top
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Re-Defining Oaklands Affordable Housing

by Lynda Carson (lyndacarson [at] excite.com)
The concept of Affordable
Housing is totaly being twisted out of shape in the
fantasy world of Mayor Jerry Brown.
Re-Defining Oakland\'s Affordable Housing
Tuesday May 1, 2001 by Lynda Carson

Oakland Ca--This morning, Oaklands Community and Economic Development Agency (C.E.D.A.) quietly sought to create an Ordinance that if passed would further enhance the gentrification of Oakland by establishing affordable housing as units affordable to a family of four that annualy earns \"Eighty Thousand Dollars per year in Income.\"

Item C on todays C.E.D.A. Agenda was meant to \"Establish a Density Bonus and Incentive Procedure for Affordable Housing.\" A procedure for creating tax breaks and other incentives such as a waiver from creating on-sight parking, for developers that create housing projects that may have 25% of units set aside for affordable housing or 10% for senior housing. This housing if built, would not be allowed as market rate rental units for at least 10 years after being placed on the market due to the incentives being offered. On the surface, this all sounded good. But it seemed odd that very few affordable housing activist\'s were aware of this item on todays agenda, and only one showed up to express concern during a 3 minute comment period. A developer showed up to help push the measure through, and very few questions were asked by the Council Members running this Committee Meeting. Yes, it seemed odd that housing activist\'s were not the ones pushing for this measure.

Suddenly, Council Member Jane Brunner had the
instinct to ask, what do they mean by affordable housing?
The City Staffer who was promoting this measure was perplexed by the question, when suddenly a diferent City Staffer ran up to the podium to silently hand her a small piece of paper. Very quietly, the Staffer said (looking sheepishly), by affordable housing we (City Of Oakland) mean units that are affordable for a family of four with an annual income of $80,000.00. (eighty thousand dollars per year)

Not one of the Council Members blinked an eye, nor did anyone in the whole room have enough sense to ask how such a ridiculous figure of $80,000.00 per year, could ever equate to a need for affordable housing? Council Member Nancy Nadel made a reference to all those low-budget apartments that look like motels in Oakland, by stating that she hopes that this does not promote more housing like that. Still, no one asked the big question, as to why
this could ever be considered as affordable housing?

Mayor Jerry Brown has what\'s called a 10 K Plan calling for 10,000 new units of housing to be built down town for the rich. He calls it Elegant Density, and it does displace the low-income housing that already exist in downtown Oakland. No longer do non-profit\'s that serve the low-income people of Oakland feel welcome in the fantasy world of Mayor Jerry Brown. With a downturn in the economy, the Mayor\'s 10 K Plan faces a setback. But if they can turn today\'s \"Item C\" into a reality for the Mayor, it will go far to promote his plan to gentrify Oakland under the guise of affordable housing. It is a political move, to claim that the Mayor supports affordable housing, while at the same time creating housing that is not affordable for more than half of Oaklands residents.

If developers can get tax breaks or other incentives by pretending that they are building affordable housing for a family of four that earn\'s up to $80,000.00 per year, what does this mean for those that actualy do need affordable housing asks a long time Oakland renter named Michael Graham?

Michael Graham, an Oakland Cellist and renter feels
anger that the concept of mixed housing is being corrupted to such extremes. Sure says Graham, housing for
renters that earn up to $80,000.00 per year is needed in
Oakland, but to pretend that this is now called affordable housing is ridiculous! It does not include people on fixed incomes like social security or other forms of pensions well below an annual income of $80,000.00 per year. When people think of affordable housing, this is not what they have in mind, says Graham. Tax Breaks and incentives are
a useful tool to create real affordable housing, but this goes well beyond the pale of ones imagination.

Oakland continues to have demonstrations calling for more affordable housing, and a Just Cause Ordinance that will preserve existing real affordable housing in Oakland. Rent scams in Oakland are rampant because the City Of Oakland does not enforce a 2 Year Moratorium on Rent Increases after certain types of evictions. It\'s a slap in the face for Oakland renters to hear what City Officials now consider affordable housing to be. The poor certainly are being fast tracked right out of town. The Eviction For Profit System continues unabated in Oakland.

On Wednsday May 2nd, KPFA will have some of Oaklands finest anti-eviction activist\'s on Living Room,
from 12p.m.-1p.m. Be sure to tune in.


by Anon (anon [at] ael.org)
Subject: RE: Housing Development Task Force
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 18:04:52 -0700

Catherine:

Thank you for forwarding the article.  Unfortunately, it doesn't accurately
describe what the staff report and proposed ordinance actually say.

State law REQUIRES that cities grant density bonuses (25% increase in
allowable density) to projects that propose to make 20% of the units
affordable to households at 80% AMI, or 10% of the units affordable at 50%
of AMI, or 50% of the units for seniors.  Essentially, developers are
entitled to these bonuses as a matter of right.  Oakland doesn't currently
have an ordinance on the books to do this; with a couple of exceptions
(explained below), all we are doing is implementing State law.

The proposed Oakland ordinance does 3 things:

1.  Puts into local law what is already required by State law.  Oakland
technically is out of compliance by not having a local ordinance, although
bonuses are granted if requested and the State requirements are met.  Since
these bonuses are required, they can be granted as part of a regular
application (we will do it at the same time that we do design review, which
is required for all residential projects).

2.  Also allows a density bonus if a developer provides 50% of the units
affordable to households at 120% of AMI, AND provides 10% of the units
affordable at 80% of AMI.   This would require a Major Conditional Use
Permit, which includes a hearing before the City Planning Commission.

3.  Allows density bonuses of more than 25% if a higher percentage of
affordable housing units is provided.  Again, this would require a Major
Conditional Use Permit.

The required term of affordability is 30 years if we provide both a density
bonus and an additional incentive (such as a reduced parking requirement);
if we provide only the density bonus, the affordability term is 10 years.
Again, this is per State law.

The City does not have legal authority to impose terms more restrictive than
those that are in State law; we can provide density bonuses in circumstances
other than those described in State law..

The two areas where we go beyond State law are items 2 and 3 above.  If
people feel that those provisions are not warranted, they should comment
when the ordinance is presented to the full City Council on May 15.

The median income figures that you provided are correct (they were just
released for this year).

We are NOT proposing to modify our definitions of affordable housing for any
other program; in particular, our financing programs for affordable housing
development will continue to have the same targeting requirements that have
been in place all along.  As a  practical matter, virtually all rental
housing we finance has rents below 50% of median, since projects are also
seeking tax credits or Section 202 (seniors) or Section 811 (disabled), all
of which require that kind of targeting.





_________________________________
Jeffrey P. Levin (jplevin [at] oaklandnet.com)
Housing Policy & Programs Coordinator
City of Oakland/Community & Economic Development Agency
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 5th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
510/238-3502   FAX: 510/238-3691




-----Original Message-----
From: Catherine M. Bishop [mailto:cbishop [at] nhlp.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:41 AM
To: Brunner, Jane; Cameron Yee; Carl Anthony; Catherine Bishop; Denise
Smith; Jake Lavin; James Vann; Jean Blacksher; Jeff Hansen; John Benson; Jon
Gresley; Julie Quiroz; Kate White; Leland Brown; Lynette Lee; Michael
Pyatok; Ray Timmermans; Robert Dhondrup; Sean Heron; Sunny Nguyen; Victoria
Jones; Levin, Jeffrey; Schweyer, Roy
Subject: Housing Development Task Force


Too all:  I just received a copy of the following article.  Did this action
flow from the Housing Development Task Force?  It does not seem to be
consistent with what we were discussing.  Does anyone have any other
information?  Let me know what you think we should do?

Jane:  Thanks for asking the basic question.  But I urge you follow up. The
definition of affordable housing using the figure $80,000 annual income for
a family of 4 is extremely high.  The estimated median family income for FY
2000 for renters in Alameda County was $40,564 and the median family income
for all families was nearly $70,000.  See http://www.nlihc.org/
<http://www.nlihc.org/>  and the publication "Out of Reach" for information
on the affordability gap in Alameda County.

The recently published HUD median income figures for 2001 provide the
following figures for the Oakland PMSA.


PMSA : Oakland, CA      # of persons    1          2          3        4
5         6         7           8      

FY 2001 MEDIAN FAMILY 30% OF MEDIAN     15050 17200 19350 21500 23200 24900
26650 28350
INCOME: 71600           VERY LOW-INC       25050 28650 32200 35800 38650
41550 44400 47250
                       LOW-INCOME      37700 43050 48450 53850 58150 62450
66750 71050

The median income for the area has increased to $71,6900, but again the
figure used by the Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency is
extremely high.  The HUD figures define an extremely low income family as
one with an income of 30% of AMI.  For a family of 4 for FY 2001 that income
is $21,500, approximately one quarter of the figure that Oakland is using.
The HUD median income information for FY 2001 for the Oakland PMSA is
available at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/fmr01/index.html
<http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/fmr01/index.html> .  I urge you to take
what ever necessary steps to change the policy and establish a more
realistic definition of affordable housing for purposes of the Density Bonus
and Incentive Procedure for Affordable housing.

Re-Defining Oakland's Affordable Housing
Tuesday May 1, 2001 by Lynda Carson
Click below for IMC Story
http://www.indybay.org/display.php3?article_id=100292
<http://www.indybay.org/display.php3?article_id=100292>
Oakland Ca--This morning, Oaklands Community and Economic Development Agency

(C.E.D.A.) quietly sought to create an Ordinance that if passed would
further enhance the gentrification of Oakland by establishing affordable
housing as units affordable to a family of four that annualy earns "Eighty
Thousand Dollars per year in Income."
Item C on todays C.E.D.A. Agenda was meant to "Establish a Density
Bonus and Incentive Procedure for Affordable Housing." A procedure for
creating tax breaks and other incentives such as a waiver from creating
on-sight parking, for developers that create housing projects that may have
25% of units set aside for affordable housing or 10% for senior housing.
This housing if built, would not be allowed as market rate rental units for
at least 10 years after being placed on the market due to the incentives
being offered. On the surface, this all sounded good. But it seemed odd that

very few affordable housing activist's were aware of this item on todays
agenda, and only one showed up to express concern during a 3 minute comment
period. A developer showed up to help push the measure through, and very few

questions were asked by the Council Members running this Committee Meeting.
Yes, it seemed odd that housing activist's were not the ones pushing for
this measure.
Suddenly, Council Member Jane Brunner had the
instinct to ask, what do they mean by affordable housing?
The City Staffer who was promoting this measure was perplexed by the
question, when suddenly a diferent City Staffer ran up to the podium to
silently hand her a small piece of paper. Very quietly, the Staffer said
(looking sheepishly), by affordable housing we (City Of Oakland) mean units
that are affordable for a family of four with an annual income of
$80,000.00. (eighty thousand dollars per year)
Not one of the Council Members blinked an eye, nor did anyone in the
whole room have enough sense to ask how such a ridiculous figure of
$80,000.00 per year, could ever equate to a need for affordable housing?
Council Member Nancy Nadel made a reference to all those low-budget
apartments that look like motels in Oakland, by stating that she hopes that
this does not promote more housing like that. Still, no one asked the big
question, as to why
this could ever be considered as affordable housing?
Mayor Jerry Brown has what's called a 10 K Plan calling for 10,000
new units of housing to be built down town for the rich. He calls it Elegant

Density, and it does displace the low-income housing that already exist in
downtown Oakland. No longer do non-profit's that serve the low-income people

of Oakland feel welcome in the fantasy world of Mayor Jerry Brown. With a
downturn in the economy, the Mayor's 10 K Plan faces a setback. But if they
can turn today's "Item C" into a reality for the Mayor, it will go far to
promote his plan to gentrify Oakland under the guise of affordable housing.
It is a political move, to claim that the Mayor supports affordable housing,

while at the same time creating housing that is not affordable for more than

half of Oaklands residents.
If developers can get tax breaks or other incentives by pretending that
they are building affordable housing for a family of four that earn's up to
$80,000.00 per year, what does this mean for those that actualy do need
affordable housing asks a long time Oakland renter named Michael Graham?
Michael Graham, an Oakland Cellist and renter feels
anger that the concept of mixed housing is being corrupted to such extremes.

Sure says Graham, housing for
renters that earn up to $80,000.00 per year is needed in
Oakland, but to pretend that this is now called affordable housing is
ridiculous! It does not include people on fixed incomes like social security

or other forms of pensions well below an annual income of $80,000.00 per
year. When people think of affordable housing, this is not what they have in

mind, says Graham. Tax Breaks and incentives are
a useful tool to create real affordable housing, but this goes well beyond
the pale of ones imagination.
Oakland continues to have demonstrations calling for more affordable
housing, and a Just Cause Ordinance that will preserve existing real
affordable housing in Oakland. Rent scams in Oakland are rampant because the

City Of Oakland does not enforce a 2 Year Moratorium on Rent Increases after

certain types of evictions. It's a slap in the face for Oakland renters to
hear what City Officials now consider affordable housing to be. The poor
certainly are being fast tracked right out of town. The Eviction For Profit
System continues unabated in Oakland.
On Wednsday May 2nd, KPFA will have some of Oaklands finest
anti-eviction activist's on Living Room,
from 12p.m.-1p.m. Be sure to tune in.




Catherine M. Bishop
National Housing Law Project
614 Grand Ave., Suite 320
Oakland, CA 94610
(510) 251-9400, X-105
Fax:  (510) 451-2300
E-Mail: cbishop [at] nhlp.org



Download Reply Reply All Forward

Delete message or move to Move  Inbox
   
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network