Pacifica Tribune Letters to the Editor, 2/25/14. "Housing issues" by Gloria Stofan
| Year 2060, GGNRA property finally becomes productive |
I am frequently told by my friends, my co-workers and my family, some who still live in Pacifica, that it is too expensive to live here. It's not affordable! These are hardworking people who support our schools, our stores, our churches, and our community--families and individuals who are loyal to and love Pacifica.
Many are being "priced out" of the community. The rents in general are very high. According to U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development data, area housing can be approximately anywhere from $2,100 for a 1-BR to $2,400 for a 2-BR. This can be very high when you're only earning $15 to $25/hr. Also, many renter households pay more than half of their income on rent, leaving little for other critical expenses. Is this considered affordable?"
---------
Related - Gloria Stofan is a member of SFOP/PIA San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP). "San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) welcomes low and moderate income families and seniors to become involved in public debate on issues that they deem important."
Note: Small house from Tumbleweed houses, (the design is "weebee").
Posted by Kathy Meeh
32 comments:
What has the city of Pacifica down about affordable or low income housing in the last 20 or 30 years?
I am waiting!
San Francisco requires 20% of new construction be affordable housing. These are not low income projects. These are working people. A typicle affordable unit in SF goes for around $1200 for a 2 bedroom. They go like hotcakes though. It's time Pacifica start adding some too.
Hutch
Does the city of SF deed restrict them. A deed restriction that requires you to sell them back into the city for them to sell it to a lower income owner.
Hutch, we have seen what happens when government gets involved trying to dictate the housing market. We have housing booms and bust.
Other counties have required developers to sell 12 out of 200 units at a lower price. But, after that first owner the program goes away and the owner can sell for a profit.
I think the program in the city is called BMC or something like that.
@ 6:58, I was talking about affordable rental units in SF. There's another 190 units of all affordable housing going up at 10th & Mission now. The rents start at about $1000 for a 1 bedroom which is very cheap for the area.
Here's one that has been up for about 5 years. 136 all affordable housing. These are very nice apartments. http://www.mercyhousing.org/10th-and-Mission
I think we should encourage this on a smaller scale in Pacifica.
Hutch
The tax payers shouldn't have to subsidize renters. If you can not afford the area move to a cheaper area.
Simple math.
There's no question the working poor could use a break in the housing market, but sometimes this particular cause is just a more politically correct way to support housing development in general.
658 asks an interesting question. Is the low income restriction permanent for that property or just until that first buyer decides to sell? Big difference in impact of a program.
1014 these projects are primarily privately funded. Any taxpayer money is from current sources. No new taxes are imposed. Personally I think this is a great use of the few tax dollars used.
1117, these are NOT really the working poor. A one person household can make around $39,000 to qualify for a $1000 1 bedroom.
1014 You say they shouldn't live here if they can't afford it? Well guess what? They are here, they've been here and they'll always be here. They are the single parents scraping by. They are seniors living on barely nothing. They are Pacificans that need help.
These people are already living in Pacifica by the 1000's. Right now all they can afford is rent. They have no extra money for anything. Let them have some affordable housing and they'll have more money to spend locally.
You got to get the "low income" thing out of your head. This is affordable housing, not low income. Not projects.
I know some people are afraid this will lower property values or rents, but that jhasn't happened in San Francisco.
Pacifica can't afford additional affordable housing. We already have the well-earned reputation of being a bargain with lower end housing stock and a generally run down look.
Yes, that applies even though the shacks start at $500K. Want to improve Pacifica for the people who live here? Aim higher.
Hutch, you cannot assume that affordable housing would have the same negligible effect on property values here as in SF. It would impact our much smaller market in terms of value and reputation. Everyone likes the idea, but no one wants it next door.
Q. Why would a developer want to build affordable housing?
A. Google and other investors have been giving developers millions UP FRONT to start these projects. Then they are repaid plus interest when the builder receives their low-income housing tax credit after the project is completed.
http://www.novoco.com/journal/2010/06/news_lihtc_201006.php
205, okay with your attitude about those who do not have huge incomes or did not buy housing years ago on the cheap, let's see if GGNRA (federal land) will build affordable housing on their "lots of open space, not in your neighborhood" property. (This is the same property Pacifica gave-up of course.)
Affordable housing is needed in this city, as it is most everywhere people live. People who work and don't work all need housing. Actually the city does have some affordable and low-income housing now-- mostly seniors, who do not seem to be trashing their neighborhoods.
Why would you choose to defend our city property "value and reputation" when more densely populated cities in San Mateo County (with more affordable housing) have higher property values?
At their last meeting (2/24/14), City Council agreed to move forward with an Affordable Housing Study Session. Good for them! Let's build more affordable housing, for the balanced needs of our community.
Hutch
You need to walk through Double Rock or do you remember Valencia Gardens.
Would you want that in your neighborhood?
At their last meeting (2/24/14), City Council agreed to move forward with an Affordable Housing Study Session. Good for them! Let's build more affordable housing, for the balanced needs of our community
Besides the very small low income apartment building across from the golf course what else has the city allowed to be built?
The crybaby's and nimbys chased away the assisted living center behind park mall away.
Hey, I think affordable housing (private or public subsidies) could be our niche! Nothing else has been built here in decades--other than the random in-fill SFR.
Become more densely populated and grab some public transit dollars. Just need to call it something else to avoid the typical reaction. Remember the snit in Park Pacifica when affordable was mentioned for the old Oddstad school site? Or limit it to affordable senior housing. Seems like the elderly are less threatening.
I wouldn't count on Google or the GGNRA to lift Pacifica out of the muck. Now, if the city wants to partner with some group to build affordable/subsidized/multi-use and put up the land, then we might have a ballgame. Something for that new committee to work on. If the library bond fails this fall or next spring, maybe the city will entertain more practical ideas for the use of its property-- the OWWTP, corp yard on Oceana, all that property on Francisco. Change!
312 These are not Valencia Gardens we're talking about. These are not low income subsidized housing or projects. these are affordable housing for working families and seniors. YOU need to walk through one of the many Avalon LUXURY apartment buildings in which 20% of the units are set aside as affordable. YOU need to walk through a Mercy Housing building full of hard working families and seniors. These are not derelict drug attic criminals. We have a Mercy building a half a block away in SF. The people are honest regular people. There's never any cops or trouble at the building near us. They are great neighbors. If we had this in Pacifica it would help pull up so many families here that are struggling and it would help our economy at the same time.
Yeah, especially if the other 80% of the units were priced at market rate! Give us a dozen of those projects. We've got to help those people.
The Mercy projects are subsidized. One way or another most housing labeled affordable is subsidized--either by gov't, non-profit, or the other residents paying full market
price. I don't disagree that we need some. Just an FYI.
There was a State mandate several years back that required every city in California to provide a certain amount of affordable housing. If I remember correctly, a year or so ago, there was a matrix from the City of Pacifica that was published ( on this website?) that showed the number of affordable units by type constructed to date, as well as the number still needed to meet the State mandate. While Pacifica still has a ways to go, other entities such as Hillsborough and Los Altos Hills have yet to even enter the planning stage toward such construction. Eventually at some future date,Pacifica will meet the State mandate. However, the concern will always be the possibility that the "mandate numbers/percentages" will continue to increase, adding a further burden to California cities. While I don't think many people object to giving their neighbors a helping hand, at some point, it becomes too much to ask. These are tough times, but is it fair to keep asking those who have conservatively earned and saved all their lives to look after those who haven't? It's very similar to that children's story, "The Ant and The Grasshopper." Just look around at your neighbors and acquaintances. How many of them were living the high life when times were good; big homes, fancy cars and vacations, and now struggle just for the basics ? Do we "ants" have to keep providing for these "grasshoppers?" If so, when is enough simply enough?
Dan said "when is enough simply enough?"
Pacifica has done pretty much zero to encourage any affordable housing.
Pacifica taxpayers wont have to pay anything to build in some affordable housing into each new project. This is paid for by tax incentives that the builders actually want and need. It can mean that more new development happens. Isn't that what we want?
Dan, to suggest that the roughly one in four Pacificans surviving on slightly more than the county poverty level somehow did this to themselves is an elitist close minded view. Get out more.
If 4 market rate units are built in Pacifica for every affordable unit, then that would be a good thing for Pacifica. That's a big if. We already have the "affordable" reputation for this area in the real estate market place. It's important to maintain that 4 to 1 ratio lest we develop a reputation for being "officially" affordable. In a town with no industry and no well-paid jobs, other than with the city, we all benefit from the revenue created by stable, upward- trending property values. All of us, owner and renter alike. We're very short on land and affordable projects are an easier finance and an easier build. This is something this city can screw up royally and with the best of intentions.
303 You say..."each new project." Wave the affordable wand and shazaam we have a developer who wants to build housing and call 20% of it affordable. He's just been waiting at the gate. More likely, we could have attracted any number of builders in the past to build 100% affordable or subsidized projects. Nothing new, but we're not getting anything else built...except that library.
347 Your views are just a tad paternalistic. Or, you're mad for housing development, and, in desperation, think this is the way to get it.
housing doesn't pay its way. that's the mantra. No housing. Period. No market rate to subsidize affordable. Forgetaboutit. Why debate this when it will never happen? Another fantasy
Pacifica is far from the bargain it was compared to our neighbors.
Median home prices Dec-Feb
Pacifica $625K
Daly City $594K
SSF $625K
San Bruno $618K
Get real. All you prove is that those other cities are also affordable. The comparison that counts is to SF and the Peninsula. Even SF realtors identify Pacifica as a bargain when their clients go into cardiac arrest over SF and Peninsula prices. They will also say that while we share a somewhat short SF commute with DC, SB and SSF, we have better scenery and lower density with all that open space. They describe this town as quirky, free spirited, beachy. We own the "affordable" title among commuter towns this side of the bay.
Well 3:47, I guess that perhaps I am a bit elitist. Every City/town in the country has some residents who have always been underemployed or neer-do-well, and require community support. However, there are also those multitudes who hopped in their VW buses during the Summer of Love and headed for Cali-for-ni-a. The only meaningful work that many of them have done all these years is to go to the beach and work on their tans. They are now paying the price because they never prepared themselves for retirement. Meanwhile, I worked almost forty years at a job I disliked, saved, and now enjoy a modest pension. So no, I don't feel any sympathy toward those types. If that makes me an elitist, then I feel honored to carry that title.
Dan, Bill or whatever your name is, I feel sorry for you.
There are 1000's of hard working people that would save more if they didn't spend most of their paycheck on rent. Single moms working 2 jobs, seniors who worked hard living on $1000 a month, disabled vets that saved all our asses barely getting by. Those are just a few that you can look down on as the fool on the hill.
The hippies again? Most of the aging hippies from the Summer of Love era that I know of are doing just fine. They're retired or soon to retire middle to upper-managers, teachers, building trades. Lots of civil servants. Many of them also benefit from nice inheritances from their Greatest Generation parents who knew the value of a dollar. I don't think we can pin this one on the old hippies. The poor are always with us and today they are more diverse in background and life story than ever.
The conversation on the need for affordable work-force housing is taking place throughout San Mateo County. Each city has the opportunity to develop a plan to house their teachers, retail workers, seniors, veterans, single parents, young adults starting out, and older middle class that continues to be impacted by the economic downturn. These are not neer-do-wells, but our friends and neighbors. With the strong sense of community in Pacifica, this is hopefully a topic that the city will be able to move forward with. There are outstanding models of what this type of housing looks like that should be explored.
Slippery slope for a town like Pacifica with no well-paid jobs other than city jobs and the public schools and precious little developable land. Yes, I include jobs in education. Teachers are certainly not paid what they're worth to society, but better paid than most, and the pension and benies are enviable. As they should be.
Post a Comment