Posted on 03/20/2007 12:38:22 AM PDT by Lorianne
Next time you sit down to write your monthly mortgage or rent check, consider this: In Santa Barbara, about 90 miles northwest of Los Angeles, a public-private partnership is planning to build a subsidized-housing development for some families earning as much as $177,000.
“It does sound unusual,” admitted Rob Pearson, the executive director of the city’s Housing Authority, which helped broker the deal for the development, to be called Los Portales. “But Santa Barbara is getting Gucci-fied. If we don’t do something, we’ll lose our middle class.”
The problem seems to be a matter of supply and demand, made worse by geography and public policy. With its stunning location, vibrant cultural scene and proximity to Los Angeles, Santa Barbara is a hot place to live. But the city is confined by the Pacific Ocean and the Santa Ynez Mountains, and strict zoning means that its 17 square miles are legally almost built out. The nearest affordable town is some 30 miles away.
City officials say they’ve worked to provide affordable homes for lower-income residents; about 12 percent of local housing stock falls into this category, much of it subsidized with public money. But with the average median home price in the Santa Barbara area hovering around $1.2 million, many well-employed citizens are finding it tough to buy a home.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If it's becoming too expensive, maybe they should move out. On second thought, I think we'll rather have them stay just where they are, in sunny 'old California.
[...] strict zoning means that its 17 square miles are legally almost built out.
Actually, it says "no taxpayer dollars will be used". So,
I don't see a problem...
our tax dollars at 'work'
.
They have contradictory statements.
They also say this:
"much of it subsidized with public money."
Where does public money come from, if not from taxpayers?
A family income of $177,000. is not "rich".
A family income of $177,000. is not "rich".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Probably not, but it is about equal to what was projected as the lifetime earnings of a high school graduate of my era. Ain't inflation wonderful?
My wife and I together make less than that by quite a bit and I still wouldn't consider that even close to rich. We all better be careful about allowing government or anyone else to put a specific number on "rich".
The government's definition of a rich person: Anyone who draws a paycheck.
My friend once told me that the gov't should pay for health care. I asked him how much jail time I should get if I refused to pay his or any others health care. I told him that if he needed help just ask me.
That said he also was pissed at how much money the people who won the lottery were getting and that it should only be 1 million and the rest should go to the government.
He makes a decent living but he's the type of guy who can be swayed by the evil Dems.
Carolyn
Yeah, his parents bought a worthless piece of property on Orcas island 20 years ago that is probably worth a million bucks today and he can't grasp that the people he supports would demonize his parents and pit those like him against them. Other than the property the are very middle class. Hell he even bought a 125,000 dollar home that is now probably worth 300,000 but he can't comprehend those kind of things.
You can SEE from the article it's NOT for the RICH!
If we don’t do something, we’ll lose our middle class.”
>>>A family income of $177,000. is not "rich".
It would place that household in the top 5% of household income nationwide. In 2005, the lower limit on the top 5% was $166,000.
Multi story, downtown condo project replacing business buildings. 60+ units. 8 available for the middle class lottery. 400 locals qualified for lottery.
Lucky winner gets $1.5M, 2 bedroom, condo for $750K. City of SB has first right of refusal on resale at a price they dictate.
Developer gave up excess profit on 8 units in return for redevelopment permit. City and County of Santa Barbara give up higher taxes on 8 units.
Good point, I missed that about "public money". Sloppy
reading (by me) and sloppy reporting (by the reporter).
Indeed, what does it mean?
Uh, the whole point of the lottery payout is that the gov't gets far more from the lottery tickets (plus, winnings are taxable, and I think many people are either greedy or not savvy enough and want a lump sum payout where the taxes go much higher). That's kind of a silly argument.
Yeah, but you're splitting hairs, I'd say. It's still far more than your regular Joe makes. In most of the country, that kind of money is more than TRIPLE the average household income. Even in much of california, it's more than double the average.
There ought to be subsidized housing projects in Santa Barbara. Ought to have housing projects for welfare recipients of the type these smug people have been foisting on others for decades. Build a Cabrini-Green on the beaches of Malibu so the residents, chicken hawks so far in the "Civil Rights struggle", can start to bear some of their fair share of the burden.
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.