional housing, etc.)

This is a very complicated issue.

The Affordable housing element is related to NEW housing being created. When we as a city approve new development, this is where we are supposed to zone a certain portion to be available for affordable housing. In years past we allowed thousands upon thousands of new homes to be built without ANY affordable housing being built. This is why we were sued before as we WERE NOT meeting the intent of the law. We KNEW it and agreed to settle.

The logical way to address this issue to have the builders construct affordable housing within new developments. This is why the Inclusionary Componet is so crucial. Agencies that have this ordinances in place aren't being sued. When a City like Folsom, agrees to settle a lawsuit by adopting the Inclusionary componet, then later removes the inclusionary componet, they are going to get sued AGAIN!

Relying on market pricing to meet this requirement is NOT reliable and will put us back in the same position we were in 12 years ago, when values increase.

Its NOT about what is available, its about what is being created.

[Homer]

The Mayor is going to be on the Eric Hogue show (am 1380) today @ 12:30 to talk about the housing law suit.