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 12-03-2012, 03:02 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,352 posts, read 13,808,404 times
Reputation: 5512

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
The places you mentioned are certainly not "out of site", it's what you do when you can't afford to buy property in another place right? I know I did it when I was renting in a pricy area but wanted to buy a house of my own, then years later when I COULD AFFORD to I moved up to a pricier area.
They kind of are when you live in Danville. Either way you seem to be entering the fundamental debate about subsidized housing in general which is a whole another thread topic.

 
Old 12-03-2012, 03:03 PM
 
Location: California
25,529 posts, read 16,908,796 times
Reputation: 17978
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
They kind of are when you live in Danville. Either way you seem to be entering the fundamental debate about subsidized housing in general which is a whole another thread topic.
I don't get your point. If you can't afford to live in Danville that pretty much says it all...move a little farther out. IT'S WHAT EVERYONE HAS DONE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.

Any place is "affordable" if you adjust your living expectation. Roommates for example. Living with family. It's the way things have always been done. Correct?
 
Old 12-03-2012, 03:06 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,352 posts, read 13,808,404 times
Reputation: 5512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
That's a valid POV that I agree with in part... ultimately though I think public housing should be built where the job centers are. Higher income people can afford to commute, low income people shouldn't be spending a significant percentage of their income on getting to and from work.
I do too except when it comes to "affordable housing" here in the Bay Area we are including people that make $45K-65K a year for household sizes 1 to 4 people. With wages and housing being so high here people that are solidly middle class elsewhere struggle paying for housing here.

Even for a single person let alone someone with kids it's expensive to live in this area when making around $40K unless you have roommates. A lot of people are forced to live out in Antioch or Pittsburg and the commute costs and time are very high. Danville is closer to job centers than Antioch or Pittsburg too and that's why I favor SOME affordable housing in it.
 
Old 12-03-2012, 03:09 PM
 
Location: southern california
50,020 posts, read 47,123,472 times
Reputation: 41318
have seen it b4. the people that move in low income are pretty good, poor but hard working and good people. then their gangbang grandkids move in and turn your neighborhood into a toilet-- crime skyrockets. for sale signs go up like crazy. then the grandparents on low income housing get on CDF and post about housing discimination and white flight.

Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 12-03-2012 at 04:04 PM..
 
Old 12-03-2012, 03:11 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,352 posts, read 13,808,404 times
Reputation: 5512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
I don't get your point. If you can't afford to live in Danville that pretty much says it all...move a little farther out. IT'S WHAT EVERYONE HAS DONE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.

Any place is "affordable" if you adjust your living expectation. Roommates for example. Living with family. It's the way things have always been done. Correct?
It's also what has contributed to sprawl and the housing bust out in those parts too. Something regional planning aims to mitigate or limit.

Also things like rent control and subsidized housing have been around for over a half century too.

You want to have a debate about subsidized housing in general. Well it already exists and towns like Danville are required to have it regardless of people's views on it. I get why people are against it as it goes up against many people's fundamental values but given the Bay Area's situation with housing I do support it overall.
 
Old 12-03-2012, 03:13 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,352 posts, read 13,808,404 times
Reputation: 5512
Like I said I don't believe in concentrating affordable/public housing and that includes out here in the suburbs. I live by PH BART and there is ONE affordable housing complex a block away from me. If my neighborhood was made up of several more of those developments I wouldn't live where I do but the one that exists is fine with me.
 
Old 12-03-2012, 05:49 PM
 
1,761 posts, read 1,233,354 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
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!
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?

I'm not the one who kept bringing BMR into the discussion. If you don't want to talk about BMR... just stop talking about it. Who's preventing you?

Someone who makes $45k probably owns a car if he/she lives in Danville. But the real question is: how likely are you to find someone making $45k living in low-income public housing projects? You don't seem to get this point. You seem to think that just because the line is drawn at $45k then everyone is allowed in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
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.

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.
Is she one of those people making $45k that you kept referring to? In her case, she's renting from a private company who has to allocate certain number of units as BMR per planning laws. As discussed, BMR units can go to middle income folks making 120% of median income, meaning your friend does not have to be low-income to rent one of those BMR. Certainly she is not the demographic that the Danville residents are objected to. Secondly, renting a BMR from a private company (landlord) is very different from being allocated cheap housing from the housing authority. In the former, like all landlords, Avalon scrutinize a potential renter's income, reference, history, credit, etc. In the later, the housing authority usually places a much greater emphasis on needs (homeless, etc) over income.

Since this thread is about public housing projects, the example you cited really doesn't apply. Nice try though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
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.
You did not read the entire General Plan did you? There are several density categories in the plan but let's just take one example (32-74.4a. (i.e., a twenty-five percent (25%) density bonus)):

At least:

10% of housing is given to very low income folks, the very people you said will not be given housing.
10% of housing is given to seniors (this group often overlaps with very low income people)
10% of housing is given to middle income with disability.
20% of housing is given to low income folks.

That leaves at least 50% of housing left to be freely allocated according to the housing authority. This can (and often does) go to the very low income (including seniors and disabled). This is why a lof of housing projects end up with 50% to 70% of people who are very low income.

Last edited by beb0p; 12-03-2012 at 06:12 PM..
 
Old 12-03-2012, 05:52 PM
 
1,761 posts, read 1,233,354 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
When it comes to who qualifies for what type of affordable housing YES, "very low-income" are excluded from "low-income". You read about the different classifications so why are you pretending they are all the same?

Again, how is someone who doesn't make at least 51% of the median income suppose to QUALIFY and pay rent on a "low-income" unit?

You keep focusing on just "very low-income" when that article isn't even about that segement of the population!
Maybe you should ask the housing authority this question. They're the one who put in the General Plan that parts of housing MUST go to the very-low-income. Maybe they can better explain this to you than I can. And God knows I tried.
 
Old 12-03-2012, 06:49 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,352 posts, read 13,808,404 times
Reputation: 5512
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
I'm not the one who kept bringing BMR into the discussion. If you don't want to talk about BMR... just stop talking about it. Who's preventing you?
I stopped talking about it a while ago but YOU keep talking about it and pretending it's the only segment of the affordable housing population I am referring to, which is clearly wrong.

Quote:
Someone who makes $45k probably owns a car if he/she lives in Danville. But the real question is: how likely are you to find someone making $45k living in low-income public housing projects? You don't seem to get this point. You seem to think that just because the line is drawn at $45k then everyone is allowed in.
Or you can go to any other city in the Bay Area except probably SF and find people with that income owning a car, not sure why you think people who live in WC, Concord, Hayward, etc..wouldn't own a car if they make $45k a year.

Well clearly according to standards for low-income HOUSING many will HAVE to make that much in order to qualify.
Quote:
Is she one of those people making $45k that you kept referring to? In her case, she's renting from a private company who has to allocate certain number of units as BMR per planning laws. As discussed, BMR units can go to middle income folks making 120% of median income, meaning your friend does not have to be low-income to rent one of those BMR. Certainly she is not the demographic that the Danville residents are objected to. Secondly, renting a BMR from a private company (landlord) is very different from being allocated cheap housing from the housing authority. In the former, like all landlords, Avalon scrutinize a potential renter's income, reference, history, credit, etc. In the later, the housing authority usually places a much greater emphasis on needs (homeless, etc) over income.
Trust me she isn't making $45K a year at her position, it's a low paying service job.

Also maybe you should read the General Plan a little closer because I guess you missed this part:

"All BMR units shall be sold or rented as affordable units for occupancy only by very low, low or moderate income households. "

So people with VERY-LOW INCOMES can be held to the same scrutiny as those with moderate incomes for BMR. And that clearly shows your assumption that BMR's only go to moderate income people is WRONG, they can also go to very low and low income households. So there goes your whole agrument against BMR's
Quote:
Since this thread is about public housing projects, the example you cited really doesn't apply. Nice try though.
No it's not, it's about low-income housing which is not necessarily a stand alone "project". You keep assuming way too much here.

Quote:
You did not read the entire General Plan did you?

At least:

10% of housing is given to very low income folks, the very people you said will not be given housing.
10% of housing is given to seniors (this group often overlaps with very low income people)
10% of housing is given to middle income with disability.
20% of housing is given to low income folks.

That leaves at least 50% of housing left to be freely allocated according to the housing authority. This can (and often does) go to the very low income (including seniors and disabled). This is why a lof of housing projects end up with 50% to 70% of people who are very low income.
Well apparently I read it closer than you since you're assumption that BMR only applies to moderate incomes is wrong.

Again, you just keep making assumptions here and that's you have been doing and many of them are just wrong. You haven't provided any stats for a comparable city like Danville or in this immediate area so save your Oakland and SF examples as they aren't applicable at all.

Quote:
Maybe you should ask the housing authority this question. They're the one who put in the General Plan that parts of housing MUST go to the very-low-income. Maybe they can better explain this to you than I can. And God knows I tried.
It was a rhetorical question because I already know the answer. Unfortuntely you don't. The answer: THEY DON'T QUALIFY!
 
Old 12-03-2012, 07:50 PM
 
1,761 posts, read 1,233,354 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
I stopped talking about it a while ago but YOU keep talking about it and pretending it's the only segment of the affordable housing population I am referring to, which is clearly wrong.
No, you didn't. You kept bringing it up. And you bring it up again in this post (see bottom).


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Or you can go to any other city in the Bay Area except probably SF and find people with that income owning a car, not sure why you think people who live in WC, Concord, Hayward, etc..wouldn't own a car if they make $45k a year.
I'm not sure if you are being serious because it is bordering on comical. How in the world did you get the impression that I even implied that people who live in WC wouldn't own a car if they make $45k? This is beyond ridiculous, this having to explain simple language to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Well clearly according to standards for low-income HOUSING many will HAVE to make that much in order to qualify.
Right.... 20%. You're treating it like 100%.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Trust me she isn't making $45K a year at her position, it's a low paying service job.
Really? I'm shocked. I thought you said people like her won't qualify for low-income housing!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Also maybe you should read the General Plan a little closer because I guess you missed this part:

"All BMR units shall be sold or rented as affordable units for occupancy only by very low, low or moderate income households. "
There you go again, bringing up BMR. You repeatedly resort to BMR and then you say you stopped talking about BMR.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post

So people with VERY-LOW INCOMES can be held to the same scrutiny as those with moderate incomes for BMR. And that clearly shows your assumption that BMR's only go to moderate income people is WRONG, they can also go to very low and low income households. So there goes your whole agrument against BMR's
I repeatedly said BMR is for low to moderate income folks. You keep imagining stuff and claim I said them. Here's a hint: if I didn't say it, don't assume I meant it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
No it's not, it's about low-income housing which is not necessarily a stand alone "project". You keep assuming way too much here.

Well apparently I read it closer than you since you're assumption that BMR only applies to moderate incomes is wrong.

Again, you just keep making assumptions here and that's you have been doing and many of them are just wrong. You haven't provided any stats for a comparable city like Danville or in this immediate area so save your Oakland and SF examples as they aren't applicable at all.
LOL. You are the last person who should be asking people for stats. You who provided absolutely no stats, no facts to support your claim whatsoever repeated asked me to provide stats when I've already done it. It's fine if you say SF and Oakland don't apply to Danville, but you also have to provide something (facts, stats, etc) to support why you say that. Basically your whole argument is that it's true because you said so. Yeah.




Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
It was a rhetorical question because I already know the answer. Unfortuntely you don't. The answer: THEY DON'T QUALIFY!
But they do qualify. Said so right there in the General Plan. Some of the things you say is really really strange.
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. The time now is 02:43 AM.

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