78 replies to this topic

[caligirlz]

Sorry for the side track but your comment peaked my interest as my Daughter is looking for a rental house. What OTHER on-line resources can she use besides Craig's list ?

Threadjack....
http://www.sacrentals.com/ **my fav**
http://homerunrentals.com/
http://www.padmapper.com/ (for apartments)
http://www.apartmenthunterz.com/ (can specify search for houses)
http://california.rentalhomesplus.com/Folsom

Plus, once you identify the major property management companies for your target area, you can search off their websites. For example:
http://www.dwellzone.com/
http://leuent.com/

There are also lots of really great homes owned by non-computer literate older folks who rent at a fair price (vs an investor) - you can find these listings in the local newspaper, or freepress, referral or on drive-by.

I have more websites on my other computer. I'll PM them to you when I have a chance.

[caligirlz]

one shouldn't have to squeeze into home ownership, placing sheets at the window and using a patio set for dining inside the house. That sort of picture sounds to me like you bit off more than you could chew.

Sure, lots of folks do that and then lots of folks get caught with too much debt later, because they had to charge every pair of drapes, every stick of furniture and everything in between. That means they COULD NOT save any money because there was none to save! Then when they got laid off and had to live on unemployment, which didn't give them enough money to pay for their house payments, they lost their home.

Using a patio set for dining inside - now that's innovative!

When I moved from my roommate situation to my apartment, all I had to sleep on was a mattress, a set of sheets and a sleeping bag....until my new bed arrived. I only had 1 chair and a room full of boxes until I went shopping & bought furniture. Everything I'd owned prior to moving to Sacramento had been sold. Was this evidence of my mishandling the situation/money? No, I did what I could, and took care of the details one step at a time. No biggie.

From what I've seen (in my parents generation & on through mine), it is more the norm for new homeowners to cover the windows with sheets or butcher paper until it's time to get real window coverings. Or use a folding card table until they get a real table. It has to do with determining the budget, saving pennies or using credit, figuring out what they want and they having the time to shop for it....and then wait for delivery. It's all part of the normal process.

I agree that the bubble buyers, generally speaking, wanted instant gratification, instead of saving for what they could afford.

[Robert Giacometti]

I also don't think it's right to say only one side of town will have affordable housing. I don't know why the city thought they wouldn't be challenged for dropping this from any building south of 50, because being legally "challenged" means it costs money to defend.

The best and simplist way to ensure that affordable housing is dispersed equally throughout the city is to have an inclusionary componet in the housing ordinance. Besides keeping the city in compliance ( developers have to build these units as they develop their projects) it also shifts the costs of the program from the public sector back to the private sector.

Currently to meet the requirements the city is using OUR tax dollars to subsidize these projects. Most of this funding is coming from the RDA. I don't think the city is going to be using RDA money to support Affordable Housing S50.

The fact the city has the highest debt of any city in the 6 county area AND we rank LAST as far as the % of funding we are contributing for the pensions obligations, should be huge Red flags that the city will be getting squeezed by these 2 factors going forward. This will put the city in no position to be subsidizng affordable housing going forward out of the General fund. Without a dedicated funding source, there won't be any funds to build anything S50. In order to keep developing, the city will probably continue to use its RDA money within the RDA to build more affordable housing units.

At a minimum, the Council should have adopted an In-Lieu fee on developers to fund affordable housing units for S50 as was suggested at one time by staff. Other cities have the inclusionary component in their ordinances and/or have In-Lieu fees and quincindentally they aren't being sued.

I just can't foresee how affordable housing is going to get built S50 without a fee to pay for it or keeping the inclusionary component in the ordinance.

[old soldier]

The best and simplist way to ensure that affordable housing is dispersed equally throughout the city is to have an inclusionary componet in the housing ordinance. Besides keeping the city in compliance ( developers have to build these units as they develop their projects) it also shifts the costs of the program from the public sector back to the private sector.

Currently to meet the requirements the city is using OUR tax dollars to subsidize these projects. Most of this funding is coming from the RDA. I don't think the city is going to be using RDA money to support Affordable Housing S50.

The fact the city has the highest debt of any city in the 6 county area AND we rank LAST as far as the % of funding we are contributing for the pensions obligations, should be huge Red flags that the city will be getting squeezed by these 2 factors going forward. This will put the city in no position to be subsidizng affordable housing going forward out of the General fund. Without a dedicated funding source, there won't be any funds to build anything S50. In order to keep developing, the city will probably continue to use its RDA money within the RDA to build more affordable housing units.

At a minimum, the Council should have adopted an In-Lieu fee on developers to fund affordable housing units for S50 as was suggested at one time by staff. Other cities have the inclusionary component in their ordinances and/or have In-Lieu fees and quincindentally they aren't being sued.

I just can't foresee how affordable housing is going to get built S50 without a fee to pay for it or keeping the inclusionary component in the ordinance.

this afforable housing might be a little above old soldiers brain power, but just thinking that there is always something sneaky when the council acts, there may be a skunk in the woodpile. It doesn't seem like there is a lot of land to develop north of 50 so it would't be a big deal for the developers, but once they say "start up your dozers" when south of 50 gets annexed..the council's developer buddies wouldn't be hampered with any requirment to build this housing. now if the change was done for a good reason and the courts say it has to be changed back and the profit potential for doing a development is less cause they have to do the housing, then it probably would just slow down the old building till the economy gets a lot better.

Its kind of sad not to trust you leadership. Shucks if the court says they made a mistake changing the law, the only thing the city would be out would be the legal defense costs.

[supermom]

Why must it be up to a church?

To make it fair, shall we charge each chuirch equally or by membership?
How shall we prove memebrship enrollment?

Oh, maybe we shall tax individuals at income tax time like the Germans do,on tithing?

hmmmm....I think I just thread jacked...sorry everyone.

[Johnny_come_lately]

Why does anyone but the affordable housing advocates have to pay for any it?

[Robert Giacometti]

Why does anyone but the affordable housing advocates have to pay for any it?

It is the law, that agencies have to provide for affordable housing, wether we agree with it or not.

I'm all for having a discussion about the merits of the law, but until the law gets revised my goal is that Folsom meet the requirements in the most cost effective way WITHOUT using my tax dollars. I'm also concerned that we don't build housing projects and congregate them in one area, so we can develop in another. The best way to achieve this is to have them built in developments as they are developed.

If someone has a better idea on how to build affordable housing, without using tax dollars and NOT having them all in one area, please bring it forward.

You might be onto something, getting advocates to pay for their beliefs.

[Johnny_come_lately]

It is the law, that agencies have to provide for affordable housing, wether we agree with it or not.

I'm all for having a discussion about the merits of the law, but until the law gets revised my goal is that Folsom meet the requirements in the most cost effective way WITHOUT using my tax dollars. I'm also concerned that we don't build housing projects and congregate them in one area, so we can develop in another. The best way to achieve this is to have them built in developments as they are developed.

If someone has a better idea on how to build affordable housing, without using tax dollars and NOT having them all in one area, please bring it forward.

You might be onto something, getting advocates to pay for their beliefs.

Agreed. One important clarification. 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, which is not always the developer, 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.

There's lots of options other than making builder plop crappy duplexes on corner lots or constructing mega-apartment complexes stuffed behind big-box retail. Low-income Senior Housing has become extremely popular in the past couple of years and this type of housing typically doesn't exert the same externalities (crime) than your prototypical low-income construction does can. Given the aging demographics in the US (all you damn Baby Boomers), providing for lots of low-income Senior Housing is an anticipated need and it is an area likely to grow and grow. Habitat for Humanity is another great partner for work-force housing. I don't work there, but I can't speak highly enough about their operation, so I'd encourage everyone to read up on them. It's a really cool service that they provide. Plus their Re-Store has some great stuff for you handymen and women. ReStore link You can buy stuff there, in addition to donating left over construction materials or good condition appliances.

If y'all have a few minutes and you're interested in reading further about affordable housing, here's a great presentation from Cathy Creswell from HCD. Giant PowerPoint presentation here The presentation is not dated, but I think it's from around 2005 or so.

[caligirlz]

Funny, isn't it? The big churches can be built with acres of parking, but they can't build affordable housing.

Churches can spend thousands on advertising for Easter services, but can't advertise to promote building affordable housing by their followers.

If all the money given to churches on Easter Sunday went to build affordable housing, it would go a long way to pay for it.

Where is the church on this issue? Why must it always be up to the tax payers to pay for these things when we have so many big churches?

There would be no need for a law if the churches that take in thousands of dollars, worked to build houses that were affordable. Where is the work they are supposed to do for God?

What you are requesting is NOT part of the great commission given by Jesus per Mark 16:15-20...of course, depending on your Bible version you may not even be aware of this, because some versions leave it out altogether.

There are scripture that talk about taking care of the poor, but the Bible is not a social program. It's about the miraculous life-changing work of God. Governments administer social programs.....AND some churches do do these kind of things, under all sorts of governmental red tape. The have even more hoops to jump through than a regular business, since it is "faith-based" public works. What a mess!

BTW Maxine, I do agree with you about the hype over church E&C (easter & christmas) whoop-d-do's. Of course, it's all for visitors and trying to show you how much fun that church is, so you'll become a regular member & tither.

Oh, maybe we shall tax individuals at income tax time like the Germans do, on tithing?

Funny you should mention that, our dear Pres wants to take away all tax write-offs, including for all non-501©3 charities (& churches). That doesn't sound like a very nice thing for our "Christian" president to do, does it?

[cw68]

Funny you should mention that, our dear Pres wants to take away all tax write-offs, including for all non-501©3 charities (& churches). That doesn't sound like a very nice thing for our "Christian" president to do, does it?

Truly curious and not picking a fight, but why is this not a good thing for a "Christian" to do?

[the_professor]

What you are requesting is NOT part of the great commission given by Jesus per Mark 16:15-20...of course, depending on your Bible version you may not even be aware of this, because some versions leave it out altogether.

There are scripture that talk about taking care of the poor, but the Bible is not a social program. It's about the miraculous life-changing work of God. Governments administer social programs.....AND some churches do do these kind of things, under all sorts of governmental red tape. The have even more hoops to jump through than a regular business, since it is "faith-based" public works. What a mess!

BTW Maxine, I do agree with you about the hype over church E&C (easter & christmas) whoop-d-do's. Of course, it's all for visitors and trying to show you how much fun that church is, so you'll become a regular member & tither.



Funny you should mention that, our dear Pres wants to take away all tax write-offs, including for all non-501©3 charities (& churches). That doesn't sound like a very nice thing for our "Christian" president to do, does it?

Do you think our "Christian" President is actually a "Muslim"?

[Redone]

Do you think our "Christian" President is actually a "Muslim"?

Could it be that he is neither and only chooses "what he is" based on the audience he's trying to impress ?

[The Average Joe]

Could it be that he is neither and only chooses "what he is" based on the audience he's trying to impress ?

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! Not that I am shocked...most politicians have no spine and do the same thing.

[caligirlz]

Do you think our "Christian" President is actually a "Muslim"?

Who knows??? I have no idea what his true spiritual belief is. There are many christians who are christians in name only...because they go to church, because their parents go to church, because they had a feel good experience at church...

I agree with Redone & The Average Joe that he sympathizes with the audience he is trying to impress.

Could it be that he is neither and only chooses "what he is" based on the audience he's trying to impress ?

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! Not that I am shocked...most politicians have no spine and do the same thing.