Irvine loses appeal - more affordable housing on the way

I think affordable housing is a good idea but I disagree with the numbers. SCAG is placing an undue burden on the city and in a very abbreviated time table. I am not sure if this is an attempt to help stimulate the sagging California economy through state mandates. In either case, it seems unrealistic to have 21K affordable units within the next five years. Maybe we can change the city name and reincorporate with a new city charter and SCAG will not notice? ;-)
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1255760705][quote author="Minimorty" date=1255758367][quote author="bltserv" date=1255752076][quote author="Nude" date=1255751316]So, will the Great Park become the Great Projects?</blockquote>


You know that could be considered being intolerant (I didnt use the "B" word) of those who are economically

disadvantaged. But in a Capitalist Economy we cant be bothered by these people now can we ?

<strong>They just need to work harder and make more money if they are going to live in Irvine.</strong>



I am just pulling your leg. Happy Friday.</blockquote>




If they want to live in Irvine, yes, they need to make more money.</blockquote>


Damn poor people getting in our neighborhoods. Its just not American. LOL



So we should not have any HUD Section 8 Housing in Irvine ?

Federal and State Law seems to disagree with that idea whole heartedly.



The IAC makes an attempt with this webpage.

<a href="http://www.rental-living.com/AffordableHousing/">http://www.rental-living.com/AffordableHousing/</a>

This will tell you what IAC Units have affordable units.</blockquote>


From reading the website IAC may have work out a total number of affordable rental units with City of Irvine but tenants have to prove with financial documentation and registering with HUD as a low income candidate before IAC would rent out the inferior units to the applicants.



If no one comes forward then the units are being rented out as market rate. This is a very smart way to promise the government with a grand total from a handful of less desired units from each IAC location. The government would not have the resource to monitor whether the selected units are truly set aside and remain vacant solely for the low income renters.



It is really hard to enforce unless the entire project is all affordable dedicated to low income tenants. IAC would not be this stupid to make it that easy to enforce.
 
Who is actually required to provide affordable housing by this court case? And if they don't do it, or don't have the money, who goes to jail? The City? Take the City Council away for their perp walk -- Please! And that still doesn't build one single affordable housing unit. The developers that build all the expensive houses without the required affordable housing set-asides? Good luck with that, since many are bankrupt. It might be worth considering having the City purchase the vacant condo towers and then sell them off as affordable housing units. Not the high-end luxury develpments originally envisioned. But better as affordable housing than highly visible, empty symbols that are the butt of too many jokes.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1255762284]It is really hard to enforce unless the entire project is all affordable dedicated to low income tenants. IAC would not be this stupid to make it that easy to enforce.</blockquote>


Would they be savvy enough to create affordable housing where they share a common border with a neighboring school district, thereby meeting the criteria without loading the schools with low-income, single-parent students?
 
I was incredibly disappointed to hear of the outcome of Irvine's appeal of the SCAG decision. Current state law requires every city and county to submit a "housing element" to the state - basically a plan for how many housing units a jurisdiction will build within a certain time period (in this case from approximately 2007-2014) for residents at all income levels. The income level determinant is based on Annual Median Income estimates produced by HUD. The terms used to denote those income levels are: extremely low income (usually below $20,000 AMI), very low income, (around the $25,000 mark and below), low income (around the $30 or 35,000 mark and below), moderate income (usually around $50,000 and below) and above moderate income (incomes that can afford market rate units).



Because many cities are almost or fully built out, it's difficult to build new units, so acquisition/rehab is also an option. However, for communties like Irvine, its usually more cost effective to go new. You tend to get more units for your buck than buying older units and rehabbing them. Also, in order to effectively fulfill these allocations, rental is preferred over for-sale affordable units.



Unfortunately for Irvine, SCAG is the sole "judge, jury, and executioner" when it comes to housing element determinations. That's just the way the law was written, and hence Irvine's legal loss. SCAG just decided that since Irvine has most of the county's remaining open space, they get to be the lucky city to build a major chunk of the county's needed affordable units. The city's major argument - and one that has been around for years from other communiteis - is that it is unfair for one or two cities to bear the brunt of an area's affordable allocation. It leaves other cities with almost no allocation, even if they have the ability to provide those units. I think its a compelling argument, and gives bad players a way out of complying with their housing element obligations. Apparently the court did not agree.



The other problem here is that the housing element law has virtually no enforcement teeth, so jurisidictions regularly flaunt it and frequently see no consequences. The only two things that state Housing and Communitiy Development (the agency charged with oversight of housing elements) can do is send nasty letters and suspend development in non-compliant communities. The latter sounds bad, but it's only happened once or twice in the entire history of housing element law. The only other enforcement option is for someone harmed to sue the jurisdiction that is non-compliant. This is typically a resident or someone who works in the communitiy who is low income and would benefit from an affordable unit. This is what happened to Mission Viejo a few years back. They're still trying to get out from under some of the court's rulings on that case, but as a practical matter it hasn't really hampered development there to any significant degree. Just cost them lots in legal fees.



Even with all that land, it is not at all advisable to build a ton of affordable units in one area. Look up "Cabrini Greens" on Wikipedia and you'll see why that was a horrific mistake. The 10,000 units that Irvine has committed to was just a council committment to affordable units, independent of the SCAG allocation. SCAG supposedly makes those allocations based on various types of data (population in city and area, total number of units, and other hocus pocus). What they were smoking when they made the 2014 estimations is anyone's guess.
 
It must have been almost 15 years ago that I did some engineering plans and banged nails on a Habitat for Humanity project in West Irvine and it was affordable housing. Does anyone know how those home are doing?



With a mass of affordable housing projects coming to Irvine, it looks like there will be slums coming to Irvine.
 
[quote author="Spinderella" date=1255761107]In Woodbury, there are some "affordable housing" apartments called Woodbury Walk. It's been up for over a year now and been running pretty well. I haven't noticed any "hood rat"-esque problems and I personally think that thinking the people would be some sort of projects-based communities is absurd.



Just because people can't reasonably afford a $700-$1million dollar home doesn't make them po'folks, it just makes them not as wealthy.



I hope that Irvine has to make more reasonable and affordable <strong><em>houses</em></strong> for people to live in. We've all seen these great homes that have great prices and low HOAs in Corona Hills, Riverside, etc., and granted, it is Riverside, but having homes in the $400s+ is still money that middle-class folks could afford and still be a completely lovely and thriving community.</blockquote>




I think this is ridiculous. Housing is not a right. It is a privilege that is earned. If lower income people want to live in single family residences, there are plenty of them available in other cities that are more affordable. These people are too good for Riverside? Santa Ana?



I just dont understand why some people think that all classes have a <em>right</em> to live in Irvine.



I am not saying at all that people who live in Irvine are <em>better</em> than people living in other areas. All I am saying is that Irvine housing costs X. If you cannot afford X to live in Irvine, then that is too bad. I dont think we have an obligation to provide housing for lower income families.
 
[quote author="Minimorty" date=1255768405][quote author="Spinderella" date=1255761107]In Woodbury, there are some "affordable housing" apartments called Woodbury Walk. It's been up for over a year now and been running pretty well. I haven't noticed any "hood rat"-esque problems and I personally think that thinking the people would be some sort of projects-based communities is absurd.



Just because people can't reasonably afford a $700-$1million dollar home doesn't make them po'folks, it just makes them not as wealthy.



I hope that Irvine has to make more reasonable and affordable <strong><em>houses</em></strong> for people to live in. We've all seen these great homes that have great prices and low HOAs in Corona Hills, Riverside, etc., and granted, it is Riverside, but having homes in the $400s+ is still money that middle-class folks could afford and still be a completely lovely and thriving community.</blockquote>




I think this is ridiculous. Housing is not a right. It is a privilege that is earned. If lower income people want to live in single family residences, there are plenty of them available in other cities that are more affordable. These people are too good for Riverside? Santa Ana?



I just dont understand why some people think that all classes have a <em>right</em> to live in Irvine.



I am not saying at all that people who live in Irvine are <em>better</em> than people living in other areas. All I am saying is that Irvine housing costs X. If you cannot afford X to live in Irvine, then that is too bad. I dont think we have an obligation to provide housing for lower income families.</blockquote>


The government see this as discrimination by using price.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1255769517][quote author="Minimorty" date=1255768405]I am not saying at all that people who live in Irvine are <em>better</em> than people living in other areas. All I am saying is that Irvine housing costs X. If you cannot afford X to live in Irvine, then that is too bad. I dont think we have an obligation to provide housing for lower income families.</blockquote>


The Democrats see this as discrimination by using price.</blockquote>


Fixed that for you
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1255770467][quote author="bkshopr" date=1255769517][quote author="Minimorty" date=1255768405]I am not saying at all that people who live in Irvine are <em>better</em> than people living in other areas. All I am saying is that Irvine housing costs X. If you cannot afford X to live in Irvine, then that is too bad. I dont think we have an obligation to provide housing for lower income families.</blockquote>


The Democrats see this as discrimination by using price.</blockquote>


Fixed that for you</blockquote>


Ouch! I thought Irvine was supposed to be progressive and cosmopolitan kinda town. Thoughts? Looking for a bit of culture in So-Cal can be rough, I realize. No love for Dem's in Irvine? Say it ain't so!
 
I have to disagree with that assertion. The Irvine Company and the City of Irvine are just as particular about the architectural condition of the affordable products as they are about market rate. There are already thousands of affordable units in the city, and most folks would have no idea where they were if they didn't have specific information that led them there (i.e, a friend or resident told them). The only standout is Park West, but only because it was built in a time when elected officials and their constituents were okay with ghettoizing low income residents in sub-standard units.



In fact, in many commmunities in Irvine and elsewhere around the state, the affordable units have nicer amenities than the market rate units. Also, the whole notion that crime is somehow more likely in those complexes than in market rate areas is just absurd on its face. The federal and state requirements that the affordable developers must meet in order to get the 5-10 funding streams approved for each of these types of projects include many requirements for confirming family income, criminal background checks and other strict residency requirements that no market rate renter would ever have to meet. And, those checks have to be done on an annual basis - again, far more than any kind of checks on market rate renters. You would be safer in one of these communities than in many market rate areas.
 
[quote author="Minimorty" date=1255768405][quote author="Spinderella" date=1255761107]In Woodbury, there are some "affordable housing" apartments called Woodbury Walk. It's been up for over a year now and been running pretty well. I haven't noticed any "hood rat"-esque problems and I personally think that thinking the people would be some sort of projects-based communities is absurd.



Just because people can't reasonably afford a $700-$1million dollar home doesn't make them po'folks, it just makes them not as wealthy.



I hope that Irvine has to make more reasonable and affordable <strong><em>houses</em></strong> for people to live in. We've all seen these great homes that have great prices and low HOAs in Corona Hills, Riverside, etc., and granted, it is Riverside, but having homes in the $400s+ is still money that middle-class folks could afford and still be a completely lovely and thriving community.</blockquote>




I think this is ridiculous. Housing is not a right. It is a privilege that is earned. If lower income people want to live in single family residences, there are plenty of them available in other cities that are more affordable. These people are too good for Riverside? Santa Ana?



I just dont understand why some people think that all classes have a <em>right</em> to live in Irvine.



I am not saying at all that people who live in Irvine are <em>better</em> than people living in other areas. All I am saying is that Irvine housing costs X. If you cannot afford X to live in Irvine, then that is too bad. I dont think we have an obligation to provide housing for lower income families.</blockquote>


Whether you believe that housing is a fundamental right or a privilege, state law requires that ALL California communities must accommodate the housing needs of its population at all income levels. Frankly, if land use laws at the local level weren't so restrictive, and there weren't so much NIMBYism for new building of any kind, there would be a financial incentive for developers to build more affordable products. Unfortunately, there is no such natural incentive, so a combination of state and local housing ordinances geared toward incentivizing affordable development (such as density bonuses) have to suffice for now. And to those that claim that CEQA is the bad guy making building so expensive, I call BS.



Of course, the irony here is that the only housing deals getting done these days is affordable deals. All of the market rate deals have come to a complete standstill.
 
[quote author="captain america" date=1255772331][quote author="Nude" date=1255770467][quote author="bkshopr" date=1255769517][quote author="Minimorty" date=1255768405]I am not saying at all that people who live in Irvine are <em>better</em> than people living in other areas. All I am saying is that Irvine housing costs X. If you cannot afford X to live in Irvine, then that is too bad. I dont think we have an obligation to provide housing for lower income families.</blockquote>


The Democrats see this as discrimination by using price.</blockquote>


Fixed that for you</blockquote>


Ouch! I thought Irvine was supposed to be progressive and cosmopolitan kinda town. Thoughts? Looking for a bit of culture in So-Cal can be rough, I realize. No love for Dem's in Irvine? Say it ain't so!</blockquote>


<blockquote>Democratic 35,572

Republican 40,177

Independent 2,188

Decline To State 30,148

Peace & Freedom 214

Misc. 296

Green 546

Libertarian 646 Total: 109,787



<a href="http://www.fullerton.edu/cdr/cities/Irvine.pdf">source</a></blockquote>


If you want progressive and cosmopolitan behind the Orange Curtain, you are going to have to settle in the more artistic communities. I'm sure the city is leaning more to the left than it once did, but it's still not a bastion of progressive thought and it never has been (UCI area being the exception).
 
I grew up in Palmdale and I can tell you I don't want to live in a town with lots of "affordable housing". It can take over your town and destroy it.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1255770467][quote author="bkshopr" date=1255769517][quote author="Minimorty" date=1255768405]I am not saying at all that people who live in Irvine are <em>better</em> than people living in other areas. All I am saying is that Irvine housing costs X. If you cannot afford X to live in Irvine, then that is too bad. I dont think we have an obligation to provide housing for lower income families.</blockquote>


The Democrats see this as discrimination by using price.</blockquote>


Fixed that for you</blockquote>


You know, that might be humorous if it were actually true. From the relevant portions <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=12001-13000&file=12955-12956.2">Government Code section 12955</a>, California's housing discrimination law (emphasis added):



<blockquote>It shall be unlawful:



(a) For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate

against or harass any person because of the <strong>race, color, religion,

sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry,

familial status, source of income, or disability</strong> of that person.



(b) For the owner of any housing accommodation to make or to cause

to be made any written or oral inquiry concerning the <strong>race, color,

religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin,

ancestry, familial status, or disability</strong> of any person seeking to

purchase, rent or lease any housing accommodation.



(c) For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be

made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement,

with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that

indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on

<strong>race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,

national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or

disability</strong> or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or

discrimination.



(d) For any person subject to the provisions of Section 51 of the

Civil Code, as that section applies to housing accommodations, to

discriminate against any person on the basis of <strong>sex, sexual

orientation, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin,

familial status, marital status, disability, source of income, or on

any other basis prohibited by that section</strong>.



(e) For any person, bank, mortgage company or other financial

institution that provides financial assistance for the purchase,

organization, or construction of any housing accommodation to

discriminate against any person or group of persons because of the

<strong>race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,

national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or

disability</strong> in the terms, conditions, or privileges relating to the

obtaining or use of that financial assistance.



. . .





(h) For any person, for profit, to induce any person to sell or

rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or

prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a

particular <strong>race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital

status, ancestry, disability, source of income, familial status, or

national origin.</strong>



(i) For any person or other organization or entity whose business

involves real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any

person in making available a transaction, or in the terms and

conditions of a transaction, because of <strong>race, color, religion, sex,

sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, source

of income, familial status, or disability.</strong>



(j) To deny a person access to, or membership or participation in,

a multiple listing service, real estate brokerage organization, or

other service because of <strong>race, color, religion, sex, sexual

orientation, marital status, ancestry, disability, familial status,

source of income, or national origin.</strong>



(k) To otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling based on

discrimination because of <strong>race, color, religion, sex, sexual

orientation, familial status, source of income, disability, or

national origin.</strong>



(l) To discriminate through public or private land use practices,

decisions, and authorizations because of <strong>race, color, religion, sex,

sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability,

national origin, source of income, or ancestry.</strong> Discrimination

includes, but is not limited to, restrictive covenants, zoning laws,

denials of use permits, and other actions authorized under the

Planning and Zoning Law (Title 7 (commencing with Section 65000)),

that make housing opportunities unavailable.



Discrimination under this subdivision also includes the existence

of a restrictive covenant, regardless of whether accompanied by a

statement that the restrictive covenant is repealed or void. This

paragraph shall become operative on January 1, 2001.



(m) As used in this section, "race, color, religion, sex, sexual

orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial

status, source of income, or disability" includes a perception that

the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is

associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of

those characteristics.



(n) To use a financial or income standard in the rental of housing

that fails to account for the aggregate income of persons residing

together or proposing to reside together on the same basis as the

aggregate income of married persons residing together or proposing to

reside together.



(o) In instances where there is a government rent subsidy, to use

a financial or income standard in assessing eligibility for the

rental of housing that is not based on the portion of the rent to be

paid by the tenant.



(p) (1) For the purposes of this section, "source of income" means

lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a

representative of a tenant. For the purposes of this section, a

landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant.



(2) For the purposes of this section, it shall not constitute

discrimination based on source of income to make a written or oral

inquiry concerning the level or source of income.

</blockquote>


I would also point you to <em>Harris v. Capital Growth Investors</em> (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, where the California Supreme Court found that that the Unruh Act (this is the Civil Code section 51 referred to above) does not prohibit all forms of arbitrary discrimination. The Court found that a landlord's policy of rejecting rental applicants who did not have income equal to three times the rent was not arbitrary discrimination prohibited by the Act. Further, the Court held, among other things, that:



1) <strong>Arbitrary discrimination based on a person's income or economic status

is not prohibited by the Act;</strong> and



2) <strong>Even if arbitrary economic discrimination was prohibited by the Act,

the landlord's policy to refuse to rent to applicants who did not have

income of at least three times the rent is a reasonable rather than an

arbitrary business practice and, therefore, not prohibited by the Act.</strong>









There are plenty of <u>true</u> things that one can criticize the government and Democrats about that I don't think we need to misrepresent the law to do so.
 
Also, while we are all discussing "low income" in the abstract, what does the term really mean? (Believe it or not, we have discussed this before, but since everyone is running around all hair on fire, let's do it again.)



Here are the definitions I found on a brochure relating to Irvine's downpayment assistance program. I believe that the income limits are the same as for low income housing in general, and I believe they are current.



<blockquote>

An eligible low or very-low household can have an annual income no greater than the following HUD*-published income based on family size:



Household Size Annual Income(Very Low-Income) Annual Income (Low-Income)



1 Person $26,500 $39,550

2 Persons 30,250 45,200

3 Persons 34,000 50,850

4 Persons 37,800 56,500

5 Persons 40,800 61,000

6 Persons 43,850 65,550

7 Persons 46,850 70,050

8 Persons 49,900 74,600</blockquote>




Now then, given the current unemployment rate, how many college educated white collar workers would fit in these definitions? A fair number, I think. Also, what about elderly people on social security? Many cities have fulfilled their low income mandates with "adult / senior only" housing, so I wouldn't be surprised if Irvine is working with Del Webb right about now to create a Leisure World here. (Or did Webb sell off that unit?)



Who else are we talking about that's employed? Private sector jobs can be difficult to get a read on, but many public entity employers publish their wage scales. For the County of Orange, some who would qualify as low or very low income are

<a href="http://agency.governmentjobs.com/oc/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=26553&agency=761&viewOnly=yes">Accounting Assistant I</a>

<a href="http://agency.governmentjobs.com/oc/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=26554&agency=761&viewOnly=yes">Accounting Assistant II</a>

<a href="http://agency.governmentjobs.com/oc/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=26557&agency=761&viewOnly=yes">Accounting Specialist</a>

<a href="http://agency.governmentjobs.com/oc/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=26558&agency=761&viewOnly=yes">Accounting Technician</a>

<a href="http://agency.governmentjobs.com/oc/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=26573&agency=761&viewOnly=yes">Weights & Measures Inspector</a>

<a href="http://agency.governmentjobs.com/oc/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=26576&agency=761&viewOnly=yes">Weights & Measures Trainee</a>

<a href="http://agency.governmentjobs.com/oc/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=26577&agency=761&viewOnly=yes">Agricultural Technician</a>

<a href="http://agency.governmentjobs.com/oc/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=26581&agency=761&viewOnly=yes">Airport Communications Operator</a>

<a href="http://agency.governmentjobs.com/oc/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=26587&agency=761&viewOnly=yes">Airport Maintenance Worker II</a>



You can find more <a href="http://agency.governmentjobs.com/oc/default.cfm?action=agencyspecs&agencyID=761">here.</a>
 
[quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1255831076][quote author="Nude" date=1255770467][quote author="bkshopr" date=1255769517][quote author="Minimorty" date=1255768405]I am not saying at all that people who live in Irvine are <em>better</em> than people living in other areas. All I am saying is that Irvine housing costs X. If you cannot afford X to live in Irvine, then that is too bad. I dont think we have an obligation to provide housing for lower income families.</blockquote>


The Democrats see this as discrimination by using price.</blockquote>


Fixed that for you</blockquote>


You know, that might be humorous if it were actually true. From the relevant portions <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=12001-13000&file=12955-12956.2">Government Code section 12955</a>, California's housing discrimination law (emphasis added):



<blockquote>...



(Eva whips it out... the law, that is)



...</blockquote>
</blockquote>
First, since when has "true" been required for something to be "funny"?



Second, the very term "affordable" determines the kind of discrimination (price) that government is trying to avoid. The code you quoted strives to ensure that those "affordable" houses aren't simply reserved for straight, white, Christians folks but it says nothing about discriminating against people because they are poor. If you could legislate against that kind of discrimination, the bill would have been made law decades ago.



Third, the reason my edit is funny is obvious; championing the right of the poor and downtrodden has been the hallmark of the Democratic party since... forever. You would be hard pressed to find the Republican party arguing that private landowners should set aside a portion of their land to sell at less than market rates. Since the Democrats have largely controlled the state legislature for the last generation, implying that they *are* the government is both fitting and funny.



<blockquote>...



(Eva whips it out... again)



...



There are plenty of <u>true</u> things that one can criticize the government and Democrats about that I don't think we need to misrepresent the law to do so.</blockquote>


Did I misrepresent it? I don't think *I* said anything other than the Democrats are the de facto government in the state and that they are against "price discrimination" preventing anyone from being able to live in new developments. All I see is you getting riled up and, to be honest, I don't see what your cites have to do with the discussion. Who here equated sex, race, or color discrimination with the demand for affordable housing? Am I missing something or are you reading something in to it?
 
And why are liberals and democrats described as progressive? IMO, the dems and cans are both the same block of concrete and the only progressives are the libertarians.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1255842684]First, since when has "true" been required for something to be "funny"?



Second, the very term "affordable" determines the kind of discrimination (price) that government is trying to avoid. The code you quoted strives to ensure that those "affordable" houses aren't simply reserved for straight, white, Christians folks but it says nothing about discriminating against people because they are poor. If you could legislate against that kind of discrimination, the bill would have been made law decades ago.



Third, the reason my edit is funny is obvious; championing the right of the poor and downtrodden has been the hallmark of the Democratic party since... forever. You would be hard pressed to find the Republican party arguing that private landowners should set aside a portion of their land to sell at less than market rates. Since the Democrats have largely controlled the state legislature for the last generation, implying that they *are* the government is both fitting and funny.



<blockquote>...



(Eva whips it out... again)



...



There are plenty of <u>true</u> things that one can criticize the government and Democrats about that I don't think we need to misrepresent the law to do so.</blockquote>


Did I misrepresent it? I don't think *I* said anything other than the Democrats are the de facto government in the state and that they are against "price discrimination" preventing anyone from being able to live in new developments. All I see is you getting riled up and, to be honest, I don't see what your cites have to do with the discussion. Who here equated sex, race, or color discrimination with the demand for affordable housing? Am I missing something or are you reading something in to it?</blockquote>


What I'm saying is that the "government" has said that discrimination (the exact term used in the prior posts) by using price (only!) in housing is legal. Political considerations aside, the government could have made price discrimination in housing illegal. The 1991 case I cited was interpreting a statute. The legislature and executive can work together to pass a bill changing either the statute, or clarifying the statute and explicitly "overruling" the case. (See, e.g., <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=01130522069+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve">Cal. Gov. Code sec. 12941</a>, explicitly rejecting a court of appeal decision.) Why do you care? Because since 1991, there have been times when those oh so compassionate Dems have had a majority in the state legislature and a governor and have not seen fit to reject the <em>Harris</em> case. They could have made discrimination by price illegal, but did not.



The court case involving this thread is about land use. To my knowledge, the City of Irvine is not a landlord for any kind of housing, so it cannot discriminate in the provision of housing. What it can do is establish land use (zoning) rules, and the particular statutory scheme basically requires all California municipalities to not zone out housing for lower income people (sort of like Atherton, CA, which has a minimum lot size of 1 acre, IIRC, but was likely built out before these statutes were enacted) and to "zone in" some areas for housing for some low income people. In other words, the State is requiring that those building housing (rental as well as owned) to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, and does this through zoning (as well as some other methods).



The downside to deliberate, or slow, building, is that Irvine currently has lots of vacant land that it can zone for residential use, unlike, say, Villa Park. So, as the population of the County has increased and the need for affordable housing has increased, one of the few places for it to go (if building de novo, rather than in fill) is Irvine, and Irvine is picking up the slack for communities that are built out.



(BTW, maybe someone who knows something can chime in here, but part of the reason VOC has low income housing is because they used redevelopment bonds to finance some of the development of the old Marine base. Redevelopment bonds come with strings attached, including affordable housing requirements. How was development of El Toro financed? Not with the issuance of redevelopment bonds?)



BTW, <a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G040513.PDF">here is the text of the case</a> we're all talking about in the abstract. Actually, we will probably all continue to talk about it in the abstract, as it is not written to be easily comprehended by those who do not have experience with this particular statutory scheme (myself included). In all fairness, <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65580-65589.8">the relevant statutes</a> are not terribly entertaining either.
 
Back
Top