Affordable Housing on Historic Railroad Block
#1
Posted 01 December 2002 - 01:13 PM
Now 5 acres of the Railroad Block on Sutter St. are the latest to be rezoned. Don't you think it will do wonders for tourism to have extra-dense affordable housing in the middle of the Railroad Block???
So what is the Historic District is zoned Specialty Commercial??? So what if the sanitary sewers down there are spilling over all the time??? So what if there are no schools, parks, libraries, adequate number of Police Officers???? So what is there is no parking????
Don't you think this Historic jewel -- Sutter Street -- is the PERFECT place to put affordable housing?
The merchants must be livid about this!
Doesn't the insanity ever end?
[SIZE=7]
#2
Posted 01 December 2002 - 08:21 PM
The lawsuit was brought by a legal group who pursues these types of lawsuit as their business. They had to solicit an individual who lives in Folsom and meets the definition of affordable for the purpose of this type of housing, and then used that individual to be the front person for their lawsuit against the City of Folsom. The settlement agreement sure doesn't seem to be "private" to me! Every detail has been hashed out in the media for goodness sakes!
Housing has been a proposed element of the Historic Block for over 5 years, albeit not "affordable". But it really shouldn't make a difference. The ideas are to have commercial shops at ground level, then parking and apartment units on upper levels. This provides for the necessary future parking needs in the historic area and provides for those who want to live in the historic area. I don't believe the Sutter Street merchants would be opposed to affordable housing anymore than they would oppose market rate housing there.
I'm not sure what the comments about police, schools, libraries, etc., are all about, but the residents who currently live in historic Folsom have the same opportunities for public services as the rest of us.
This is not unlike Old Sacramento and downtown Sacramento where many businesses operate at ground level and there are living quarters and parking on upper levels. And yes, Sacramento does have the same affordable housing requirements as the City of Folsom. They meet it with these units, along with mobile home parks, senior housing, etc., just like we will be meeting it.
It seems that no one wants affordable housing in their neighborhoods. We live within 1 1/2 blocks of what would be considered affordable housing, and previously lived 1 1/2 blocks within what would have been considered low-income housing. Even living that close, the impact to us, our lifestyle, and our property value is negligible. When homes in our area go on the market, there are bidding wars and no one has even questioned our "affordable housed" neighbors. Come on people, get rid of the doom and gloom attitudes and get with the program. Affordable housing is going to happen - you can be part of the problem, or part of the solution. And the solution shouldn't be to put it anywhere but in your neighborhood. It should be evenly distributed throughout the city.
#3
Posted 01 December 2002 - 09:42 PM
These apartments will no doubt be in high demand, as it would be in the entertainment district of Folsom - to dump affordable apartments in its place would be a shame. I'd rather see some condos that is owner-occupied.
-Yogi Berra
#4
Posted 02 December 2002 - 11:33 PM
But what if our property values are negatively impacted? Well, lots of things can do that. A bad economy comes to mind (e.g., the late '80s and early '90s). Oversupply has been known to do it. The point is: nobody ever promised us ever-rising property values. It's not in the bill of rights or the constitution or the municipal code. And there's no guarantee that some affordable housing is going to lower them anyway. From a personal standpoint, while our house is certainly the largest investment we have made, we didn't buy it primarily as an investment. We bought it for a home. Yeah, we may move on some day. And if we do, I hope we make a killing on the house. But in the mean time, we're enjoying the neighborhood and all the character engendered by its unique surroundings and our many great neighbors. And none of that would change because of some affordable housing on the fringes for our neighborhood (although there are specific concerns with direct traffic and sewer impacts, and clustering), unless all of our neighbors panicked and started a fire sale, or moved out and turned all their houses into rentals. Hysteria is much more likely than construction of an apartment complex nearby to cause a sudden drop in property values .
A further clarification to Terry's post: as with almost all of the sites identified for affordable housing, if the RR block were used, only a percentage (25% max, if I recall correctly) of the residential units would be "affordable"; the rest would, as Jake would prefer, certainly be unaffordable. Sure, high-end apartments on the RR block could be very attractive to YSPIES (young suburban professionals), but some affordable ones would allow some of those who work at all those high-paying entertainment distrcit jobs (waiters and cooks and bartenders...) to live there too, and probbaly liven up the day and night life as well.
Which brings me to my final point here: that the opinion voiced by Jake (not to pick on Jake, as his is clearly a popular opinion) that aprtments over shops would be OK, as long as they were "primo apartments with high rents" is in, large part, the reason Folsom is in this mess in the first place. A large number of apartments (high density, multi-family housing) have been built in the past ten years or so, but invariably when they were proposed, the nearby neighborhoods were up in arms and only appeased when they were assured that the apartments would all be "high end" or "luxury" apartments. They can't all be luxury apartments.
#5
Posted 12 December 2002 - 08:48 PM
It doesn't really matter where affordable housing is proposed. You will ALWAYS have someone or a group of people complaining about the location. For example, next to the school wasn't a good idea, then the lot across from Intel wasn't a good idea. In fact, anywhere near Natomas, South Folsom, American River Canyon, or Empire Ranch is not a good place for affordable housing. FRANKLY, if it were up to certain residents NO LAND IN FOLSOM would have affordable housing.
If we continue to go on this way, we will NEVER settle this long debated issue of where to put affordable housing.
People like to throw out that fear based rhetoric and propanda that affordable housing will lower their property values. Show us PROOF that it will lower your property values. Instead of propaganda, show me numbers, examples, surveys, reports from communities that have had their properties values lowered due to "affordable" housing being built in communities.
If you look at the housing market in Sacramento and all the news articles, reports and surveys of the prices of homes here, you will see that the property values of homes have doubled and even tripled in value.
In fact, low income communities in Sacramento such as Oak Park, Meadowview, Valley Hi and Florin Road have seen an increased in property values triple what they paid for in 1990.
My parents live in South Sacramento and they bought their house for $40,000.00. Out of the blue, someone comes up and offers to purchase their home for $160,000.00 - even though they never considered selling their home in the first place.
Give me a break with this rhetoric about property values being lowered. There are "YSPsies" as Tony called them moving into Oak Park and other neighborhoods once considered low income to purchase "fixer upper" homes. Some of these homes I wouldn't let my dog sleep in - but, hey, they are supposedly worth $140,000.00 to $160,000.00 in this housing market!
With that in mind, I sincerely doubt that any property in Folsom will go down in value because we are building affordable housing units.
If anything, I believe more strongly that if the U.S. goes to war in the Middle East, that will have more of an effect on our economy and property values more than anything else.
If a rail road yard is a not good place for affordable housing then where? Willowsprings? Empire Ranch? American River Canyon? Natomas Station? South Lexington? North Lexington? New Broadstone? The lot NEXT to your community?
I think the RR is a better place than any. We need to learn to give and take.
"Our strength will be found in our charity." [Betty J. Eadie]
"Being a mom is the most rewarding job I have ever had!"
"SEMPER FIDELIS! USMC"
#6
Posted 13 December 2002 - 10:41 AM
I lived in midtown during my college years - the rent was cheap, and I loved the fact that my friends and I could walk to any bar in the area. It doesn't mean I was an unsavory character - quite the contrary.
But what a cool pad that would be, on Sutter Street. A barbeque on the patio, bars down the street, what else could you want? I'd consider moving there from Citrus Heights (where I live now) if cheap apartments were available in the entertainment district of Folsom.
I agree with one of the earlier posts though on the fact that the architecture would need to remain the same. The last thing I would want on Sutter Street is some art-deco stucco apartment building. It would need to resemble Old Sac or New Orleans or something.
#7
Posted 13 December 2002 - 11:40 AM
Go to www.FIDO Inc.org
#8
Posted 13 December 2002 - 12:15 PM
Everyone that comes to Folsom, and the residents of Folsom, that go down there to shop have to park somewhere. The more housing and businesses they build there the less parking spaces there will be.
So if they are going to expand it the city has to look into a parking garage. If you can't park, you won't shop.
Cal
#9
Posted 13 December 2002 - 12:40 PM
#10
Posted 13 December 2002 - 03:55 PM
A lot of these things never come to light at the city council meetings. Guess that is why I am on these BB's more now.
Thanks.
Cal
#11
Posted 14 December 2002 - 03:24 AM
#12
Posted 14 December 2002 - 02:57 PM
if we can't have a parking structure, then how the heck do you expect to fix the parking problem. I'm sure the city won't build some concrete eyesore - there are ways of making it aesthetically pleasing, like up in Placerville or areas like that...
I've seen drawings for the new RR block and it looks AWESOME... it's got the gold rush feel to it, yet a lot of the modern amenities. A best of both worlds. I think if/when it's built, Folsom will be such a tourist destination in the area... I can't wait!
-Yogi Berra
#13
Posted 18 December 2002 - 09:06 AM
#14
Posted 18 December 2002 - 09:56 AM
In fact, they are planning the bare minimum when it comes to putting up and making affordable housing available. 15% of a multi-family apartment unit is nothing.
Personally, I don't think we need anymore apartments. Too bad, the City can't "think out of the box" and have some imagination to solving their affodable housing problem.
Owner-occupied affordable homes is the best way to solve this problem. The problem is that it isn't financially equitable for the developers because why build one home on one parcel of land when you could cram 4 families on that parcel and charge 4 x for rent?
Owner occupied homes with community regulations on landscape and property upkeep is a better solution.
Unfortunately, the city of Folsom is a developer's dream city. The City Council is bought and paid for by them. They basically run this city and will do with it as they please.
"Our strength will be found in our charity." [Betty J. Eadie]
"Being a mom is the most rewarding job I have ever had!"
"SEMPER FIDELIS! USMC"
#15
Posted 18 December 2002 - 11:57 AM
Go to www.FIDO Inc.org
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users