78 replies to this topic

[Devdave]

Saw this at SacBee today:

Folsom sued

When I saw the news that they had repealed it, I wondered if this was going to come up.

[Robert Giacometti]

Saw this at SacBee today:

Folsom sued

When I saw the news that they had repealed it, I wondered if this was going to come up.

It wasn't matter of if this would come up it was a matter of when! The city's position is weak at best becasue they removed the one mechanism it had to ensure affordable housing was going to be built as development occurred.

Any forward looking person can see the flaws in the citys position on this and easily predict the city loosing this one. The city will be squandering our tax dollars trying to protect the profits of the developers.

The good news in all this, is this probably will delay the Annexation, which should have never been pursued with such zest anyway.

[Robert Giacometti]

Please folks, read the whole article before making a judgment.

The economy won't allow for shop owners to increase the number of workers and to say that we must have more low income housing for workers here is ludicrous.

It's a short drive to Orangevale and Rancho Cordova, which has more of an area to provide low income housing and still make working in Folsom reasonable.

Why the folks who are suing feel that ALL low income workers must be able to live in Folsom is beyond me. Do they think they should be driven to work as well?

And didn't we build that multi million dollar Light Rail to deal with this issue?

I don't feel it is constitutional for a law to exist which requires each city to provide low income housing when some cities are filled with so many million dollar homes, it's laughable.

I'd love to change my residence to Carmel and work at a shop there making a low wage, but, doubt every seriously if I can make that happen.

This law is insane.

I respect your position regarding affordable housing. This lawsuit isn't about STOPPING affordable housing being built its about WHERE its going to be built and WHO is going to pay for it.

The City Council is going to build affordable housing and they are going to use your tax dollars and put all of it N 50. This lawsuit is trying to reverse this decision, by making the developers pay for affordable housing and locating their fair share S50 as they build.

If you live N50, then you should be applauding this lawsuit and demanding the council restore the Inclusionary Componet back into our housing element.

Affordable housing is going to get built, so do you want it all N50 paid for with your tax dollars or do you want spread out paid for by those building the homes?

[supermom]

Please folks, read the whole article before making a judgment.

The economy won't allow for shop owners to increase the number of workers and to say that we must have more low income housing for workers here is ludicrous.

It's a short drive to Orangevale and Rancho Cordova, which has more of an area to provide low income housing and still make working in Folsom reasonable.

Why the folks who are suing feel that ALL low income workers must be able to live in Folsom is beyond me. Do they think they should be driven to work as well?

And didn't we build that multi million dollar Light Rail to deal with this issue?

I don't feel it is constitutional for a law to exist which requires each city to provide low income housing when some cities are filled with so many million dollar homes, it's laughable.

I'd love to change my residence to Carmel and work at a shop there making a low wage, but, doubt every seriously if I can make that happen.

This law is insane.

At best, your position is ignorant.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone who is being paid minimum wage-to want to live with close enough enough proximity to to schoools and employment to not have to rely on necessity of private transportation. And the public transportation in folsom is what is laughable-here. Do you really think it is ok to continue to import 3rd class workers into folsom by day-and tell they they aren't welcom to live here here because (?) ....you donkt think developers should show some propers foresight and planning when building for an entire community? You don't see the inequality in a city not demanding developers to do so? Ok. Glad you thought that through and didn't knee-jerk: oh my god- we can't be having poor people up in here.
.
.
.

[Redone]

Affordable housing is going to get built, so do you want it all N50 paid for with your tax dollars or do you want spread out paid for by those building the homes?

I want the Law changed.

Look at Folsom and El Dorado Hills as an example. Do you see anyone getting sued in El Dorado Hills ??

Does Lennar have inclusionary housing in their current development off Latrobe ??

It's a silly utopian law on how a community should be built. Another "spread the wealth" govt initiative that costs most of us more money in our housing.

[Redone]

At best, your position is ignorant.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone who is being paid minimum wage-to want to live with close enough enough proximity to to schoools and employment to not have to rely on necessity of private transportation. And the public transportation in folsom is what is laughable-here. Do you really think it is ok to continue to import 3rd class workers into folsom by day-and tell they they aren't welcom to live here here because (?) ....you donkt think developers should show some propers foresight and planning when building for an entire community? You don't see the inequality in a city not demanding developers to do so?

I assume by your response that you think developers actually would pay for this , or somehow take less profit on a project.

They are not a charity.

If ANY PRODUCT calls for 15 % to be subsidized , then the other 85% will pay more. It's Econ 101 and it doesn't matter that it's housing as you could put cars , food, whatever, and that would still be relevant.

[Robert Giacometti]

I want the Law changed.

Look at Folsom and El Dorado Hills as an example. Do you see anyone getting sued in El Dorado Hills ??

Does Lennar have inclusionary housing in their current development off Latrobe ??

It's a silly utopian law on how a community should be built. Another "spread the wealth" govt initiative that costs most of us more money in our housing.

Is El Dorado Hills an incorporated City? No, so how can one sue an uunincorporated City over the plans of development when its the county overseeing it? This was the MAJOR reason why the citizens there voted down incorporation a few years ago.

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. It only costs us more money when its done like Folsom is doing, by using your tax dollars to pay for it.

I don't understand whats going on with you darn Conservatives that you are so eager to have your tax dollars build the VERY thing you are opposed too! HELLO!

[supermom]

Ha ha ha!

[Redone]

Is El Dorado Hills an incorporated City? No, so how can one sue an uunincorporated City over the plans of development when its the county overseeing it? This was the MAJOR reason why the citizens there voted down incorporation a few years ago.

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. It only costs us more money when its done like Folsom is doing, by using your tax dollars to pay for it.

I don't understand whats going on with you darn Conservatives that you are so eager to have your tax dollars build the VERY thing you are opposed too! HELLO!

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.

[momof1]

I understand the law (which I disagree with) and I expected the lawsuit when the city decided to snub it's nose at the law and change policy, once again wasting our tax dollars to now defend against the lawsuit which I fully expect them to lose.

What I don't get is, why do we need to build more affordable housing and what is more affordable housing. Aren't the old neighborhoods built in the 50's through 70's counted as affordable housing. seems like we have lots of affordable housing already, it might be all occupied, but it's not like we don't have affordable housing. How about a lot of the apartment complexes? Aren't they more affordable than >2,000 sq.ft. homes? How many Mobilehome parks do we have? those surely qualify as affordable housing. And as time goes on, and more homes age, won't many of the homes built in the 80's start becoming more affordable?

While I might disagree with the law, as long as it is the law, I think it foolish & stupid for the city to willingly violate it. But I would really like to have a better understanding of how housing is determined to be affordable or not (what is the criteria) and then what are the real percentages required by law and where does the city really sit if one honestly goes out and counts affordable vs. "non-affordable" (whatever that is, I know I can afford my home but some bureaucrat would say it isn't "affordable"). BTW, I'm not rich/independently wealthy, my husband and I both work for a living to afford what we choose to afford.

I know what my opinion is, but I'm not interested in arguing or debating my opinion, I want to know the facts that I am currently in the dark about. Does anyone on here know the real facts? If so, please enlighten me/us. I don't want rhetoric, I want facts and numbers.

[supermom]

I assume by your response that you think developers actually would pay for this , or somehow take less profit on a project.

They are not a charity.

If ANY PRODUCT calls for 15 % to be subsidized , then the other 85% will pay more. It's Econ 101 and it doesn't matter that it's housing as you could put cars , food, whatever, and that would still be relevant.

I would assume by a statement such as that, that you want to tango.

investor buys land.
land developer sells their "utopia idea" to investor.
investor takes "idea" to city planning for permission to build..

STOP!!

says the equal rights housing commission laws which enforce certain laws in the U.S.

Let's see--which one's to cover today?

1. equal right to housing based on race, creed, ethnicity, sex (and orientation), religion, etc...

2. equal rights to EXPCTATION of housing based on affordable and low-income for the region.

3. Inclusionary laws of income based housing capped by percentage of housing available and medium income of region.

More--but, these seem to be the main ideas people on this board want to dance around.


#3 Seems to be the one that most fits the argument of the article.

However, you and Robert seem to want to take the argument into the realm of pre-planning, such as above, when investors and developers are still in planning stages prior to any licences, permits or approvals have building have begun?

Do you want to break down the civil rights laws on inclusion in equal housing?
Do you want to break down the federal guidelines of percentages of affordable housing by per capita for the region?
Do you want to argue how bad vs. good it makes a developer look to build an eye pleasing devlopment, appartment complex and shopping community?
I'm not sure what you meant by the profit comment?

Affordable housing and low income housing can be built into a developers plan, still make money. It just has to be a responsible, intelligent plan. Just like any other construction job.

[Redone]

You're quoting a bunch of Federal laws, and were talking specifically about CA law.

By profit , I mean the Developers don't subsidize the housing, the other market rate homeowners do (or will). So, yes you're correct it can be built in and make money, just at a cost to someone else other than the developer or the low income homeowners.

LOL - No, I would never intentionally tango with anyone whose name started with "super". It's only the internet, don't take it so serious or personal.

The reality is that "for sale" housing in Folsom is currently at its cheapest price since 1999 or 2000, yet the City will not get any credit for current price vs income as it relates to affordability. Market forces made it affordable , not a stupid law, a developer , or the City council.

[Redone]

? How many Mobilehome parks do we have? those surely qualify as affordable housing.

I don't believe those count for one of at least 2 reasons: they are personal property, and they are not Deed Restricted.

In order for something to be Inclusionary it's Income restricted first, then the price is backed into the income.

So, someone earning $ 85,000 living in a mobile home does not count even though the housing is cheap and affordable.

[supermom]

You're quoting a bunch of Federal laws, and were talking specifically about CA law.

By profit , I mean the Developers don't subsidize the housing, the other market rate homeowners do (or will). So, yes you're correct it can be built in and make money, just at a cost to someone else other than the developer or the low income homeowners.

LOL - No, I would never intentionally tango with anyone whose name started with "super". It's only the internet, don't take it so serious or personal.

The reality is that "for sale" housing in Folsom is currently at its cheapest price since 1999 or 2000, yet the City will not get any credit for current price vs income as it relates to affordability. Market forces made it affordable , not a stupid law, a developer , or the City council.

hmmph--

I believe there is a different topic involved in your last statement.

Affordable housing can be fairlymade, built and sold with little subsidizing by the state, if planned accordingly. Affordable housing does not have to have grante counter tops.
Does not have to have fireplaces.

Does not have to always be a dsingle-family dwelling.

trithfully, the planning of a communiity which includes several tiers of affordable housing is the best way to manage a community, traffic and equal housing, education etc.

It can be accomplished.

It needs to be done right.

ps...federal laws drive the eual housing mandates of a community on equal housing--


but you are right. there are state laws as well.

they enhance the federal laws as they are supposed to. Some states actually add stricter guidelines than the feds, some just tow the line.

The laws are meant to allow for equal access so that we don't end up in segregated cities, townships, regions, counties or bi-states.

Now wouldn't that just stink? Half a state of haves. Half a state of have nots. and ne'r mix betwixt nor between?