U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-29-2012, 06:05 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,257 posts, read 13,421,897 times
Reputation: 5414
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
In that case, being in a good school district should be a "nice to have", not "must have." Which means it doesn't necessary have to be in Danville.
I never said it was a "must have" but for someone with kids an option to live in Danville would be nice, better than Concord for sure.
Quote:
And how many of those administrative assistants live in public housing? Of all the administrative assistants that I worked with, none of them live in public housing, all of them have college degrees (in fact one has an MBA), and by young I mean none of them are over 50.
No idea because that is not a question I would ask nor was I allowed to. That's nice but realize many don't, it's not like being an Administrative Assistant is exactly that highly skilled of a profession that requires a college degree. I came across plenty with a degree and young and plenty much older and w/o a degree and everyone in between. Many of them would qualify for low income housing based on what they made and plenty had kids as well.

Quote:
That's the point, a lot of people qualifies for low-income housing, but only a very small subset end up living in them. Those small subset are not the demographic that you have in mind.

A lot of people living in pubic housing don't have a car or would rather not own one. Yes, there are some who do drive and can afford it but you have to cater to the lowest common denominator. Not to mention many are seniors or have some form of disability and cannot drive. You can't just say, "Hey everyone drive!" when some in the group cannot do that. You have to consider the group as a whole and not just focus on those who validates your point.
If you live in this area of Contra Costa County you NEED a car or else your options are severly limited. Great, and for those that can't drive then they should focus on low-income housing by transit and for those that CAN drive, Danville would be an option. Penty of people on welfare even have cars.

But go ahead and ignore the fact there is limited land and it's at a premium next to BART stations. Or that EVERY city is required to have low-income housing, including those far from transit.

 
Old 11-30-2012, 11:04 AM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,153,251 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
I never said it was a "must have" but for someone with kids an option to live in Danville would be nice, better than Concord for sure.
You did not refute my point in any way - in other words, it doesn't have to be in Danville. There is no overwhelming reason whatsoever to have a public housing in Danville other than: Danville is nice and it has land. Which means it can be anywhere that is nice and has land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
No idea because that is not a question I would ask nor was I allowed to. That's nice but realize many don't, it's not like being an Administrative Assistant is exactly that highly skilled of a profession that requires a college degree. I came across plenty with a degree and young and plenty much older and w/o a degree and everyone in between. Many of them would qualify for low income housing based on what they made and plenty had kids as well.

You keep saying "qualify for low income".... Well yes, I've made the point already and I'll say it again: a lot of people are qualified but usually only the most dire strait, the most severe cases, the lowest of the low get those housing. You know what, I qualify to be the President of the United States, but that doesn't mean I have a snowball chance of living in the White House.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
If you live in this area of Contra Costa County you NEED a car or else your options are severly limited. Great, and for those that can't drive then they should focus on low-income housing by transit and for those that CAN drive, Danville would be an option. Penty of people on welfare even have cars.

But go ahead and ignore the fact there is limited land and it's at a premium next to BART stations. Or that EVERY city is required to have low-income housing, including those far from transit.

So a family that has trouble having a roof over their heads should turn down Danville when it's made available to them? Look, people don't get to choose which housing project they get assigned to; you know that. You brought it up. They wait for a longgg time and finally a unit in Danville opens up and they should say, "No thank you." if they don't have a car? Com'on now, people are going to say, "hell yeah I'll live in Danville and I don't have a car!" They are going to get in and figure out the rest later. You can't count on the needy turning down assistance, it won't ever happen.

The public housing doesn't have to be right next to a BART station. I never said it has to. But how about in a more convenient city? In a more open location? Danville, even their residents will tell you, is not convenient to get to; and that's how they like it - it's a hidden oasis.
 
Old 11-30-2012, 11:36 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,257 posts, read 13,421,897 times
Reputation: 5414
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
You did not refute my point in any way - in other words, it doesn't have to be in Danville. There is no overwhelming reason whatsoever to have a public housing in Danville other than: Danville is nice and it has land. Which means it can be anywhere that is nice and has land.
Well the overwhelming reason is that it is REQUIRED by law. Did you miss the part, maybe you shoud go talk to ABAG about it.

Not all low income is near or needs to be near transit like you keep harping on. Especially here in the Bay Area where people with decent incomes still qualify as low-income and have cars.
Quote:
You keep saying "qualify for low income".... Well yes, I've made the point already and I'll say it again: a lot of people are qualified but usually only the most dire strait, the most severe cases, the lowest of the low get those housing. You know what, I qualify to be the President of the United States, but that doesn't mean I have a snowball chance of living in the White House.
Yes and you also make a lot of assumptions about people you don't know.

Quote:
So a family that has trouble having a roof over their heads should turn down Danville when it's made available to them? Look, people don't get to choose which housing project they get assigned to; you know that. You brought it up. They wait for a longgg time and finally a unit in Danville opens up and they should say, "No thank you." if they don't have a car? Com'on now, people are going to say, "hell yeah I'll live in Danville and I don't have a car!" They are going to get in and figure out the rest later. You can't count on the needy turning down assistance, it won't ever happen.
Not every scenario works like that. A lot of these new developments have low income housing included with the regular, market rate units and people apply for them. Meaning they CHOOSE that development. Not all low-income housing are entire projects and many are mixed in with regular units as many developments require that. So for many yes it is a CHOICE to live in Danville. People apply for BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) units on their own in individual developments, they aren't "assigned" to it.
Quote:
The public housing doesn't have to be right next to a BART station. I never said it has to. But how about in a more convenient city? In a more open location? Danville, even their residents will tell you, is not convenient to get to; and that's how they like it - it's a hidden oasis.
You said near transit. What other "transit" are you talking about? Bus stops? All buses converge at BART stations.

Danville isn't hard to get to at all. It's right off the freeway and like 5 minutes from Walnut Creek.
 
Old 11-30-2012, 12:58 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,153,251 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Well the overwhelming reason is that it is REQUIRED by law. Did you miss the part, maybe you shoud go talk to ABAG about it.
I was not talking about the law. I read the article, I know there is such a law. But the debate is whether it makes sense to have it in Danville, not whether the law requires it. It's possible that the law is outdated, there laws like that you know. You are now shifting the discussion away from what I originally brought up to one of law. Well, law is absolute, if you're going to bring that up there really isn't a debate anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Not all low income is near or needs to be near transit like you keep harping on. Especially here in the Bay Area where people with decent incomes still qualify as low-income and have cars.
Yes and you also make a lot of assumptions about people you don't know.
No, YOU make a lot of assumptions about people you don't know. Those who live in public housing are often people with no other means to put a roof over their heads. I know these people, you need to get with the program if you think a working professional with a stable full time job is the typical public housing dweller.

Quote:
Low-income seniors struggle in S.F. - SFGate

Beverly Brumfield worked hard all her life, but she didn't really know hard until the golden years hit. She had no savings. She was alone. Her Social Security check didn't cover rent.

For some, help from friends and family does the trick. For others, it comes down to digging hard for solutions - and for those who dig hard enough, there are ways to live safely with dignity.

It took her a year of applying to hundreds of senior housing programs and calling case managers daily, but she went from couch-surfing with friends and relatives to landing her own subsidized apartment a couple of blocks from City Hall.

Of course, that meant she had to beat out most of the 3,400 other applicants for the 107 units in the building - a typical competition for scarce affordable senior housing in San Francisco, as well as elsewhere.

..............

Sevier, 66, worked all his life as a cook and a janitor, never staying anywhere for long, and stumbled into his senior years with nothing but a few suitcases of clothing and a monthly federal disability check for $729. But when the wallet runs dry, he finds himself on friends' couches - or once in a while, sleeping in a doorway.

.............

Doug Shoemaker, executive director of the San Francisco office of Mercy Housing - which runs the Edith Witt complex - said most people come to his 1,000 units of housing "with next to nothing."
Doug Shoemaker, executive director of the San Francisco office of Mercy Housing - which runs the Edith Witt complex - said most people come to his 1,000 units of housing "with next to nothing."

I want you to read the above sentence again. These people with "next to nothing" somehow can afford a car and insurance in your universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Not every scenario works like that. A lot of these new developments have low income housing included with the regular, market rate units and people apply for them. Meaning they CHOOSE that development. Not all low-income housing are entire projects and many are mixed in with regular units as many developments require that. So for many yes it is a CHOICE to live in Danville. People apply for BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) units on their own in individual developments, they aren't "assigned" to it.
We're obviously not talking about people who can afford market rate so that's irrelevant to our discussion. BMR also is irrelevant - BMR people are obviously not the same group that we're talking about.

The fact that you throw out these market rate and BMR into the discussion pretty much confirms to me that you are thinking of an entirely different demographic. Just to be clear, below is what a low-income housing seeker has to go through. This process does not apply to market rate or BMR.

Quote:
Oakland Opens Up Public Housing Waiting List | KQED Public Media for Northern CA

Applicants will compete in a lottery for the promise of an apartment in one of nine locations around the city, where rent is capped at 30 percent of income.

But the odds aren't great. Oakland housing authority director Eric Johnson says in 2009, the last time around, 54,000 people applied and only 10,000 were selected.

Johnson says even those who are chosen may have to wait up to three years for a unit to open up.
And just to be clear this a typical public housing dweller - former addict, been homeless:
Quote:

Affordable Housing Gap Leaves San Francisco's Neediest In Dire Straits

Just around the corner from the small apartment he moved into four months ago, lifelong San Francisco resident Roman Quinn was stabbed in the heart.

"It was years ago, over a drug deal gone bad," Quinn, 59, told The Huffington Post. "I dropped dead right there."

The attack marked a low point in the gregarious Army veteran's three-decade struggle with drug addiction, but he survived and has turned his life around. Once homeless and hooked on heroin, he's been sober for three years. He recently completed a job training program and hopes to re-enroll in City College of San Francisco to pursue a degree in information technology. He goes to church weekly and participates in Bible study.

And thanks to the Community Housing Partnership, a nonprofit group that helps San Francisco residents find affordable housing, he has a home. The apartment is small and located in the Tenderloin, a rough neighborhood. But Quinn is still grateful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
You said near transit. What other "transit" are you talking about? Bus stops? All buses converge at BART stations.

Danville isn't hard to get to at all. It's right off the freeway and like 5 minutes from Walnut Creek.
If one has a car it's a 15-20 minute drive to the Walnut Creek BART in rush hour.

Without a car.... yeah.
 
Old 11-30-2012, 01:35 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,257 posts, read 13,421,897 times
Reputation: 5414
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
I was not talking about the law. I read the article, I know there is such a law. But the debate is whether it makes sense to have it in Danville, not whether the law requires it. It's possible that the law is outdated, there laws like that you know. You are now shifting the discussion away from what I originally brought up to one of law. Well, law is absolute, if you're going to bring that up there really isn't a debate anymore.
Considering the law applies to general plans that are continuously updated it's not really outdated at all and is fairly modern. The fact of the matter is Danville is required to have whether you think they should or shouldn't. I don't think cramming affordable housing into certain cities makes sense or else you end up with places like Pittsburg, Antioch, etc...
Quote:
No, YOU make a lot of assumptions about people you don't know. Those who live in public housing are often people with no other means to put a roof over their heads. I know these people, you need to get with the program if you think a working professional with a stable full time job is the typical public housing dweller.
NO, that's actually what you have been doing the whole time and casting everyone into very specific scenarios when in reality not everyone's situation is the same or similar at all. You keep harping on the no-where to turn destitute and now addicts, seniors, etc.. Affordable housing goes to different types of people in different situations and not just in your little stereotypical scenarios. You keep talking about SPECIFIC scenarios.
Quote:
I want you to read the above sentence again. These people with "next to nothing" somehow can afford a car and insurance in your universe.

We're obviously not talking about people who can afford market rate so that's irrelevant to our discussion. BMR also is irrelevant - BMR people are obviously not the same group that we're talking about.

The fact that you throw out these market rate and BMR into the discussion pretty much confirms to me that you are thinking of an entirely different demographic. Just to be clear, below is what a low-income housing seeker has to go through. This process does not apply to market rate or BMR.
You clearly don't know what the affordable housing element in a general plan involves. We're not talking about just low-income housing projects at all, it's a mix of housing types and situations and not your little single low income projects you keep repeating. I strongly suggest you read up about what the affordable housing element in Danville's, or any other CA city, involves before you try to continue this debate. I am familiar the the General Plan of CA's cities and these types of elements and you really don't know what you're talking about.

Danville's affordable housing element:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...2eNF8uVw3gM1lw

These types of affordable housing elements in the General Plan cater to a wide variety of situations including those with low to moderate incomes, one's that can clearly afford cars. This isn't about just desitute people who don't have a dollar to their name.
Quote:
And just to be clear this a typical public housing dweller - former addict, been homeless:
That's nice but this isn't about JUST public housing, again you keep restricting yourself to these specific scenarios.

And just to be clear, this is DANVILLE, not Oakland or San Francisco are urban cities and have a different set of issues. If you're going to post articles about affordable housing maybe use cities that are actually comparable to Danville.
Quote:
If one has a car it's a 15-20 minute drive to the Walnut Creek BART in rush hour.

Without a car.... yeah.
OMG, a whole 15 minutes! And you think commuting out to Oakland via BART from Walnut Creek or Concord is any faster? Either way your assumption that these units go to just people without cars is wrong.

Also WHAT OTHER TRANSIT are you talking about if you aren't just talking about BART stations?

Last edited by sav858; 11-30-2012 at 02:34 PM..
 
Old 11-30-2012, 02:27 PM
 
175 posts, read 333,488 times
Reputation: 127
I don't know where to begin here with all the comments but I will go back to the article first.

9.6 acres doesn't tell me anything (I didn't read the actual plan so maybe it is there). What kind of density are we talking about? How many housing units and how many of them will be low income?

Mixed income developments are currently in fashion (market rentals, low income units, renters, owners, ets.) so I would expect a portion of the planned units to be low income with the others being market rentals or sold. The public housing model (like the old Sunnydale projects in SF) concentrated poverty & was a massive failure so the government is doing mixed income developments now. Don't know if it will be any more successful though. As far as public transit goes, they could establish a bus system if there are enough residents.

You can say anything you want with statistics (only 20% of low income have children). The better question would be what % of those living in low income housing have children? I have no idea about the exact number currently but I believe it's a lot higher than that especially in the public housing program & to a lesser extent in the section 8 program. Quick search found something issued by HUD from the 1990's and back then 43% of public housing units had families with children (doubt it has changed too much since).

USHMC 95: Public Housing: Image Versus Facts

As some already have said, we can also get into the effects on the community of building low income housing. Almost everyone agrees public housing was a massive failure, but what about Section 8? Is spreading low income folks over a wide area more effective? Will the low income children improve b/c of the better schools and environment or will they drag down the school? I'm sure some longtime residents in places like Antioch wish many of the Section 8 residents never came to Antioch but I'm sure there are others who moved to the suburbs on Section 8 and took advantage of opportunities they would have never had. Definitely a highly debatable topic.

Danville is required to build some low income units by law. It will be interesting how this plays out as Danville has the $$$ to try to fight that law.
 
Old 11-30-2012, 03:52 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,153,251 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Considering the law applies to general plans that are continuously updated it's not really outdated at all and is fairly modern. The fact of the matter is Danville is required to have whether you think they should or shouldn't. I don't think cramming affordable housing into certain cities makes sense or else you end up with places like Pittsburg, Antioch, etc...
This must be what talking to Homer Simpson must feel like. I keep having to repeat myself. We are not talking about law and requirement. We know what they are. This is a debate about whether it makes sense to have it in Danville, law be damned. You keep reaching into this irrelevant fact, I think, because you dont' have anything else to offer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
NO, that's actually what you have been doing the whole time and casting everyone into very specific scenarios when in reality not everyone's situation is the same or similar at all. You keep harping on the no-where to turn destitute and now addicts, seniors, etc.. Affordable housing goes to different types of people in different situations and not just in your little stereotypical scenarios. You keep talking about SPECIFIC scenarios.
I am the one who offered articles, facts, to support my observation. Most of the people who turned to public housing has "next to nothing." That's not an observation from me, that's an observation from the director of a public housing. It seems to me you are trying to ignore facts because it contradicts your opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
You clearly don't know what the affordable housing element in a general plan involves. We're not talking about just low-income housing projects at all, it's a mix of housing types and situations and not your little single low income projects you keep repeating. I strongly suggest you read up about what the affordable housing element in Danville's, or any other CA city, involves before you try to continue this debate. I am familiar the the General Plan of CA's cities and these types of elements and you really don't know what you're talking about.

Danville's affordable housing element:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...2eNF8uVw3gM1lw


These types of affordable housing elements in the General Plan cater to a wide variety of situations including those with low to moderate incomes, one's that can clearly afford cars. This isn't about just desitute people who don't have a dollar to their name.
That's nice but this isn't about JUST public housing, again you keep restricting yourself to these specific scenarios.

Here's the thing, check the tread title.... this tread is about LOW INCOME housing units. Emphasis LOW INCOME. You keep bringing in Market Rate and BMR, and including them in your characterization of low-income. It's as if you thought they are low income. Market Rate is just that - market. rate. They are definitely NOT low income. BMR includes middle/moderate income to low income - meaning you don't have to be low-income to get a BMR. Again this tread is regarding LOW INCOME. You keep bringing in these other groups to make your point and that's why I say you don't know what you're talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
And just to be clear, this is DANVILLE, not Oakland or San Francisco are urban cities and have a different set of issues. If you're going to post articles about affordable housing maybe use cities that are actually comparable to Danville.
The entire Bay Area is interconnected. A lot of people from all over the Bay is going to apply to the Danville low-income housing. Yes, including people from SF and Oakland. The only eligibility requirement is an income requirement, the authority does not require that a person proves he/she had lived in Danville, or even the county (it'd be pretty pointless to ask a homeless person to prove where he/she has been squatting or couch surfing for the past year if you ask me). The application asks for a mailing address but a person can give an address in Alaska for all they care. Heck, someone from Fresno can come up and apply for one of these. Point is, Danville may not be SF or Oakland but Danville is getting a similar pool of applicants.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
OMG, a whole 15 minutes! And you think commuting out to Oakland via BART from Walnut Creek or Concord is any faster? Either way your assumption that these units go to just people without cars is wrong.

Also WHAT OTHER TRANSIT are you talking about if you aren't just talking about BART stations?

Are the gaps in your intelligence really this wide? I was talking about driving, obviously someone without a car has to ride the transit, which comes every 30 mins on weekdays on peak hours and takes roughly another 30 mins to get to BART. If that person has to work in SF, that's another 30 mins to Market St and then another transfer to the destination. That's roughly a 75 min commute one way. That's not nothing. If the person works in Tri area that's fine, that's a reasonably commute. But the simple truth is people commute all over the bay, to SF, Oakland, SF, San Leandro, maybe even San Mateo. Danville is not a convenient location and that's its selling point, it's supposed to be sleepy and a bit out of the way. That's my main point - Danville is designed for suburban soccer moms, not low-income transients.

That's another point that I haven't brought up until now - low-income housing is not meant to be permanent housing - it's supposed to move people along, give them a little help so they can get their lives in order, get on with their business and move out into the real world. Every low-income residents should be considered merely transients making a stop on their way to something better. To maximize the transientness, the dwellings need to be in job centers with many transit, and constant flow of people to help them mix, mingle, and provide job opportunities. Urban settings are perfect for these things. Danville is essentially the polar opposite of where a low-income housing should be.

Last edited by beb0p; 11-30-2012 at 04:02 PM..
 
Old 11-30-2012, 04:25 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,257 posts, read 13,421,897 times
Reputation: 5414
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
This must be what talking to Homer Simpson must feel like. I keep having to repeat myself. We are not talking about law and requirement. We know what they are. This is a debate about whether it makes sense to have it in Danville, law be damned. You keep reaching into this irrelevant fact, I think, because you dont' have anything else to offer.
In addition to the law I've also stated why I think Danville should have some affordable housing. Did you miss that part? I can repeat again if you like.
Quote:
I am the one who offered articles, facts, to support my observation. Most of the people who turned to public housing has "next to nothing." That's not an observation from me, that's an observation from the director of a public housing. It seems to me you are trying to ignore facts because it contradicts your opinion.
Bravo, you offered cherry picked articles that have nothing to do with Danville the type of affordable housing that would be built. This isn't the same as Oakland or SF public housing, what about that don't you get?

Quote:
Here's the thing, check the tread title.... this tread is about LOW INCOME housing units. Emphasis LOW INCOME. You keep bringing in Market Rate and BMR, and including them in your characterization of low-income. It's as if you thought they are low income. Market Rate is just that - market. rate. They are definitely NOT low income. BMR includes middle/moderate income to low income - meaning you don't have to be low-income to get a BMR. Again this tread is regarding LOW INCOME. You keep bringing in these other groups to make your point and that's why I say you don't know what you're talking about
Here's the thing, READ THE LINK as it provides a lot more detail than a thread title. It's about an update to it's GENERAL PLAN. Look at the GENERAL PLAN, clearly their GENERAL PLAN includes BMR and other types of units! What don't you get about that?

READ THE GENERAL PLAN which is what that article is about.
Quote:
The entire Bay Area is interconnected. A lot of people from all over the Bay is going to apply to the Danville low-income housing. Yes, including people from SF and Oakland. The only eligibility requirement is an income requirement, the authority does not require that a person proves he/she had lived in Danville, or even the county (it'd be pretty pointless to ask a homeless person to prove where he/she has been squatting or couch surfing for the past year if you ask me). The application asks for a mailing address but a person can give an address in Alaska for all they care. Heck, someone from Fresno can come up and apply for one of these. Point is, Danville may not be SF or Oakland but Danville is getting a similar pool of applicants.
That's nice, still does not make Danville's affordable housing situation and element anything like Oakland's or SF. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how those would be different.
Quote:
Are the gaps in your intelligence really this wide? I was talking about driving, obviously someone without a car has to ride the transit, which comes every 30 mins on weekdays on peak hours and takes roughly another 30 mins to get to BART. If that person has to work in SF, that's another 30 mins to Market St and then another transfer to the destination. That's roughly a 75 min commute one way. That's not nothing. If the person works in Tri area that's fine, that's a reasonably commute. But the simple truth is people commute all over the bay, to SF, Oakland, SF, San Leandro, maybe even San Mateo. Danville is not a convenient location and that's its selling point, it's supposed to be sleepy and a bit out of the way. That's my main point - Danville is designed for suburban soccer moms, not low-income transients.
Then don't live there if it's not convienent. Don't apply for low income housing in area that you can't get to and from work to. I know you try to pretend people don't have that choice but they do. You seem to act like a housing authority just throws anyone anywhere. There is little reason to assume that many of these affordable housing residents won't work or have means to commute in the area. Stop assuming people won't have a car and/or work in the area because plenty of people that live in affordable housing DO have cars. Again, you're being extremely narrow minded and rigid with who you think lives in affordable housing.
Quote:
That's another point that I haven't brought up until now - low-income housing is not meant to be permanent housing - it's supposed to move people along, give them a little help so they can get their lives in order, get on with their business and move out into the real world. Every low-income residents should be considered merely transients making a stop on their way to something better. To maximize the transientness, the dwellings need to be in job centers with many transit, and constant flow of people to help them mix, mingle, and provide job opportunities. Urban settings are perfect for these things. Danville is essentially the polar opposite of where a low-income housing should be.
Since affordable housing includes BMR's in Danville's General Plan YES some of is meant to be permanent. READ THE GENERAL PLAN, it even states it in there.

Perhaps you missed the latter half of the 20th century. Concentrating low-income people in areas didn't work. Did you miss the part where all those awful public housing projects in SF, NYC, Chicago, St Louis, etc.. have been torn down? Do you know anything about concentrating low income people in one spot an how detrimental that is? You're basically advocating repeating the very mistakes urban planners made 50 years ago!

And I'm still waiting to hear what transit besides BART these units shoud be in. You suggested Concord and Walnut Creek were better locations. Well where would those locations be that aren't by BART that are good for transit? Can you actually finally answer that question?

But before you respond PLEASE READ THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT!
 
Old 11-30-2012, 04:50 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,153,251 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
In addition to the law I've also stated why I think Danville should have some affordable housing. Did you miss that part? I can repeat again if you like.
Asked and answered. I've already addressed this previous posts. I suggest you go back and read them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Bravo, you offered cherry picked articles that have nothing to do with Danville the type of affordable housing that would be built. This isn't the same as Oakland or SF public housing, what about that don't you get?
I have not even remotely raised the issue of the "type" of affordable housing that would be built. I'm talking about the low-income residents that would occupy those units. I'm talking about people, not type of housing.

If your point is that Danville will get a richer, higher class of low-income residents, you need to provide facts to back it up. Without facts, it's just your imagination.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Here's the thing, READ THE LINK as it provides a lot more detail than a thread title. It's about an update to it's GENERAL PLAN. Look at the GENERAL PLAN, clearly their GENERAL PLAN includes BMR and other types of units! What don't you get about that?
The General Plan also includes commercial office space, does that mean office workers are now part of the low-income conversation? Of course not! BMR is a different animal and cater to a different group than low-income public housing unit. If you dont' understand this much then you'll have difficulty understanding my point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
That's nice, still does not make Danville's affordable housing situation and element anything like Oakland's or SF. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how those would be different.
Then don't live there if it's not convienent. Don't apply for low income housing in area that you can't get to and from work to. I know you try to pretend people don't have that choice but they do. You seem to act like a housing authority just throws anyone anywhere. There is little reason to assume that many of these affordable housing residents won't work or have means to commute in the area. Stop assuming people won't have a car and/or work in the area because plenty of people that live in affordable housing DO have cars. Again, you're being extremely narrow minded and rigid with who you think lives in affordable housing.
Since affordable housing includes BMR's in Danville's General Plan YES some of is meant to be permanent. READ THE GENERAL PLAN, it even states it in there.

Perhaps you missed the latter half of the 20th century. Concentrating low-income people in areas didn't work. Did you miss the part where all those awful public housing projects in SF, NYC, Chicago, St Louis, etc.. have been torn down? Do you know anything about concentrating low income people in one spot an how detrimental that is? You're basically advocating repeating the very mistakes urban planners made 50 years ago!

And I'm still waiting to hear what transit besides BART these units shoud be in. You suggested Concord and Walnut Creek were better locations. Well where would those locations be that aren't by BART that are good for transit? Can you actually finally answer that question?

But before you respond PLEASE READ THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT!

Again, BMR is not necessary low-income housing. You like to lump it into your logic probably because without it, your whole argument falls apart.
 
Old 11-30-2012, 05:38 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,257 posts, read 13,421,897 times
Reputation: 5414
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
I have not even remotely raised the issue of the "type" of affordable housing that would be built. I'm talking about the low-income residents that would occupy those units. I'm talking about people, not type of housing.

If your point is that Danville will get a richer, higher class of low-income residents, you need to provide facts to back it up. Without facts, it's just your imagination.
AGAIN, you keep thinking all people classified as low-income are the same and have the same circumstances. Affordable and low income housing goes to a VARIETY of types of people you have yet to link any articles too.
Quote:
The General Plan also includes commercial office space, does that mean office workers are now part of the low-income conversation? Of course not! BMR is a different animal and cater to a different group than low-income public housing unit. If you dont' understand this much then you'll have difficulty understanding my point.
Actually the HOUSING ELEMENT of the General Plan does not include commercial office space. This paragraph makes no sense. I'm not just talking about BMR, but that is part of the General Housing plans affordable housing section in addition to other types of housing.

Quote:
Again, BMR is not necessary low-income housing. You like to lump it into your logic probably because without it, your whole argument falls apart.
BMR is PART of the affordable/low-income housing element. You simply don't get there is variety of housing provided aside from BMR that falls under affordable housing despite my repeating that ad naseum. Clearly you keep focusing JUST on BMR as if that is all I was talking about when I'm not.

DID YOU READ THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN YET???

Speaking of arguments falling apart, for the FIFTH time, what areas near "transit" in the WC and Concord area aside from BART stations should low-income housing be built? I'm still waiting to hear about these mythical non-BART station transit nodes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top