Blogging Bayport Alameda

October 11, 2016

Million dollar loan

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

Oh look another opportunity for some of the “oh we don’t need market rate housing to subsidize affordable housing” crowd to understand the basics of how affordable housing units are actually funded these days.

So remember that $10 million being dangled by Jennifer Roloff as though that were sufficient in and of itself?

The City Council has an agenda item next week that discusses a loan for the Del Monte Senior Housing project.  The project:

The Del Monte Senior Apartments, a 31-unit, 100% affordable, senior housing development. The unit mix includes thirty (30) one-bedroom apartments, and one (1) two-bedroom manager’s apartment. Property amenities include community garden space, a multi-purpose community room and central laundry facilities. The apartments will serve senior households with incomes up to 60% of the Area Median Income, with most households at or below 50% of median income.

The cost of the entire project? About $15 million.

The total development budget for Del Monte Senior Apartments is approximately $15 million. The Master Developer (Tim Lewis Communities) will contribute $3.6 million to AHA as a part of the overall development agreement. The AHA will lend the funds to the project for 55 years as a residual receipts loan. Additional funding includes conventional financing and equity raised through 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Staff is requesting approval of a $248,740 HOME loan to complete the project funding.

Yes, it would consume the whole of the funds that have not yet been committed to Alameda because no one has actually voted on that housing bond yet.  But yet we still have candidates and her supporters that still want to say “low income housing only but I don’t have a meaningful way of actually paying for these units.”

Seriously, discussions like this should be required watching for all City Council candidates.  There will be a quiz afterward.

Advertisements

41 Comments »

  1. My vote is only going to folks who have a strong grasp on the realities of our housing crisis and will think big to find ways to spread out our concentrated job market to other parts of the state, increase transit, and yes build more housing at every price point from very low income to market rate.

    Comment by Angela — October 11, 2016 @ 7:48 am

  2. spread out our concentrated job market to other parts of the state

    ————————

    Has any politician from dog catcher on up EVER campaigned on a “send our jobs to another jurisdiction” platform?

    Comment by Ambrose Bierce — October 11, 2016 @ 8:02 am

  3. “Roloff and Daysog” was, by far, the overheard consensus at the Park St. car show..

    Comment by jack — October 11, 2016 @ 9:06 am

    • Kind of predicable.

      Comment by BC — October 11, 2016 @ 10:49 am

  4. It ain’t campaigning against jobs when we have an overabundance of them, a serious housing shortage, an insufficient mass transit system and a population who steadfastly refuses to build the housing our region needs. We actually do have some parts of our state that are lacking in jobs. What? We should just do nothing about this housing shortage and encourage our young folks to work 40 hour weeks and still live in cars? For all of our liberal back patting about how progressive we are, the thoughtlessness about our local needs astounds me.

    Comment by Angela — October 11, 2016 @ 9:43 am

  5. I’m always amused with the idea of trying to force people to move to the central valley. It always comes from people with “traffic” as a top concern and who want lots of open space. In other words, the very people who should be moving to the central valley themselves.

    I know it’s unfashionable to be “America Fuck Yeah!”, but here goes: in America, the government doesn’t tell us where to live.

    Comment by brock — October 11, 2016 @ 10:03 am

  6. In other words, the very people who should be moving to the central valley themselves.

    —————

    BINGO

    Comment by dave — October 11, 2016 @ 10:06 am

  7. Meanwhile, back at the Mom and Pop Stand: “So tired of the phrase Mom and Pop landlord being thrown in our faces, as renters. Who are these people? The only landlords I had in Alameda were 3 different members of the lucky sperm club who inherited property when a parent died and were in the process of parlaying that into a mini real estate empire. I love it when they cry poor as they drive up in their new cars on their way to another trip to the wine country or Carmel to tour an appraiser through your rental. They were refinancing the rentals we were renting to buy another piece of rental property. In all they had between 3 and 10 rental units each. Then they turn around and raise our rent almost $200 a month because they claim property taxes went up. It was always about leveraging one property’s equity to buy another. It was all on the backs of tenants. How could the public not understand why renters are fed up?” – former Alameda Resident, displaced.

    Comment by Gabrielle "Gaby" Dolphin — October 11, 2016 @ 10:14 am

    • Moved to the central valley?

      Comment by jack — October 11, 2016 @ 11:07 am

    • As a Mom and Pop “Mom”, I would like to tell our story. My husband worked two jobs for many years – one being the fixer upper of a Victorian Fourplex, the remt from which planned to help us with our retirement income. I can not begin to figure out how much money we invested in building supplies and appliances, not to mention contractors to do the renovation projects that my husband could not. We could have invested that money in other ways to give us the income needed to augment social security. Now all four untis are rented but one recently took 4 months being vacant before it was finally leased. (Shortage of rentals available in Alameda? – I think not.) Two of the four units are way below market rates because we do not gouge our long term tenants who have proven themselves responsible. I firmly believe our story is very similar to many Alameda Mom and Pop landlords as I have heard of many.

      Comment by Nancy Hird — October 11, 2016 @ 4:11 pm

      • “I can not begin to figure out how much money we invested in building supplies and appliances, not to mention contractors to do the renovation projects that my husband could not.”

        Seriously? You consider it one of your husbands job to fix up a house and you literally cannot figure out the BASIC COSTS to keep him “in business”? I hope to GOD your story is not “similar to many Alameda Mom and Pop landlords” because it shows a complete lack of business sense.

        Comment by Rodney — October 11, 2016 @ 5:25 pm

        • Some of these “mom and pops” aren’t as “mom and pop”-py as they claim. A look at property ownership records shows some that claim to own only one rental property here in Alameda, but if you dig a little, you can find that they actually own more than one rental property…each one under a different permutation of both their names.

          EXAMPLE: The couple who kicked my friend, his wife, and their five year old girl out of their house for “owner move-in” (that wasn’t real…they haven’t “moved in”…they live out of state!) a little over a year ago.

          If you look through the property ownership records, you will find they own the house they kicked my friends out of under one of their names. But they also own two more properties in Alameda under other different combinations of their two names (hyphenated last names, using either of their first names, etc.), making it look like each property is effectively “owned” by a different person.

          So frankly, my “sympathy” for these people is nil. They kicked my friends out solely for the greed factor, and have had unlicensed out-of-state contractors working on that house, and they have definitely NOT “owner move-in”‘d at all. They’ve made a “show” of being here for a couple of months, but they have definitely not “moved in” at all…they still live out of state, and it’s been over a year since my friends were “landlorded.” The rest of the folks on that block regularly report back to my buddy about it…they detest these people and wish my friends were back in that house…my friends were well-loved on that block and are sorely missed. The two reptiles that own the house? Not so much.

          A little more research shows that besides owning two more properties here than they claim to, these people also own rental property in two other states, as well as a mansion. These people are not hurting in any way. And yet they used the 60-day-notice to get rid of my friend and his family, causing them GREAT financial, emotional and physical hardship. They are STILL attempting to recover from it. The stress that this put on them nearly put my friend in the hospital. Meanwhile, the house they were kicked to the curb from remains mostly empty.

          To my mind, THESE type of “mom and pops” are the scum that M1 will target, and I hope they get what is coming to them. It makes me want to pore over ALL the property ownership records in Alameda with a magnifying glass and see just how many of these “long suffering mom and pops” are really just dishonest, greedy pigs trying to circumvent city rules on rental property. And in doing so, they are destroying the very fabric of this community.

          Comment by StopTheGreed — October 11, 2016 @ 5:51 pm

        • If it was over a year ago, then it sounds like it was before the City enacted eviction controls in November ’15. The landlord may have claimed owner move in, but at that time it probably would have been superfluous.

          Comment by MP — October 11, 2016 @ 6:59 pm

  8. I’m not saying everyone should move to the central valley, but I am saying that there are opportunities outside of the Bay Area to build innovative housing and transit paired with jobs if some companies were willing to take that risk. I’m sure that there would be people open to moving if there were jobs, energy efficient houses, personal rapid transit, and a well designed downtown close to a university.

    Comment by Angela — October 11, 2016 @ 10:15 am

    • So your saying people should spread out and not feel entitled to only live in Alameda? Now go to the mirror and say ” Angela , you have a fiscal responsibility to make sound decisions for your children , let’s move to a community where my kids are safe, and we can afford to have our own home. Maybe start saving for my own old age so I don’t burden my children .”

      This is what most people who scraped a few dollars did to buy an income property. They sacrificed today’s lifestyle for tomorrow . They sacrificed and then they scraped and then they sacrificed some more. In 10 years you will ha e all the same troubles you have now, but you will be 10 years older and more entitled.

      Comment by Ted — October 11, 2016 @ 10:55 am

      • Thank you for all of your assumptions about my life, which you use to intimidate me. Fuck off.

        Comment by Angela — October 11, 2016 @ 4:27 pm

        • Haha. Angela, you are the epitome of NIMBYism. You are literally what is wrong with the bay area. Consider, for half a god damn second, that your needs aren’t superior to anyone elses and that perhaps, just perhaps, you are a fucking entitled child.

          Comment by Rodney — October 11, 2016 @ 5:28 pm

        • That’s the double truth Ruth ! These are the ideologies we grew up with , no one ever said I was entitled to anything except the ability to better myself . I tell you to move to an area you can actually afford and save for the future and what’s your response? This is Alameda, I know everything about you.

          Comment by Teddy The tRuth — October 11, 2016 @ 6:16 pm

        • Angela,

          Blogging about knitting did not afford you the lifestyle you wanted in the most expensive real estate market in the country ??? That’s so hard to believe 😂😂😂😂😂😂

          Comment by Teddy McTruth — October 11, 2016 @ 6:23 pm

        • Hey Ted – are you a native Alamedan? I have a question.

          Comment by brock — October 11, 2016 @ 6:41 pm

        • Please ask your question ? Or if that was your question please define ” native “.

          Comment by Teddy McTruthy — October 11, 2016 @ 8:13 pm

        • I’ll take that as a “yes”. So here’s my question:

          When your parents die and you inherit their house, which seems to be the birthright of all True Alamedans (TM), do you immediately move into the master bedroom that day? Or is there a customary waiting period?

          I’m assuming you change the sheets, right?

          Just curious about the protocol.

          Comment by brock — October 11, 2016 @ 8:55 pm

        • The protocol is that those of us who are able bodied and have no deficits were taught to work hard, live within your means and sacrifice when your young do that you may God Willing live a comfortable life as you age . You don’t spend time wondering if the neighbor changed the sheets after their parents died. You don’t feel entitled , but rather blessed to be door under by so much oppurtunity . You then know you have reached true wealth when you start helping others. Just because you may have less does not make you rituous . You want $18,000 buy outs , but I’m the greedy one. You want to sublease at a higher rate , but I’m the greedy one, you want to have what I worked for but I’m the greedy one. Get OFF your computer and get to work. Success does not spontaneously happen you self loathing lazy fuck. Get off your ass. Think about the images that who has not reached America yet. He does not speak English , but within 5 years he will surpass you.

          I’m not successful because my lazy daddy did not leave me anything and everyone else got an inheritance , is that the mantra that allows you to sleep at night?

          Comment by Teddy don't play — October 11, 2016 @ 9:17 pm

        • Is your name Brock or Broke ? 😜

          Comment by Teddy — October 11, 2016 @ 9:19 pm

        • You clearly didn’t get to your awesome level of material success through academic achievement. So were you hardworking and thrifty enough to inherit your house? Your mangled sentence doesn’t actually answer the question.

          Comment by BC — October 12, 2016 @ 9:58 am

        • No BC, I inherited zero, nothing except the memory of a great parent. When the phone autocorrects , I sometimes don’t care enough to correct. As far as education and experience ,I posses enough to understand that you are emotionally vested in this conversation so applying logic is useless.

          Attack and Class warfare is all you try to do . I more then likely have more then you, so what? I hope you become a millionaire . The difference between your side and my side is we don’t actually spend time thinking about you not deserving any success . I also understand my writing on these message boards you feel empowered. It’s not real power. You’re an expert on everything yet you have nothing , why?

          Comment by Teddy the man — October 12, 2016 @ 1:27 pm

        • I am neither a landlord nor a tenant.

          Keep attending those Rich Dad, Poor Dad seminars.

          Comment by BC — October 12, 2016 @ 2:09 pm

  9. Apple has been the Central Valley – Elk Grove — for a long time. They probably went there for their own reasons rather than by mandate. They may have taken advantage of some local incentives, I don’t know, but their own reasons for going opening a facility there were probably quite strong by themselves. I have a friend who works there. Good job.

    Comment by MP — October 11, 2016 @ 12:58 pm

  10. There is something happening in the Central Valley, in Sacramento: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/city-beat/article57200158.html However I definitely would like some of these jobs to stay here. Article in today’s Chronicle about RVs in Mountain View shows you exactly what the problem is– everyone wants the jobs, no one wants to build housing: http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Battle-over-RVs-in-Mountain-View-is-latest-sign-9961268.php?ipid=gsa-sfgate-result .

    Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 11, 2016 @ 5:46 pm

  11. Kevis, you think Sacramento maybe a bit of an anomaly for the Valley ? It is the seat of state government . Convenient for lobbyists. I’m glad that tech jobs exist out side the Bay Area but there is not likely to be a huge shift.

    Comment by MI — October 11, 2016 @ 8:23 pm

  12. Five years married, with a four year old kid, we purchased our home in Alameda in 1973 in partnership with my bachelor brother. It was a two flat, 3 bedrooms, 1 bath each 1877 derelict house. It needed a new roof, foundation, paint and window replacement. All of us worked and we managed to get all of those things done by living simply. We gave up a lot to finance the infrastructure work without going deeply into debt. Everything we did was permitted and legal. After twenty years there, my father in law died and left us a bit of money (not a great deal, but enough for a down payment on the house next door which came up for sale around that time.) The owners were good friends and offered it at a good price with first right of refusal. It was bigger, also a Victorian which we loved, and had a basement apartment and a cottage which would help us with our payments. It also needed a lot of work – electrical, plumbing, foundation, roof, etc. The cottage also needed work. Again, we worked to earn the money for the repairs and put in a lot of “sweat equity”. We rented our upper flat and moved to our new house next door. We have always kept our rents at the low end of market, made necessary repairs quickly, replaced any older appliances, etc. When we had a tenant, we did not raise their rent, even if we had additional taxes or repair costs. We re-set rents when the properties become vacant. My husband, who worked in the electronic job sector (not tech) had no retirement scheme, so our rents cover the cost of their portion of the taxes, utilities, etc. and provide some income over and above our modest investments and my pension, and our social security. We do not gouge; we do not cheat, we do not raise rents or evict our tenants for no cause. We have evicted one tenant, many years ago for conducting drug sales from our basement apartment. I know that there are many very bad landlords in Alameda, and indeed, in many places, but I really hate to be characterized as a mean, greedy, entitled blood sucker. We have worked for this source of income and I think we have the right to feel secure in our older years because we worked and planned for it. We rent to people of all colors, sexual orientation, marital status, pet owning, etc. We consider our tenants our neighbors and friends. So my message is, don’t tar everyone with one brush. Don’t shame people who have sympathy for the plight of others and try to be good people. Find a way to come together without the vitriol. None of us is perfect. Lord knows we are certainly not, but there are many good, honest, hard working property owners who are providing needed homes for folk in our town. We are the mom and pops.

    Comment by Kate Quick — October 11, 2016 @ 9:25 pm

    • Just who was your elegant comment directed to, Kate?

      Comment by jack — October 12, 2016 @ 6:21 pm

      • To those who claim that there are no Mom and Pops. That all landlords, big and small are greedy, mean blood suckers. Not true. There are many, like us, who are hard working, ethical and treat others with dignity and fairness. It will be hard to absorb the additional fees, fines and payment requirements under M1, and we sense that there is little or no concern for our needs, because we have been demonized. I am not claiming to be better than others or Mother Theresa, but just average folks who are trying to do right and being marginalized. Kinda makes me both sad and mad.

        Comment by Kate Quick — October 12, 2016 @ 8:25 pm

        • Demonization has not been the only theme, of course, but it has been prominent. Because it works. Of course, there’s a “right” way to do it and a wrong way. To take some examples from outside Alameda, Trump was very successful in the GOP primary, in part, by promising to get tough with a small minority, undocumented Mexicans, as a remedy, I suppose, to make everyone else’s lives better. Hillary, on the other hand, gave us an example of how not to do it, when she couldn’t resist in calling half of Trump supporters “deplorable”. She quickly retreated because she must have realized that too large a group of voters were asking themselves, “wait, is she talking about me, or my sister?” The risk of such a mistake is not as imminent in this case. After all, you as a “greedy”, “bloodsucking” and “heartless” landlord are probably a 1%’er, not, roughly, half the country.

          Comment by MP — October 13, 2016 @ 8:39 am

        • That’s not to say that the anti-M1 campaign is immune to temptation.

          Comment by MP — October 13, 2016 @ 8:58 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.