ORDINANCE ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 states, "New residential development has not provided sufficient
housing opportunities for households with incomes at or below the Area Median
Income." And further mentions the North City Future Urbanization Area (FUA)
(iii) "where residential development within the FUA has tended towards low
density." and (iv) "the limited amount of multi-family development found in the
FUA is a direct result of the existing inclusionary housing requirement"
This tomfoolery is quite amusing to those who attended the public hearings on
the FUA when a previous council restricted density in the FUA and now find it's
a requirement. This blaming property owners and builders who have been placed
between Scylla and Charybdis for not doing what was prohibited -- is
mindboggling!
ORDINANCE ATTACHMENT 6
Page 1 stipulates rent levels for 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom apartments are
targeted at $778 and $875 respectively. Using "average" rents rather than
"median" rents distorts affordability. Lori Weisberg reported in the
Union-Tribune (2/16/03, I-1) that according to the U.S. Census, in San Diego
the median monthly rent was $761 meaning that over half the renters already pay
less than the targeted affordable rents without a 100-million-dollar
bureaucracy.
The only solution to a housing shortage is more housing. Having
middle-income homebuyers subsidize other middle-income buyers is no answer.
City gifts of $75,000, 25-year interest free mortgages are interesting (wait
till the taxpayers find out). Favoring renters over condominium conversion
buyers doesn't add more housing. Having self-supporting renters subsidize other
renters to live in better, brand new apartments is an upside down policy. It
smacks of who you know, not how hard you work to get ahead. This ordinance is a
bureaucrats Empire of the Sun, a builder's Nightmare on Elm Street, and a
Philadelphia lawyer's Heaven's Gate.
The city currently builds, funds, or facilitates new non-profit rental units
that cost more than 99% of the privately built-for-profit units. Why? Nearly
everyone when he or she moved from his or her parents' home or graduated from
college, did not move into a new apartment or home. Why suddenly, is 75% of the
population supposedly entitled to a brand new place?
A University of Michigan survey, NEW HOMES AND POOR PEOPLE demonstrated
that when 1,000 new homes are built, 1254 low and moderate income household move
up to safe, better housing in a chain of moves. Since it's the free market that
helps far more people achieve both affordable housing and upward mobility the
council should concentrate on those things that will enable those who build over
95% of all housing to do it quicker and cheaper.
THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT ABOUT BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING -- IT'S ABOUT BUILDING A
HOUSING EMPIRE. Please VOTE NO!
Sincerely,
Fred
Fred Schnaubelt
2728 Adams Ave.
San Diego, Ca. 92116
(619) 280-2082
Back to Articles
|
