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: 
 
 
Old 12-01-2012, 11:46 AM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,150,839 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
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.
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.

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.

Do you have any idea who qualifies for BMR? A person making 120% of the median income still qualifies for BMR, effectively someone making $76,000 is BMR eligible. You're telling me that a single person who makes $76k is low-income???

Since I'm sure you'll now argue why a person making $76k is low-income but it doesn't matter what you think. Those people making $76k a year and living in Danville is not what the Danville residents are concerned about. If the public housing to be built in Danville is nothing but BMR there is no objection from the residents and no news here. BMR is the NOT the issue here. It's irrelevant, but you keep dragging it into the discussion.

Of course the public housing project can include office spaces. It says so on page 14 of the General Plan under 32-74.7 b).

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
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.
No, no, no. Your whole argument, your entire premise, is that Danville well get a wealthier, richer class of low-income people. If this premise is true, I'm wrong. If it is false then your whole argument falls apart. For the second time, how about you show us where you based that on? Now is the time to back up this assertion with facts.

Where it should be built is an entirely different discussion. I never said it should be built in Concord, just that perhaps it makes more sense, but it doesnt have to be in Concord. You expect me to research the land availability, the zoning code, and all the logistics behind building a public housing and make a proposal? That's a full time job, they paid consultants to do that. I'm not going get into that here. No freakin way.

 
Old 12-01-2012, 08:08 PM
 
Location: California
25,295 posts, read 16,217,121 times
Reputation: 17682
I have mixed feelings since I live where "low cost housing" was built and subsequently torn down because it became too dangerous for the pizza delivery people to go to. What did they build instead? HIGH DENSITY low cost housing.

No doubt there is a need, no doubt there are "teachers, firefighters, "insert noble profession here", that can benifit, but there is no picking and choosing. People get put into places, from everywhere and with no choice on anyones part. The fact is it will bring bad things, it always does so there is no point in arguing about it. FACTS IS FACTS. The only thing you can argue is that it's worth it, and that not everyone will be bad (but many will)...but I don't think it always is. Especially when nice places become not so nice. People move to places, they move up as they can afford it, there are places they will never be able to afford. That's life.
 
Old 12-03-2012, 10:55 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,257 posts, read 13,421,897 times
Reputation: 5414
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
Do you have any idea who qualifies for BMR? A person making 120% of the median income still qualifies for BMR, effectively someone making $76,000 is BMR eligible. You're telling me that a single person who makes $76k is low-income???

Since I'm sure you'll now argue why a person making $76k is low-income but it doesn't matter what you think. Those people making $76k a year and living in Danville is not what the Danville residents are concerned about. If the public housing to be built in Danville is nothing but BMR there is no objection from the residents and no news here. BMR is the NOT the issue here. It's irrelevant, but you keep dragging it into the discussion.

Of course the public housing project can include office spaces. It says so on page 14 of the General Plan under 32-74.7 b).
My point AGAIN, affordable housing includes a MIX of low to moderate incomes including BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE TO BMR.

You keep focusing on BMR more than I am, I only stated it is a PART OF the affordable housing element.
Quote:
No, no, no. Your whole argument, your entire premise, is that Danville well get a wealthier, richer class of low-income people. If this premise is true, I'm wrong. If it is false then your whole argument falls apart. For the second time, how about you show us where you based that on? Now is the time to back up this assertion with facts.
I NEVER SAID OR INERRED THAT EVER. The problem here is you think all people that apply for low-income housing are the same and fall under the same or similar circumstances. You keep focusing on ONE SEGEMENT of the low-income housing population. I am saying that affordable housing goes to a VARIETY of people. So please stop suggesting I am only focusing on a particular segment of the affordable housing population when I'm not.

Quote:
Where it should be built is an entirely different discussion. I never said it should be built in Concord, just that perhaps it makes more sense, but it doesnt have to be in Concord. You expect me to research the land availability, the zoning code, and all the logistics behind building a public housing and make a proposal? That's a full time job, they paid consultants to do that. I'm not going get into that here. No freakin way.
You said it should be built in Concord or Walnut Creek near transit. So for the SIXTH time what transit is there that doesn't include BART where these low-income units should be built? Oh that's right because aside from BART stations there is no significant areas of transit in this part of the county. A single bus line going through Danville isn't any better than a single bus line running down Clayton Rd in Concord.

Last edited by sav858; 12-03-2012 at 11:26 AM..
 
Old 12-03-2012, 12:09 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,150,839 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
My point AGAIN, affordable housing includes a MIX of low to moderate incomes including BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE TO BMR.
Affordable Housing is NOT low-income housing. There's a subtle difference. Affordable housing caters to low-income AS WELL as middle income folks. Low income housing strictly caters to low-income. The subject of this thread is LOW-INCOME housing, not affordable housing. It is not necessary affordable housing that many Danville residents object to, it's specifically the low-income housing that is the issue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
You keep focusing on BMR more than I am, I only stated it is a PART OF the affordable housing element.
I NEVER SAID OR INERRED THAT EVER. The problem here is you think all people that apply for low-income housing are the same and fall under the same or similar circumstances. You keep focusing on ONE SEGEMENT of the low-income housing population. I am saying that affordable housing goes to a VARIETY of people. So please stop suggesting I am only focusing on a particular segment of the affordable housing population when I'm not.
I kept referring back to it to support my point that you are confused what low-income housing is. And you still are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
You said it should be built in Concord or Walnut Creek near transit. So for the SIXTH time what transit is there that doesn't include BART where these low-income units should be built? Oh that's right because aside from BART stations there is no significant areas of transit in this part of the county. A single bus line going through Danville isn't any better than a single bus line running down Clayton Rd in Concord.
You keep asking irrelevant questions and keep broadening your scope until something fits. WHERE it should be built is not the discussion here, UNLESS your point is that Danville is the only place that it can be built. If that's your point maybe you should offer some supporting evidence why you make that claim.

Your point is that Danville will get a richer, wealthier pool of applicants. For the third time, you should offer up evidence if we are to continue this discussion.
 
Old 12-03-2012, 12:31 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,257 posts, read 13,421,897 times
Reputation: 5414
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
Affordable Housing is NOT low-income housing. There's a subtle difference. Affordable housing caters to low-income AS WELL as middle income folks. Low income housing strictly caters to low-income. The subject of this thread is LOW-INCOME housing, not affordable housing. It is not necessary affordable housing that many Danville residents object to, it's specifically the low-income housing that is the issue.

I kept referring back to it to support my point that you are confused what low-income housing is. And you still are.
Per the Danville GENERAL PLAN, low-income is considered to be 51-80% of the SMSA Median Income as established by the CA Dept of Housing and Community Development.

I couldn't find what the SMSA median income but have it listed for the county. So considering CCC isn't one of the wealthier counties in the MSA I can safely assume it's within this range:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/mprop/2011_IncomeLimits.pdf


A lower income in CC County for ONE person is considered $45K, 2 people is $52K, for a family of 4 is't $65K. There are plenty of people who have cars that make around that much money.

So you don't think that a single person making $45K a year is not going to have a car?

Quote:
You keep asking irrelevant questions and keep broadening your scope until something fits. WHERE it should be built is not the discussion here, UNLESS your point is that Danville is the only place that it can be built. If that's your point maybe you should offer some supporting evidence why you make that claim
Really? Let me remind you of your VERY FIRST POST in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
It makes no sense to built low-income housing in Danville. Built it near public transportation....
In case you forgot that is exactly how you framed this debate from your very first sentence, talking about where it should be built in the region. I certainly never claimed it should only be built in Danville but should include Danville in the region's low-income housing goals.

YOU said that low-income housing should be built in Concord or WC instead near transit. I pointed out how areas next to BART stations is expensive and in limited supply then you said you weren't talking about just BART stations. So I want to know, and keep asking, what areas then are you talking about? YOU are the one that brought this up yet can't actually provide an example of what you meant.
Quote:
Your point is that Danville will get a richer, wealthier pool of applicants. For the third time, you should offer up evidence if we are to continue this discussion.
NO THAT IS NOT MY POINT. I even clarified that this was never my point in my previous post and have multiple times. Can you please stop repeating that is I think I've clarified that I NEVER SAID THIS multiple times now? It is very frustrating that you keep putting words in my mouth despite myself correcting you on multiple occasions.

Last edited by sav858; 12-03-2012 at 12:46 PM..
 
Old 12-03-2012, 12:44 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,150,839 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Per the Danville GENERAL PLAN, low-income is considered to be 51-80% of the SMSA Median Income as established by the CA Dept of Housing and Community Development.

I couldn't find what the SMSA median income but have it listed for the county. So considering CCC isn't one of the wealthier counties in the MSA I can safely assume it's within this range:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/mprop/2011_IncomeLimits.pdf
Low income: 51%-80% of median income.

BMR: up to 110% of median income.

Not the same are they?


Also, this is what the General Plan said:

Quote:
1. Affordable units for very low income households means units with housing costs affordable to households whose gross annual income is fifty percent (50%) or less of the current SMSA median income, as published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50105.
2. Affordable units for low income households means units with housing costs affordable to households whose gross annual income is between fifty-one percent (51%) and eighty percent (80%) of the current SMSA median income, as published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5.
3. Affordable units for moderate income households means units with housing costs affordable to households whose gross annual income is between eighty-one percent (81%) and one hundred ten percent (110%) of the current SMSA median income, as published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50093.
You left out the Very Low Income group: less than 50% of median income. It's as if this group of people does not exist. That's the problem, you kept ignoring them even though they are the majority in public housing everywhere in the Bay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
A lower income in CC County for ONE person is considered $45K, 2 people is $52K, for a family of 4 is't $65K. There are plenty of people who have cars that make around that much money.

So you don't think that a single person making $45K a year is not going to have a car?

Asked and answered. Check back to the second, third, and forth reply I posted. It's in one of them.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
No, YOU said that low-income housing should be built in Concord or WC instead near transit. I pointed out how areas next to BART stations is expensive and in limited supply then you said you weren't talking about just BART stations. So I want to know, and keep asking, what areas then are you talking about? YOU are the one that brought this up yet can't actually answer your own question.

NO THAT IS NOT MY POINT. I even clarified that this was never my point in my previous post and have multiple times. Can you please stop repeating that is I think I've clarified that I NEVER SAID THIS multiple times now? It is very frustrating that you keep putting words in my mouth despite myself correcting you on multiple occasions.
But it is your point. You just repeated it again:

Quote:
So you don't think that a single person making $45K a year is not going to have a car?
Why do you think a single person making $45k is going to be the person who ends up needing low-income pubic housing in Danville? Everywhere else, it's the bottom of the barrel types, the ones who have "next to nothing" who end up living in these. But you keep repeating that things are different in Danville, that the housing is going to house working professionals making $45k instead of homeless bums with next to nothing. That's your point and I'm asking you to offer support evidence.

Last edited by beb0p; 12-03-2012 at 12:56 PM..
 
Old 12-03-2012, 12:55 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,257 posts, read 13,421,897 times
Reputation: 5414
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
Low income: 51%-80% of median income.

BMR: up to 120% of median income.

Not the same are they?
No and I was never talking about just BMR

I gave you the stats for what is considered LOW-INCOME so why do you keep talking about just BMR? You've mentioned it more than me!
Quote:
Asked and answered. Check back to the second, third, and forth reply I posted. It's in one of them.
You never answered this question. Do you honestly think someone who makes $45K a year is not likely going to have a car? YES OR NO?

Quote:
But it is your point. You just repeated it again:
What are you talking about? I still never stated anything about Danville getting ONLY a "richer and wealthier" pool of applicants! That is not my point I really don't appreciate you continously putting words in my mouth and inferring things I never did.

Quote:
Why do you think a single person making $45k is going to be the person who ends up needing low-income pubic housing in Danville? Everywhere else, it's the bottom of the barrel types, the ones who have "next to nothing" who end up living in these. But you keep repeating that things are different in Danville, that the housing is going to house working professionals making $45k instead of homeless bums with next to nothing. That's your point and I'm asking you to offer support evidence.
If you don't make at least 51% of the median income guess what? YOU DON'T QUALIFY FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING! A homeless person won't qualify to live in this type of housing. This type of housing is meant to help the exact people you say it won't.

What you keep repeating is this same tired stereotype that the only people who get low-income housing are destitute and don't have a penny to their name, are homeless, etc.. that is NOT TRUE especially here in the Bay Area. I know a girl who works at a make up store in Sunvalley Mall that gets an apartment in the Avalon development next to the PH BART station for $700 a month in a unit where the market rate is $2000 for the same place. She is single, has a car, and middle class. She has never been homeless and is not like the people you describe. Affordable housing, INCLUDING LOW-INCOME HOUSING, here in the Bay Area is meant to help a variety of people including those at or even above the median income.

Why do you think that people who DON'T QUALIFY for low-income housing will be given it???? If they can't afford to pay the rent they won't be selected to live there.
 
Old 12-03-2012, 01:04 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,257 posts, read 13,421,897 times
Reputation: 5414
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
You left out the Very Low Income group: less than 50% of median income. It's as if this group of people does not exist. That's the problem, you kept ignoring them even though they are the majority in public housing everywhere in the Bay.
Oh so now it's about "very low income"? Since when? I like how you keep changing what this thread is about. NOWHERE in that article does it say ANYTHING about "VERY LOW INCOME HOUSING"!

Danville defines LOW-INCOME housing as 51-80% of the median income and that is what people are debating in that article. Stop changing the goal post to make another irrelevant argument.
 
Old 12-03-2012, 01:08 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,150,839 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Oh so now it's about "very low income"? Since when? I like how you keep changing what this thread is about. NOWHERE in that article does it say ANYTHING about "VERY LOW INCOME HOUSING"!

Danville defines LOW-INCOME housing as 51-80% of the median income and that is what people are debating in that article. Stop changing the goal post to make another irrelevant argument.

LOL. Only in your universe is "very low-income people" excluded from the category of "low-income." So basically "very smart" people is not considered "smart" in your world.

But of course when the Danville residents complain about the public housing, they are complaining most specifically about these group of people who you've been working so hard to pretend doesn't exist.

 
Old 12-03-2012, 01:11 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,913 posts, read 6,568,130 times
Reputation: 2923
A lot of this comes down to San Francisco Housing Authority making a lot of its public housing units unavailable; a lot of people moving into the Danville complex will more than likely work in the City. If all of SF's existing units were available there'd be little need for new developments in the outer suburbia.
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.


 

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