Comments on: Market, Not Govt., Builds Cheaper Housing

By: Scott Zwartz

Scott Zwartz — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:26:33 +0000

In L.A. County, the County Bd of Supervisors showed that the CRA/LA tore down far more Affordable Housing than it build leaving the middle and low class worse off.

As the W Hotel condos showed, the developers ended up building luxury which no one wanted. The fools who built the W Hotel condos actually believed that people would give up their cars because the W was on top of the subway. That was a stupid multi-million dollar mistake. What make it particularly stupid was the the CRA Hollywood-Highland had already lost $454 Million by making that same error.

By: Marko Mlikotin

Marko Mlikotin — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:14:06 +0000

This article raises an important point worth watching as Senator Steinberg writes legislation to reconstitute redevelopment agencies, but limiting their activities to “low incoming” housing. What constitutes a “low income” housing project?

Redevelopment agencies have received state and federal grants to build low income housing. However, it is not uncommon for them to acquired property by eminent domain with a substantial portion of the property including retail and market based housing too. This, of course, is where politically favored developers make their money and cities generate sales tax. In Rancho Cordova the price per door for one “low incoming” housing complex cost taxpayers approximately $500,000 per a door. This is a community with home values in the low $200,000s and a very high inventory of vacant housing. So, was this a good use of taxpayer dollars?

Marko Mlikotin – California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights
http://www.CalPropertyRights.com

By: Marilynne L. Mellander

Marilynne L. Mellander — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:15:44 +0000

“Affordable housing” are exempt from CEQA regs http://www.pclfoundation.org/publications/ceqaguidelines/Article-12.5.html#sec15196
which abnormally drive up the costs of non-government building projects

By: Brad

Brad — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 04:06:08 +0000

Your math in the sixth paragraph is faulty. A zero-down-payment mortgage would require PMI ($100ish/mo), and a mortgage of whatever type would also require insurance (at least $100/mo) and property tax ($200ish/mo), putting that house well over affordable. Also, can you really get a zero-down loan these days?

But yes, the only way to actually build enough affordable housing is to build more housing.

By: LGMike

LGMike — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:21:27 +0000

With a few exceptions, I would bet “affordable housing” costs more than the 30% level mentioned in article. If you look at the “affordable” building in San Diego, the market rates are extremely high, it only becomes affordable because the government is paying in some cases 60-70 % of the rent so that the people moving in don’t pay over the 30 % housing criteria. Not to mention, the donations that most of the developers give to be rewarded for building affordable units. WHAT A JOKE, real affordability in housing comes from letting the market build and see what they can sell to real persons wanting a home, not an investor trying to “turn” for a quick profit.