Who are the real thieves and abusers? (Sacramento, Citrus Heights: sales, rental)

[Chimérique]

Here’s another thing to ponder.

There is at least one brand new residential development downtown that is 100% market rate in midtown/downtown - Lagado de Ravel - and its really pricey. So if all those other new developments that our 60% low income or more offered more market rate options, then the prices for the non-subsidized units might be more reasonable.

[things and stuff]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Here’s another thing to ponder.

There is at least one brand new residential development downtown that is 100% market rate in midtown/downtown - Lagado de Ravel - and its really pricey. So if all those other new developments that our 60% low income or more offered more market rate options, then the prices for the non-subsidized units might be more reasonable.

Yep. To make matters worse, the middle class folks are having their tax dollars spent on these affordable housing projects and the real winners are the politically connected, rich developers, wall street bond insurers, and housing corporations.

[wburg]

Rivermark, Bridge District, West Sacramento. 70 units, 100% affordable housing.

Rivermark Breaks Ground in West Sacramento's Bridge District | BRIDGE Housing

West Capitol Courtyard II, recently completed 50 unit 100% low income housing apartment building on West Capitol. Margaret McDowell Manor, 87 senior housing units, all affordable to very low income seniors.

City of West Sacramento - Accomplishments

So that's 207 units of low income housing in downtown/riverfront West Sacramento, just recently completed.

"The Redevelopment Agency has facilitated the development of over 1,300 affordable housing units in West Sacramento, and brought thousands of jobs to the community," points out West Sac Mayor Christopher Cabaldon..

Cabaldon: Loss of redevelopment $$$ would 'devastate' West Sacramento | Life | West Sacramento News

The city of West Sacramento requires that 10% of ALL development in the entire city be affordable/inclusionary housing. City of West Sacramento - Inclusionary Housing Information

Sounds like a whole lot of negative NIMBY naysaying going on here. Maybe y'all should take a look at Natomas, or maybe Roseville. West Sacramento, like midtown Sacramento, isn't all scared of the poors the way you cats are.

[things and stuff]

Sounds like the core of Sacramento does not have a bright future ahead of it. Way too much focus on trying to turn downtown into a low-income area. These buildings will not be new and shiny forever nor will they necessarily be remodeled and kept up-to-date as time goes on or as wear, tear, and damage is done.

You're basically telling professionals in the downtown area making $40k to $60k to go screw themselves and flee to the burbs. The developers and bankers will make a lot of money off our tax dollars, though.

edit: West Capitol Park II was built in the 90's. It's only 50 units but was a low-income development. Is that considered to be a good building to live in today?

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by wburg

Rivermark, Bridge District, West Sacramento. 70 units, 100% affordable housing.

Rivermark Breaks Ground in West Sacramento's Bridge District | BRIDGE Housing

West Capitol Courtyard II, recently completed 50 unit 100% low income housing apartment building on West Capitol. Margaret McDowell Manor, 87 senior housing units, all affordable to very low income seniors.

City of West Sacramento - Accomplishments

So that's 207 units of low income housing in downtown/riverfront West Sacramento, just recently completed.

Cabaldon: Loss of redevelopment $$$ would 'devastate' West Sacramento | Life | West Sacramento News

The city of West Sacramento requires that 10% of ALL development in the entire city be affordable/inclusionary housing. City of West Sacramento - Inclusionary Housing Information

Sounds like a whole lot of negative NIMBY naysaying going on here. Maybe y'all should take a look at Natomas, or maybe Roseville. West Sacramento, like midtown Sacramento, isn't all scared of the poors the way you cats are.

It's called theft and extortion, and now you are being arrogant about it too.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

It's called theft and extortion, and now you are being arrogant about it too.

You mean like threatening to move the Kings to another city unless the city borrows hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for a new arena? Glad to see you're coming around.

[bluevelo]

Originally Posted by CeJeH

And yes, of course there are young families moving to the Grid. A lot of people work down there and there is some nice housing stock nearby, plus people like being close to amenities.

However, the majority of people that are buyin in that 250k+ range are not going to the Grid. The Sacramento region has somewhere in the range of 2.3-2.5 million people depending on who you ask. 500,000 of them live in Sacramento, and about 30,000 of them live on the grid. That means there are approximately a ****load of people that are moving to the suburbs, and buying houses on quiet streets in sleepy neighborhoods in places like Elk Grove, Roseville, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, etc etc. Why are they doing this? Because many of those people don't want to worry about the drawbacks of living in a neighborhood where the building around the corner is subsidized for people making $20,000 a year of less and attracts negative attention to their neighborhood. Not to mention traffic and crime and all of those other wonderful things that people in the suburbs get scared of.

And please don't include me in the suburb folk, I love the Grid. I'm just pointing out the fact that we're not giving people that have bad vibes about the grid much reason to change their minds by creating neighborhoods where the majority of visitors from the suburbs go that just happen to be 75% below market rate housing.

Great post.

Part of what hasn't been discussed here are the California state laws requiring all jurisdictions to include a certain amount of "affordable" housing in their land use plans.

The one wildcard in all of this is the rising price of gas. Not all jobs are in the burbs here, and there's a lot of employment in the core... eventually when gas is hitting $6-$8 a gallon, even with penetration of hybrid, all-electric and fuel cell cars into the market, its eventually going to get too expensive for a lot of middle class people to afford to have a car to drive... and perhaps the market failures will correct themselves in one way or another.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Here’s another thing to ponder.

There is at least one brand new residential development downtown that is 100% market rate in midtown/downtown - Lagado de Ravel - and its really pricey. So if all those other new developments that our 60% low income or more offered more market rate options, then the prices for the non-subsidized units might be more reasonable.

It's not any pricier than J Lofts, slightly more than the Fremont Building. Also for further pondering, Legado de Ravel has 25% of its units that are considered "affordable" housing and it did this without any welfare being needed. Given, it's deemed affordable for those of "moderate income," which is exactly the same income bracket the housing coalitions want the majority of the blackmail money to go to.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by bluevelo

Great post.

Part of what hasn't been discussed here are the California state laws requiring all jurisdictions to include a certain amount of "affordable" housing in their land use plans.

The one wildcard in all of this is the rising price of gas. Not all jobs are in the burbs here, and there's a lot of employment in the core... eventually when gas is hitting $6-$8 a gallon, even with penetration of hybrid, all-electric and fuel cell cars into the market, its eventually going to get too expensive for a lot of middle class people to afford to have a car to drive... and perhaps the market failures will correct themselves in one way or another.

Gas is $6-8 in much of the world. The middle-class still drives. They just drive more efficient vehicles and don't drive quite as many miles as the average American, mostly the more efficient vehicles bit. Moving from a Tahoe to a Prius, gas could be $8-10 and you'd still save money. I still see a lot of Tahoes, not all of them driven by people with high incomes. You'd probably see some shifts towards transit, but they'd be marginal changes. America is more spread out than Europe which will always favor the automobile, build environment does not change quickly, not much transit infrastructure since transit isn't much used here and the costs aren't justifiable which means lots of catching up.

Anyway, we've got huge supplies of natural gas. No big deal to switch to natural gas if gasoline gets that expensive. A lot of fleets already are. Vehicles are a bit more expensive with a bit less range and there's no retail supply infrastructure, but those problems are small in comparison to finding hundreds of billions of dollars for transit infrastructure and then hundreds of millions to pay for people to ride inefficient transit.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Malloric

It's not any pricier than J Lofts, slightly more than the Fremont Building. Also for further pondering, Legado de Ravel has 25% of its units that are considered "affordable" housing and it did this without any welfare being needed. Given, it's deemed affordable for those of "moderate income," which is exactly the same income bracket the housing coalitions want the majority of the blackmail money to go to.

Can you explain how "no welfare" was needed? Explain your last sentence, doesn't make sense to me.