Westfield Exiting Downtown Plaza (Finally !!) (Los Angeles, San Francisco: lease, hotel, homes)

[Majin]

I consider myself low income and I make nearly 100k.

[shelato]

Originally Posted by wburg

No, it's not. Look at the rent standards you linked to: the maximum rent threshold for HCVs is considerably less than the amount one pays for low-income housing units.

[Stuff I deleted for clarity] ....others will be market-rate apartments, but only about 15% will be affordable to 40% of the rental market.

And yes, I absolutely do hope that there is a variety of housing types at a variety of prices. My point is that while those with HCVs will be able to use one to rent one of the 10% very-low-income apartments, they won't be able to use them in the 85% market-rate apartments, or even the 5% LI apartments.

This isn't how the mixed income ordinance works in Natomas. My husband's family owns an apartment building in Natomas. The original plan was that the only non-market units in the building were to be the units required under the mixed income ordinance. But during the recession rents dropped and vacancies increased. The property manager said since he already had to do the compliance for the low income ordinance, it wasn't that much more of a hassle to start taking section 8 vouchers as well (that is how my father-in-law refers to it). So now the building has units available under the mixed income ordinance and under section 8. My father-in-law made inquiries about renting the mixed income units to section 8 people as well, but according to the property manager that is a no go under the mixed income ordinance.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by shelato

This isn't how the mixed income ordinance works in Natomas. My husband's family owns an apartment building in Natomas. The original plan was that the only non-market units in the building were to be the units required under the mixed income ordinance. But during the recession rents dropped and vacancies increased. The property manager said since he already had to do the compliance for the low income ordinance, it wasn't that much more of a hassle to start taking section 8 vouchers as well (that is how my father-in-law refers to it). So now the building has units available under the mixed income ordinance and under section 8. My father-in-law made inquiries about renting the mixed income units to section 8 people as well, but according to the property manager that is a no go under the mixed income ordinance.

So, in other words, the rents for those units dropped below the threshold for the HCV vouchers--effectively making them low-income units?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

Trust me.

The low income housing isn't for people making $40,000 a year. I've known people who have been through some rough times, making around $20,000-25,000 a year, who inquired about renting low-income apartments. They were basically shown the door.

"Low income" is considered to be anyone in the bottom 40% of incomes. The median income is about $50K a year for a single person, so low-income is $40K or lower. The reason why your friends were shown the door is because only 15% of new housing has to be affordable to 40% of the population. So, there is enough low-income housing for about a third of the people who are low-income. The other 25% of the population is basically shown the door, as you say.

[KC6ZLV]

Median income is 40K for a single person. Household median is $50K.

Anyway, I looked up some of the codes relating to this:

CPD - Affordable Housing - Laws and Regulations - Regulations - Sec. 215 Qualification as Affordable Housing - HUD

US CODE: Title 26,42. Low-income housing credit

[shelato]

Originally Posted by wburg

So, in other words, the rents for those units dropped below the threshold for the HCV vouchers--effectively making them low-income units?

Maybe. I don't totally know the specifics regarding rent thresholds for the HCV vouchers.

What I do know is that when the building was bought it had some rent protected units under the mixed income ordinance. Because rents were dropping in Natomas in the non rent protected units, the property manager was now accepting some section 8 tenants in the non-rent protected units. So now the building has both rent protected tenants and section 8 tenants.

The property manager told my father-in-law, that in the formerly foreclosed single family homes in Natomas, investors are buying them and then turning around and renting them out to section 8 tenants as well. Because rents got cheap on the houses, that is pushing down rents in the apartments.

[bluevelo]

I really like the comments about small scale smart growth. I think that's extremely workable in Sacramento, and you can see successes in Midtown and in other older neighborhoods.

We still have a TON of room to 'densify' close-in Sacramento and it actually makes more sense to stick with cheaper, less-risky and faster implementing small scale projects than to dump 100s of millions into ventures that will end up being turds like Old Sacramento and K Street. Its almost like rehabbing an old house - unless you have unlimited cash, you plug away a little bit at a time, and eventually you have an updated house.

Yes, it'll take years, but its like watching the leaves come out on trees in the Spring. You don't really notice at first, and then BOOM! all the leaves are out.

Also, you spread the risk out farther by sticking with smaller scale projects. Are they sexy? Nope. But it can be done, and I think you'll show better results 20-30 years down the road by adapting to micro-markets in neighborhoods rather than trying to create suburban PUDs inside the urban core. There's already PUDs out where people want them, why to recreate something that IF it fit the urban core, it would've been built long before the PUDs happened in the 'burbs.

Redevelopment is a block by block process, and although I've only been here since 2007 and don't know that much about the local land use planning and development process, it seems to me that much of Midtown was done by private investment...

[shelato]

The redeveloped areas downtown tend to be owned by private investment, but a big reason for the success of it was getting the government involved in a constructive process. There are times I hate the government and time I think it has worked very well. I think government has been fairly useful on the small scale projects.

[KC6ZLV]

And then you have the heavily-subsidized projects like the one on 8th and J. They still have "for lease" signs on the buildling.

[bluevelo]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

And then you have the heavily-subsidized projects like the one on 8th and J. They still have "for lease" signs on the buildling.

Two failures there.

First, who wants to pay that kind of money for a place when the city won't clean out the homeless frequenting K, the drug-dealers, and the gang-bangers that ride the rails all day?

You have to clean up the scum if you want money to come in. Its that simple.

And whether eco-nazis or the smart growth crowd like it, or not, the people with the kind of money to buy the condos in downtown also have cars and need a secure place to park them. Building ANY development without two spaces per unit is stupid. (I'm saying this not knowing the exact parameters of that property).

Also, not having any corner groceries, or nightlife, unless you go over to Midtown - WTH would you want to live downtown when it deserts except for vagrants and bangers after dark?