On 07/28/2010, the San Diego City Council adopted a resolution declaring a continued state of emergency due to the severe shortage of affordable housing.

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development defines "affordable" as housing that costs no more than 30% of a household's monthly income.

Public agencies define affordable housing as units with rent restrictions or price restrictions to maintain affordability. Eligible income levels and maximum rents for low- and moderate-income units are determined annually based on San Diego’s Area Median Income issued by HUD.

For information on qualifying income and maximum rents, please see the CCDC Affordable Housing Brochure: http://www.ccdc.com/images/stories/downloads/programs/affordable-housing/affordable_housing_brochure_2010.pdf

According to CCDC:

19.6% of housing developed downtown is affordable with income restrictions for very-low-to moderate-income households. 60% of downtown’s affordable units are available for very-low-income persons

Those numbers do not seem realistic. Checking their map, they are including SRO's, other buildings that are for a specific populace (women, alcoholic recovery, etc.). The highly touted Ten Fifty B building is allegedly 100% affordable. I got called by their management office and was hoping someone had not moved in. When I got there, I was advised there were not any affordable units but there was a studio apartment renting for $895/month. That is more than I pay now.

State law requires 15% of all units in a project must be affordable to very-low to moderate income households. That does not happen in downtown San Diego. Otherwise, places like The Mark, Icon, Park Place, Smart Corner, etc. would have affordable units. They don't. And the Strata, with its luxury apartments and ridiculously high rents, do they have any affordable units??? I do know that CCDC allows an "in lieu of" fee so developers can build their projects without having to concern themselves with "affordable" units. So, if the fees are paid on projects built downtown, those funds should be used to make sure affordable units are built downtown. CCDC does not advertise that aspect of their operations. This is from a CCDC meeting in December, 2004:

"One of the most controversial provisions is the ability for builders to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable units. After lengthy testimony, the Committee voted to maintain the in-lieu fee option, but asked City staff to be prepared when the item is considered by the City Council in early 2005 to discuss a proposal by Deputy Mayor Toni Atkins to eliminate the in-lieu fee option."

At a meeting in 2005: "The Board further recommended that the City Council require a public process to determine the best and most prudent use of the in-lieu fees."

5+ years later, that option is still available to developers. The bottom line is that CCDC seems to cater to developers at the expense of those in need. Even with laws requiring the development of affordable housing, CCDC circumvents that by allowing the controversial 'in lieu of' fee. The City Council needs to address the issues and not just pass a state of emergency resolution. I have read the law and cannot figure out what is accomplished by this. It allows for:
"In periods of local emergency, political subdivisions have full power to provide mutual aid to any affected area in accordance with local ordinances, resolutions, emergency plans, or agreements therefor."
What does that mean in terms of affordable housing?

I continue my quest for an affordable apartment in the downtown area. Some places have waiting lists of more than 2 years. The City needs to step up and start giving some actual attention to those in need. The jobs market is fading, since the bursting of the construction balloon. Per County Supervisor Ron Roberts "The construction industry has a lot of excess capacity--a lot of people who would like to have work. The economic recession has been devastating to them." (http://sandiegometro.com/2010/08/scrambling-for-government-bucks/)

With so many people in need of living quarters that do not cost an arm & a leg, how about a confab between CCDC, SDHC, CCAC, City Council, Mayor Sanders and the public to discuss & find a solution to the needs of the populace of San Diego. We are not a city of the rich & famous.

So long


Founder Aug. 11, 2010 @ 8:42 a.m.

auntsandiegospeaks Please consider moving to North Park, we would love to have you, we have lots of affordable housing and are just minutes from "Downtown"!

Here is a contact you might speak to: Michael Lengyel NP PAC Project Manager (619) 236-6269 http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/northpar.shtml

Here is another link that you might also enjoy: http://www.chworks.org/

Now back to your Blog: From:http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs...

My point is this: Each day that the City Council and or Mayor debate the budget things get worse and more expensive to "fix" (no pun intended)!

The City Council has "given" Hundreds of Millions of Dollars to the Redevelopment Agency that they themselves control; which they could NOW use to pay for the repair of "bricks and mortar projects all over the City! If they did this, they would NOT have to close or "brown out" Police, Fire and Library's without the proposed tax hike! Why is that option not on the table?

If our budget is so tight in San Diego, why are "we" starting new City buildings and even talking about a new stadium; the answer is BIG MONEY INTERESTS...

Our City Leaders are asking us now to allow them to tax US more and at the same time they are spending BIG money on additional NEW projects that have nothing to do with City Services. They are using our Police, Fire and Library's as hostages, in order to raise our taxes. I for one, would like to see someone blog about what the factual effect of the City declaring bankruptcy would be on tax payers; at a time where millions are looking for work nationwide and most of them would love nothing better than to relocate to Sunny San Diego to work for our City, despite what our local "Big UNIONS" say! Having at least 100 applicants for every job, should make it real easy to replace any of those that decide to leave SD for greener pastures, and I hope they take their Winter coats, because I think it will be a bleak Winter Nationwide...


a2zresource Aug. 11, 2010 @ 4:05 p.m.

Affordability and the lack of it may also be a consequence of the City Council failing to monitor the "residential tax effect" of SDG&E's multiple proposed rate increases on consumers. Under the 1970 electricity franchise ordinance, the City Council does have authority to change the annual franchise fee of 3% of gross receipts to some higher level that will reduce our wildfire threat by speeding up the undergrounding of some 3400 miles of overhead power lines BEFORE SDG&E's estimated completion of that task in 2063.

If the City Council is asleep at the wheel, then the voters of San Diego have the franchise right to pass an initiative to modify or even terminate the franchise agreement, putting the whole mess up for bid again.


Founder Aug. 11, 2010 @ 4:45 p.m.

Our City Council (aka The Redevelopment agency) sure has it's work cut out for it and if the past is any indicator of their ability to get things done then they better increase their number work hours per day!

My point is this: Each day that the City Council and or Mayor debate the budget things get worse and more expensive to "fix" (no pun intended)!

Think $600,000 per day, not counting the Redevelopment agency debt...

See: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/np-star/2010/aug/06/what-does-it-cost-to-run-sd-per-day/#c69057


Robert Johnston Aug. 16, 2010 @ 7:44 a.m.

Affordable housing? Here? Not for me is there any!

I applied for County Section 8 Housing back in 1989. I kept up my address changes, letting S.D County Housing Authority know if I'm still "in the market," as it were.

Enter 2005:

I finally get the application read and responded to by the Housing Authority. By that time, I was married. The paperwork gets bollixed...and we lose our potential Section 8 voucher.

2007: I re-apply for Section 8...and still am waiting today.

Face it, if you are a single male like I am, to the Housing Authority, your name is mud!



Sign in to comment