Comments on: Tom Thurston: The housing element revisited

By: livegreen

livegreen — Tue, 12 May 2009 05:40:24 +0000

CP,

–It might be expensive for the State of CA to sue many municipalities for opposing their allocation of housing, but the City of Oakland would only have to sue 1 entity for not enforcing the laws: the State of CA;

–Do you (or anyone else) know the requirements for getting in to AH? Is it helpful for an applicant to have a F/T or P/T employment?

It would seem advantageous for the City to use A/H funds to take over some of the forclosures, fix them up, prioritize low income who are gainfully employed, and track them towards home ownership.

This gets forclosures off the market, helps turn low income into middle class, and encourages community building (home owners take better care of their properties and neighborhoods).

It would also help improve housing values throughout Oakland as well as revive the market for everyone. On top of it, stimulus funds might be able to be used…

By: Carlos Plazola

Carlos Plazola — Mon, 11 May 2009 15:01:25 +0000

My experience with Larry Reid’s policy decisions around housing are that he is a pragmatist. He’s trying to find the right balance of mixed income housing that allows neighborhood serving retail and revenue to increase in his district, and public safety to improve by hiring more police and developing more support services for families. He’s been a big advocate of encouraging market rate housing, and he’s been critical of concentrating all BMR housing in a few areas of Oakland, including his own district.

By: Ralph

Ralph — Mon, 11 May 2009 13:30:11 +0000

CP, like buying and selling carbon credits. Frankly, I’d rather Oakland build market rate housing. This built in BMR subsidy in the current system works for no one.

By: James H. Robinson

James H. Robinson — Mon, 11 May 2009 05:19:40 +0000

Umm, what is Larry Reid’s view on housing policy?

By: Carlos Plazola

Carlos Plazola — Mon, 11 May 2009 05:07:31 +0000

I second what V says. Interestingly, those councilmembers that most represent low income communities share the same perspective…hhhmmmmm. Go figure.

By: V Smoothe

V Smoothe — Mon, 11 May 2009 00:01:25 +0000

District 7 Councilmember Larry Reid and District 6 Councilmember Desley Brooks both share similar views of housing policy as District 5 Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente.

By: len raphael

len raphael — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:35:58 +0000

CP, yup a multiplier would never become policy. It is comic that regional and muni planners are given criteria by the pols that are more simplistic than my kids used to have playing sim city.

other than maybe dlf, is there a single council member who has objected to increasing low income housing stock in oakland before moderate and higher income proportions come up?

-len

By: Carlos Plazola

Carlos Plazola — Sun, 10 May 2009 15:34:08 +0000

Patrick and Len, I was only half serious about the multiplier issue. I was just saying if these cities won’t take responsibility for building their fair share of affordable housing, then tag them with all the costs…which as you point out, Patrick, will be a HUGE multiplier taken out over many years. I don’t know if anyone has ever done this calculation but it would be fascinating to see, and it would explain a lot about Oakland’s fiscal challenges, I’m betting.

My preference is to just force these jurisdictions to do their fair share. But given the fact that the State of California will never force them, who will? This is my pet-peeve with the affordable housing advocates–they choose to advocate for more affordable housing in the areas like Oakland that are already trying to do their fair share. Why? Because it is the path of least resistance? Easier to win a victory in than Orinda? Meanwhile, heads remain in the sand regarding all the other impacts to a community from concentrating affordable housing.

FInally, Len, yes, I do think the analysis should be done for Market Rate housing, Commerical, etc. As a society, it’s stunning the amount of decisions we do without data, so the more data the better.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 10 May 2009 07:51:51 +0000

So, if Walnut Creek were allowed to pay the City of Oakland a multiplier to cover added expenses created by the low tax base that low income housing creates, how do you:

1. Recoup the ongoing costs? Can Walnut Creek really pay enough to cover the expenses over a potential 50, 100 or 150 year lifespan? (I realize today’s housing is built to last the life of a mortgage, but still).

2. How do you compensate current owners, businesses, etc. who will find themselves surrounded by low income housing? That would certainly have a detrimental effect on the value of their properties.

This whole thing is such a conundrum. Low income housing, largely, is a failure. Chicago’s answer had been to demolish much of it. BMR isn’t a good deal for the “owner”, other owners, the developers or the city. Personally, I’d like to see a plan where we give people a home – in return for an agreement that they will forgo all other forms of pre-retirement welfare (with exceptions for extenuating circumstances, of course). Then, the homeowners are truly “invested” in their neighborhood. In the long run, it would probably cost us less.

By: len raphael

len raphael — Sun, 10 May 2009 05:31:55 +0000

CP, describing the need for a multilplier to allow areas to buy out of their low income housing allocations sounds reasonable. In the more simplistic smart growth viewpoints i’ve heard, it’s more of a “save the earth and help less the loss fortunate by building higher density cheaper housing for people” will offset all the social costs of that housing.

Shouldn’t the same analysis be applied to market rate housing vs commercial vs slower growth to see if normal market decisions result in social costs other than just excessive reliance on cars.