109 replies to this topic

[benning]

You are truly a breath of fresh air.

[Terry]

My question is really one that is much more basic.  How could the city have allowed us to get into this mess to begin with?  Why wasn't affordable housing planned and accounted for all along in every single Folsom community for the last XXX years?

Folsom in its entirety was affordable into the late 80s. Additionally, Folsom wasn't as divided as it is now with subdivisions being their own little empires (at least as viewed by their own residents) - Natoma Station, Empire Ranch, Broadstone, Prairie Oaks, Briggs Ranch, the Parkway - we used to be pretty cognitive of being an all-inclusive City of Folsom. There was plenty of affordable housing (in fact 90% of it was "affordable") and thus the state's affordable housing requirements were always being met. The demand for housing then mushroomed and no one could have forseen that homes in the $50,000 range in Folsom in the 80s would have become unaffordable $300,000.00 homes in the 90s. The city planned for affordable housing but upon completion of each new development, the housing prices kept getting more or more out of reach to the lower income buyers.

As to your comment that Folsom should have planned for affordable housing IN EACH OF ITS COMMUNITIES, you're placing too much emphasis on what you determine to be a community. The entire city of Folsom is a community - not each named subdivision within the city. Now everyone seems to identify their status by identifying their subdivision ...."....oh, I live in Empire Ranch..."....."....we're in historic..." etc., etc., etc. ....and it seems that subdivision identity signifies the various levels of affluence. We've done this to ourselves (actually I don't live in a named subdivision which in itself prompts unusual looks when I describe the area in which I live rather than naming a subdivision).

Ask yourself this: someone you've met around town, say at a social event, seems to be very interesting, you've chatted and this person seems like someone you'd expect to see in your social circle again. Then you ask them where they live and they say 'Willow Springs'. Well, what if they instead said "we live on Duchow"? Answer honestly.

I suppose my point is this: if someone is going to base my value on my address instead of my character, values, personality, then it says FAR MORE about that someone's character, values, personality, than it does about me.

As teens say nowadays "get over yourself!"

[benning]

Right, I know, let's make all the people with families of 4 who make less than 50k wear big 'A's on their SUV's so we know who to blame when our housing prices fall.

[cybertrano]

Vote Republican? Nooooooooooo, because I want assistance. I don't want to work anymore but still want house, big car, kids.

Right you are, Paul!


MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Republican[/color]

[ngilbert]

Right, I know, let's make all the people with families of 4 who make less than 50k wear big 'A's on their SUV's so we know who to blame when our housing prices fall.

Now, now. We shouldn't assume they're all adulterers. Oh wait. You mean "A" for "Affordable Housing"?

How about "AH"? I've certainly seen a lot of people driving around here who should have an "AH" sticker on their vehicles, but it stands for something different

[Terry]

Now, now. We shouldn't assume they're all adulterers. Oh wait. You mean "A" for "Affordable Housing"?

How about "AH"? I've certainly seen a lot of people driving around here who should have an "AH" sticker on their vehicles, but it stands for something different

Again, I guess I need to clarify my stance.

I am not supporting affordable housing per se. I'm just explaining how the affordable housing CRISIS evolved in Folsom since it seems there are those who want someone (the city council?) to blame for now having to find affordable housing sites within the limited areas left to develop.

And I'm also pointing out the error in judging people by their addresses, income levels, type of vehicle, etc.

[ngilbert]

Again, I guess I need to clarify my stance. 

I am not supporting affordable housing per se.  I'm just explaining how the affordable housing CRISIS evolved in Folsom since it seems there are those who want someone (the city council?) to blame for now having to find affordable housing sites within the limited areas left to develop.

And I'm also pointing out the error in judging people by their addresses, income levels, type of vehicle, etc.

Terry,

No need to clarify for my benefit - your point is astute and well-taken. I was just making a tongue-in-cheek response to benning's tongue-in-cheek response - not to what you said.

Later
N-

[nhardy]

And I'm also pointing out the error in judging people by their addresses, income levels, type of vehicle, etc.

Anybody who's anybody lives in the 9 to da 5 to da 6 to da 3 to da Izz-0.

Everyone knows that!

[Steve Heard]

The Ant anology is at best, far off base. To assume that someone who could qualify for an affordable housing program is lazy, won't maintain their properties, on drugs, and will turn the town into a ghetto is insulting to hard working families.

I had a client, a police officer, who fell into the low to moderate income bracket. Did he dance and play while the rest of us were busy storing our acorns?

What about the teacher, and I know one, who has a Master's degree, but is moving to North Carolina because she can't earn enough to buy a home here in California? Was she one of those irresponsible grasshoppers?

As I've said so many times, many of us moved here from the Bay Area because Folsom was AFFORDABLE, compared to where we lived before. How many people do you know who sold their homes in the Bay Area, then bought a home in Folsom for cash, or put a huge downpayment? I know many of them, as I am in the business of finding homes for them and financing them when needed.

These aren't rich people, they are lucky, or fortunate people. They bought homes when they were reasonably priced, before the outrageous gains of the last 5 to 7 years. They took their equity and came up here where housing is still cheap, again, in comparison to the Bay Area.

One client of mine was making $70,000 per year in the Bay Area. She bought her house in 1999 for $220,000. She sold it a year and a half ago for $525,000. She was able to put $200,000 down on a $345,000 house (now appraised at $485,000). She still has money in the bank, but now makes about half what she used to. Her case is typical of many that I've seen.

I am currently working with one of her former co-workers who is in a similar situation. She has 2 bedroom townhouse for sale, which she expects to get $650,000 for. She's taking that equity to buy some affordable housing here in Folsom. She'll pay about $500,000 for an 1800 sq ft house. Nice and affordable.

Most of us could not afford to buy a home in the Bay Area today if we wanted to. We'd qualify for low to moderate income housing programs. We'd be the ones the neighbors would fear. The Folsomite invasion, they'd call it. The Bay Area would see a mass exodus out of fear that the Folsomites wouldn't maintain their properties, would bring crime, drugs, and bad mojo to the area.

Some have stated that Folsom will become like Rancho Cordova. I have to assume that what they mean is that there will be a lot of minorities, poverty and crime.

By the way, it isn't low income homeowners who don't maintain their properties, it is the landlords. Many defer all maintenance as long as they can to maximize profit.

[Young Curmudgeon]

By the way, it isn't low income homeowners who don't maintain their properties, it is the landlords. Many defer all maintenance as long as they can to maximize profit.

Nothing more true has been said on these boards. Ever.

[Cloud9]

Terry,

Thanks for the Folsom history lesson, but I think you're too lenient and let the city off the hook.

If my wife and I, who had never visited Folsom, and had only identified Folsom in mid-2001 as we researched places to live, from across the country (NY), could determine that housing values in the area would be rising - sight unseen - then one would expect that the city with all of its resources, projections, and first hand knowledge of all the activity in the city would have planned more appropriately for affordable housing.

[benning]

By the way, it isn't low income homeowners who don't maintain their properties, it is the landlords. Many defer all maintenance as long as they can to maximize profit.

True, true and truer. My in-laws were landlords and bi*&ched every time someone moved out because they had to paint the place or clean the carpet. They did little or nothing to the properties if they could avoid it. Meanwhile, they were in very positive cash flow, particularly on their lower income properties due to Section 8 subsidies.
Landlords don't fully appreciate their situation...renters are essentially helping them purchase a home, including increasing equity and associated appreciation. When I was a landlord I was very generous to my tenants, and either maintained the properties myself or gave them credits on their rent if they did it.

Welcome tellers, teachers, policemen, grocery clerks, gas station attendants and others to Folsom. Others can keep finding new places to exodus to and leave us normal people to enjoy our lives. Life is not all about ensuring the maximum property appreciation. A home is an investment, yes, but should be a home first. I'm staying put for the time being.

[Cloud9]

Sounds like your in-laws were just as shortsighted as my in-laws.

Tenants moving out is an opportunity to obtain higher rental income. Sure you could raise the rent outright, but most people don't see the value and move it. A little paint, carpet cleaning or replacement, new fixtures and we'd have people practically killing each other to get in to the place at 25-50% higher rent.

[Kerri Howell]

Terry is right - During the early 80's Folsom was a very different place. The objective back then was to entice higher end development - as most of Folsom was affordable, in both the common usage terminology as well as the technical definition of affordable housing (which, by the way does not mean housing that is less expensive than yours, or, in your own mind less desireable because it is on a smaller lot).
Councils in the later 80's did a really good job at what they set out to do. They attracted a lot of higher end housing and had all sorts of buyers, including all those new folks at Intel. Way back when, since Folsom had always been affordable and mostly Blue Collar, and because the state allowed the prison population to count as affordable units - there was no problem. However, times change, the "housing element" which the overseeing state agency had not required updating of for many years (all over the state, not just in Folsom), decides that it is time to get those updates done. Local and statewide Politics and perceptions change, and VOILA, prisoners no longer count.
At the same time, some unhappy Folsomites contact Legal Services of Northern California (those are the people that sued us), inviting them to City Hall, to request public documents to push forward the agenda that Folsom is bad, has not provided sufficient numbers of affordable units, and they must be punished! Please keep in mind that the real objective of these people was to get a building moratorium and prevent approval of the application for the SOI, by LAFCO and Sac County. Apparently it did not occur to these folks that their actions and assistance to Legal Services might actually result in a requirement to BUILD affordable housing. Any way, we updated the housing element, settled the lawsuit and here we are, trying to include those technically affordable housing within areas where development is proposed and which is not covered by Development Agreements (again, another term with a strict legal definition, which prevents the City from forcing inclusion of affordable units, as these projects were approved more than 10 years ago, in most cases).
So the objective now is to create affordable units (in accordance wit the law), locate them in market rate projects, so as to be indistinguishable from the market rate units, and for everybody's property values to increase.

[Robert Giacometti]

Again, I guess I need to clarify my stance. 

I am not supporting affordable housing per se.  I'm just explaining how the affordable housing CRISIS evolved in Folsom since it seems there are those who want someone (the city council?) to blame for now having to find affordable housing sites within the limited areas left to develop.

And I'm also pointing out the error in judging people by their addresses, income levels, type of vehicle, etc.

Cloud9 is right on in asking, why wasn't this planned!

The Affordable Housing requirement pertains to NEW housing not the existing houses. City council members can NOT control the prices of existing homes but CAN and are legally REQUIRED to provide a certain percentage of new housing be affordable, as defined by the standards of law. This is where the City did NOT meet compliance!

At a meeting I attended a few years ago, a council member stated that the reason we were approving/building so many apartments was this was the city's solution to the affordable housing issue. Unfortunately, it wasn't and has cost us dearly!

Granted, during this time there was no political will to have these units built and since no other Agency was in compliance, the powers to be may have felt why bring attention to this issue. However, once the Legal Services staretd making noise, we should have been proactive and made adjustments to address this issue. We all know now, it wasn't addressed until the lawsuit.

There have been different opportunities for the council to disperse these units throughout the city. It was decided to allow development to continue, thereby forcing the majority of affordable housing to be concentrated in the south area. The council had some tough choices to make during this time and this is what they chose. The affordable housing could have been dispersed.

To my knowledge, Mayor Steve Miklos, has been the only council person to publically acknowledge there may have been opportunities to address this issue in the past and they, the council, did the best they could with the developers during these times of renegotiating the developer agreements, but for whatever reason it didn't get done. I thought this was very admirable of Steve to say this!

IMHO, the City has painted itself into a corner ( maybe by design?) regarding Affordable Housing.

So, Cloud9's question should be answered! It should be answered before we go S50, so we don't make the same misstakes again!