Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HOME DEVELOPERS SUE COUNTY (BECAUSE OF "AFFORDABILITY" PLAN FOR LOW-INCOME - SACRAMENTO)
Sacramento Bee ^ | 9 Mar 2005 | Cameron Jahn

Posted on 03/11/2005 7:42:58 AM PST by RogerWilko

Two months after Sacramento County enacted one of the nation's most aggressive affordable housing policies, the Building Industry Association of Superior California filed Monday to scrap the plan, calling it an unfair and unnecessary tax on developers that would drive up housing prices. During the two years county officials spent drafting a plan to provide housing for the poor, building industry officials resisted the plan and tried to loosen its stringent requirements.

Affordability plan for low-income residents is called unfair tax that hurts others.

The building industry's suit filed in Sacramento Superior Court reiterates those same arguments.

"Is it fair to ask someone, because they are purchasing a home, to pay more so that someone else can buy the same home at a drastically reduced price just because they make less money?" asked Dennis Rogers, the association's senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy. "We don't ask Raley's to sell their products at below cost and charge more to everyone else."

(Excerpt) Read more at 216.239.57.104 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: builders; developers; homes; housing; lowincome; middleclass; poor; propertyrights; realestate; sacramento; tax; unfair
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
This is a bunch of garbage, IMO! I'll bet none of the supervisors who voted for this "fair" housing deal for the poor will not have any poor housing in their neighborhoods!

A family of 3 with an annual income of $17,300 or less can qualify to buy a home for around $75,000 that will cost others that probably need an income of $80,000 to $100,000 per year to buy the same house, in the same neighborhood!

Yeah, that's really fair... You pay $300,000-400,000 for a home, while someone who won't even be able to come anywhere near what's needed to even upkeep the place gets to buy it for 1/4 of the price or less! Everyone else gets to pick up the slack on the lost income to the builders by paying more for their homes! Man, I sure love fairness!

People work for years to get into a decent neighborhood and now they just want to practically give homes away to people that can't afford them in the first place. I sure hope the builders win this suit... Socialism is SUCH a great thing!

Hey... Wait a minute... I've got an idea! My wife an I will quit our jobs, get part-time minimum wage jobs, qualify for a new $75,000 home, then get re-employed after we secure the home! YEAH!!

Then we'll have a $300-400,000 home with small house payments and low property tax because of Prop 13 (Can't raise your property tax more than 2% a year from purchase price!)

I knew their had to be a silver lining to this!

Here's another article on it:

CAN'T WE BE FAIR TO EVERYONE!!

1 posted on 03/11/2005 7:42:59 AM PST by RogerWilko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko
Can't afford a house in Sacto County...Move to Broderick.
That's what my Dad did back in 70.

Policies like this just backfire on everyone ..
2 posted on 03/11/2005 7:48:02 AM PST by FlatLandBeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko
I'll bet none of the supervisors who voted for this "fair" housing deal for the poor will not have any poor housing in their neighborhoods!

This happened to us many years ago. The people who moved to their "affordable" houses never took care of them like the rest of the neighborhood (uncut grass, broke down cars etc.) Glad we got out of there when we did.

3 posted on 03/11/2005 7:48:24 AM PST by ladtx ( "Remember your regiment and follow your officers." Captain Charles May, 2d Dragoons, 9 May 1846)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko
NJ has long had this type of law.

How in the world it is constitutional is beyond me.

4 posted on 03/11/2005 7:50:08 AM PST by OldFriend (America's glory is not dominion, but liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko
How the "affordable housing" scam is hurting many small towns
5 posted on 03/11/2005 7:50:36 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlatLandBeer

Didn't you know that owning a home is a Constitutional right? (just like healthcare). *snicker*


6 posted on 03/11/2005 7:51:57 AM PST by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko
"We don't ask Raley's to sell their products at below cost and charge more to everyone else."

Not yet, not yet.

7 posted on 03/11/2005 7:52:32 AM PST by steveo (Member: Fathers Against Rude Television)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko

This same dilemma was struck down in Arlington Co. Va. It was ruled unconstitutional to require developers to provide low-income housing in a very expensive county. If you can't afford an area, better look elsewhere for a home. Hell, just because I want to live in Beverly Hills doesn't mean I'm entitled to!


8 posted on 03/11/2005 7:55:32 AM PST by LittleSpotBlog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I sure hope the builders win their suit, this kind of crap pisses me off! There's probably a good reason why a family of 3 is only making $17,300 or less per year, and I'm betting a good reason is they've probably made a lot of bad choices in their lives! I'll also bet that a LARGE majority of them probably have a VERY low threshold of responsibility and that's probably why they're in the position they're in, in the first place!

If this goes thru, I'd definitely make sure the neighborhood I was buying into didn't have any of this fair housing going on! Thank goodness our neighborhood is already completed with all the homes sold!

9 posted on 03/11/2005 7:55:32 AM PST by RogerWilko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko

Someone needs to post these supervisor's addresses. If I were a developer, I'd give each one a crackhouse for a neighbor.


10 posted on 03/11/2005 7:55:58 AM PST by FreeInWV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko

It goes well beyond the price of the home. It is doubtful that the poor will be expected to pay the same property tax rate, even though they have the same house as a middle class owner. Since the poor will be sending their kids to the schools, using the highways, depending on the fire and police services, I expect that gov't costs will rise rather sharply. This will neccessitate a rise in taxes. Paid by who? The middle class homeowner. A Liberal's Wet Dream!!!


11 posted on 03/11/2005 7:57:25 AM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko

I wonder if these same "low income" families can afford the property taxes?

Heck, why not just give everyone a Mercedes Benz or BMW and raise the minimum wage to $30 per hour!


12 posted on 03/11/2005 7:57:35 AM PST by CSM (Currently accepting applications for the position of stay at home mom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV

I'd love to hear the screaming from these supervisors if one of these "fair" homes were built right next door to them! I'm sure they'd be ALL for it! Uh huh... DEFINITELY!!


13 posted on 03/11/2005 7:58:34 AM PST by RogerWilko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko
In NJ there were many many lawsuits and the Courts punished the builders every step of the way. Each time they forced the developer to add more affordable houses to the mix.

The Courts have run amok!

14 posted on 03/11/2005 7:59:24 AM PST by OldFriend (America's glory is not dominion, but liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: steveo

National Headline: Wal-Mart will be the first retailer required to sell goods under the government's new "social justice in retailing" policy. Low-income customers can receive their SJ discount by checking out through specially marked register lines.


15 posted on 03/11/2005 8:00:06 AM PST by turnrightnow (keeper's mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko

I lived in an area where the projects were torn down and Section 8 Housing was mandated. These morons devalued property and made neighborhoods worse.


16 posted on 03/11/2005 8:02:50 AM PST by American Vet Repairman (To hell with the prime directive! Fire all weapons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM
They'd probably only have to pay property tax on the $75,000 because of Proposition 13, which I think might be around $800-$1000 a year I'm guessing. BUT... If they're only making $17,300 or less, there's NO WAY they could probably even pay that!

Also, your taxes can't be raised more than 2% a year, I believe, because of Prop 13. Other people moving into the same neighborhood would have to pay $300-400,000 for the same home and get property taxes of $3000-4000 a year!

17 posted on 03/11/2005 8:02:55 AM PST by RogerWilko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

[Hell, just because I want to live in Beverly Hills doesn't mean I'm entitled to!]

You WANT to live in Beverly Hills?


18 posted on 03/11/2005 8:03:56 AM PST by turnrightnow (keeper's mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko
I will give you a very recent example of how this scam works. A developer in Southern California presented a plan to the local Planning Commission for about 50 homes in the $200-$250K range. The Planning commission demanded that 5 of these homes be set aside for "the poor". The developer went ahead with the project and completed the development while he negotiated the details with the Planning Commission and the city bureaucrats. In the end, the city "allowed" him to buy his way out the "homes for the poor" deal with the simple expedient of paying a sum of $1,000,000 to the city.

The net result: $20,000 increase in the cost of each house to pay an upfront tax to the city. No tax increase required. You just lay out some planning rules and extort the money. That is government California-style.

19 posted on 03/11/2005 8:04:26 AM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
They should probably find some really nice liberal neighborhoods to build these "fairly" priced homes for the poor. I KNOW that they would ALL be in favor of this, because they care so deeply for the down-trodden that they will do anything they can to help them.

DAMN, now I have to clean my keyboard off from laughing so hard!

20 posted on 03/11/2005 8:11:58 AM PST by RogerWilko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson