Which would you rather live next to?

Which would you rather live next to?

  • Low income rental apartment

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Low income ownership unit dispersed within the community

    Votes: 9 81.8%
  • Total voters
    11
there is always more pride and permanence with ownership...  well come to think of it, maybe not in the case of Tustin Fields...
 
I voted for apartments, because I used to live right next to one and there were no issues.  We moved away just because we are getting a bigger house.

RC, how is it in Tustin Fields?
 
fe9000 said:
I voted for apartments, because I used to live right next to one and there were no issues.  We moved away just because we are getting a bigger house.

RC, how is it in Tustin Fields?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I never lived in TF; this might be more about the RE bubble, but a lot of these affordable townhomes are sitting empty; they are all on the street Liberty next to the train tracks.. IR2 had one unit for sale...  I'm not sure if it was TI or IHB but try to search for the Camden thread, there are some complaints of affordable units there... maybe I should change my vote!
 
I think it depends on what kind of ownership unit.

Both have their pros and cons, the rental is more transient and that has its inherent problems but pride of ownership doesn't always translate to upkeep and permanence.

And low income or not... every neighborhood has its problem owners who either don't maintain their yard, violate HOA rules or have dozens of cars taking up all the public parking.

If a rental tenant is problematic, you can have them kicked out... not so easy with an owner.

You need an option for 'No preference'... but if you are going to consider density (assuming the owner units are not apartment condos), I would go with a very slight preference for ownership.
 
As you guys may know, CA law requires new developments to have a minimum 15% of low income housing. 

Irvine and Tustin take different approaches to this.  Irvine builds low income apartment complexes and puts everyone in there (a la Woodbury).  Tustin designates a certain number of ownership units to be low income (a la Tustin Field and Villages of Columbus).

In one case you have all market rate ownership units next to a low income apartment complex.  In the other case you have no apartments but low income units within the market rate units.

Have any studies been done to see who's approach is better, Irvine or Tustin?

 
test said:
Have any studies been done to see who's approach is better, Irvine or Tustin?
Click to expand...
Answer: The one with a better school district.
[/facetiousness]

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Location matters more than type of low-income housing.

But, if you want to measure success of low-income programs... I would think it would be easier to get high occupancy on low-income apartments than selling out low-income ownership properties. Financially and lifestyle-wise, it's more convenient to rent than to own.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
But, if you want to measure success of low-income programs... I would think it would be easier to get high occupancy on low-income apartments than selling out low-income ownership properties. Financially and lifestyle-wise, it's more convenient to rent than to own.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is better for the renter.  But which is better for the community?  If it's harder to get into ownership then buyer would have more skin in the game.  Apartments are easy come easy go.  I'm sure Irvine Co must have done some research on this, just need to find it.

 
But... apartment screening is sometimes more stringent than loan qualification and like I stated earlier, you can boot out the trouble tenants... not so much the ornery owners.

Just because someone would be financially capable of owning (with lower guidelines) doesn't exactly translate into socially capable. I remember a previous thread somewhere where people would rather have subsidized rent than ownership because they are paying less for the same amount of land to own but don't mind if it's just rent (which is surprising considering the voting pattern).

I guess I should have checked the rent option.
 
For low income apartments it's tougher to get it.  Once you are in, I don't think people will want to move out unless they all of a sudden make more money and disqualified.  The waiting list to get in to these apartments are long, and takes years to get your name called.  Besides, some of these renters are older with money in the bank.  Well, I don't know if "low-income" means "low-assets" as well.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
But... apartment screening is sometimes more stringent than loan qualification and like I stated earlier, you can boot out the trouble tenants... not so much the ornery owners.

Just because someone would be financially capable of owning (with lower guidelines) doesn't exactly translate into socially capable. I remember a previous thread somewhere where people would rather have subsidized rent than ownership because they are paying less for the same amount of land to own but don't mind if it's just rent (which is surprising considering the voting pattern).

I guess I should have checked the rent option.
Click to expand...

Based on this post i wanna change my answer too.... at least you can kick problem renters out.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
I remember a previous thread somewhere where people would rather have subsidized rent than ownership because they are paying less for the same amount of land to own but don't mind if it's just rent
Click to expand...

Yes that is another very important point which is fairness.  Is that thread on these forums?  It would be interesting to see.

But technically they don't own it since the city is on the title and controls the resale.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top