Home › News › County News
Low-cost housing issue confronts Santa Paula
Residents divided over effects of proposed ban on new units
Download this story as a podcast!
Photo by Karen Quincy Loberg
Lisbeth Diaz, with son Andrik Preciado Diaz, moved with her husband, father and another son into a subsidized apartment complex. Even with three paychecks, Diaz said, her family could not afford a market-rate apartment in Santa Paula.
STORY TOOLS 
More from County News
Photo by Dana Rene Bowler
Santa Paula residents Larry Sagely, left, and Steve Smead have circulated a petition calling for a moratorium on building affordable-housing units.
Hundreds of Santa Paula residents are seeking a moratorium on low-income housing in the county's poorest city at a time when state law requires more help for the needy.
Backers say it's time for other cities in Ventura County to do their fair share of providing housing the poor can afford. Otherwise, growing numbers of low-income people could bankrupt the town, said businessmen Larry Sagely and Steve Smead, who circulated a petition that's drawn 375 signatures.
"We just want to be in the middle," said Smead, a lifelong resident and insurance agent. "We want a housing balance so we can pay our bills."
Others argue the moratorium could backfire in the city where voters have pushed for balanced housing.
"Basically, instead of having one or two families living in one house, we'll have three or four families," said Al Guilin, a retired executive in the area's agriculture industry, who has lived in Santa Paula for 42 years. "If the work is there, the workers will be here, and they'll just live more densely together, or we won't be growing the crop."
The ban the working-class town's City Council will address July 28 comes as cities across Ventura County and the state face new requirements for housing the poor and homeless. By law, they must identify areas where year-round emergency shelters for the homeless can be built, count the number of extremely poor residents and show how they are trying to house them.
But the petition claims Santa Paula has done too much. The signers, who pledged they were registered voters in the city, want to stop construction of both subsidized and market-rate low-cost housing. The ban would last until such housing makes up no more than 15 percent of the total housing stock in the city of 30,000, where perhaps half the population is low-income.
The city offers close to 8,500 units of housing, from Victorian charmers to new hilltop homes to aged, substandard homes and apartments. But subsidized affordable-housing projects on top of low market rents have made Santa Paula a magnet for the poor, Smead argued.
Sagely and Smead, among others in town, point to Moorpark — a town some Santa Paulans used to call "Poorpark" — as a model of what Santa Paula should do. The east county community turned its fortunes around by bringing in higher-income housing, bought by people with money to spend, Smead said.
"Moorpark started to develop middle, upper-middle and multimillion-dollar homes. They supported the city, bringing business with them," Smead said.
Breaking patterns
High-income people bring advantages, from higher test scores to increases in property taxes, and may attract businesses to serve them, but high-priced homes have not been a panacea. Moorpark has grown by offering a range of housing while courting business development, council members said.
"I am not sure we are better off than Santa Paula because we have higher-priced homes," said Councilwoman Janice Parvin. "It's a small percentage if you look at the overall neighborhoods."
Planning consultant Bill Fulton doubted Santa Paula could match Moorpark's success without adding at least 10,000 homes, an unlikely prospect. The city could attract a smaller number of higher-end homes with its hillsides and views but still has to persuade the owners to shop locally, he said.
"There's already an established pattern of people in Santa Paula going to shop in Ventura," the Ventura councilman said.
He also doubted that an outright moratorium would be legal, even if the city provides more than its share of low-income housing. State law requires cities to offer housing for all income levels, he said.
Building stagnates
About half of the Santa Paula housing units built in the past 10 years have been for people with low incomes, but that was in a period when only a few hundred units were built. A state report shows permits were issued for 363 housing units, one-fourth of what the state deemed necessary. That put compactly built Santa Paula at the bottom in the county for production.
Despite the spread of the open-space movement, Oxnard, Simi Valley and Camarillo put up twice as many units as called for in the state forecast for all income levels. Construction matched or beat the housing goals in Ventura, Thousand Oaks, Moorpark and unincorporated Ventura County. Falling shy of the mark were Fillmore, Port Hueneme and Ojai.
Nor did the bulk of low-income housing projects in Ventura County rise in Santa Paula. It ranked sixth among the 10 cities in the past decade, city reports show. The figures reflect both new apartments and homes and those that were fully renovated, then locked into affordable rates.
Of roughly 3,670 low-income units added from 1998 through 2007 in the county's 10 cities, Oxnard accounted for almost 1,100.
Camarillo added an additional 800, followed by roughly 500 apiece in Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley. Moorpark reported 300, followed by Santa Paula, with an estimated 230. Trailing were Fillmore at 110, Ventura at 66, Ojai at 30 and built-out Port Hueneme at 14.
In the previous decade, from 1990 to 2000, a study found that Santa Paula and Port Hueneme came closest to meeting the need for low-income housing, with Moorpark and Thousand Oaks trailing in single digits. The study did not include units that were renovated into affordable housing.
Now new state laws have upped the ante.
Taking effect earlier this year, SB2 requires every city to show where a year-round homeless shelter could be built. Another law requires cities to show how they're accommodating people considered "extremely low income," many of them farmworkers or people with disabilities.
'No other choice'
In Santa Paula, the issue is personal because an estimated 1,300 farmworkers live there. Twelve percent of the county's farmworkers live in the city that makes up 3.7 percent of the county's population.
Families live in one room to make ends meet, said Sonja Flores, coordinator of the Santa Paula Farm Worker Housing Committee.
"They have no other choice," she said.
Sagely acknowledges that lowering the stock of low-income housing to 15 percent does not reflect the current population of Santa Paula. But he says building more low-cost housing will simply draw more poor people to a city that already can't pay its police or firefighters a competitive wage.
"We've got to change the economics here," he said.
Others blame a host of problems for Santa Paula's economic ills, from the dried-up oil industry to the freeway that lures residents to Ventura to shop.
For some poor residents, the debate is hardly academic. Homemaker Lorena Ramirez, 38, moved into one of the city's affordable complexes, Courtyard by Harvard. So did her two young sons and her husband, Gerardo Mendez, a lemon packer in the city that calls itself the "Citrus Capital of the World."
They left a one-bedroom apartment in Santa Paula, where the entire family had slept in one room on two mattresses, she said.
Another tenant, Lisbeth Diaz, 28, said multiple paychecks didn't solve her family's housing problem in a town where a two-bedroom apartment rents from $975 to $1,100 a month.
Diaz shared a one-bedroom apartment in Santa Paula with her father, husband and two sons before moving to the complex near downtown. All three adults worked, but they still could not afford comfortable market-rate housing, she said.
"Salaries aren't very good," she said. "Everything goes into rent."
Surveys show problems
Census figures show that more than 40 percent of renter-occupied households were overcrowded in Santa Paula, compared to 14 percent in the county as a whole. Most rental units in town are decades old; two-thirds date from before 1970, and one-fourth date before 1950.
Those are periods when buildings were most likely to contain lead-based paint that can be hazardous to children, said Conexus, the consulting company that prepared Santa Paula's new housing plan.
A city survey of homes conducted last year showed substandard building conditions in 36 percent of the 5,500 units surveyed.
Officials found almost 200 cases of garages converted into homes and 432 instances in which the electrical capacity was too low. Almost 1,200 lacked the basics of protective wallcovering or paint, contributing to deteriorated conditions.
The housing plan that the City Council adopted in mid-June calls for more than 1,900 units to be built by 2014. Half would be for the affluent, with one-third for low-income and the remainder for moderate incomes. An additional 350 existing units would be completely renovated, then locked into affordable rates.
Councilman Ralph Fernandez, part of the majority who passed the plan, said he wanted to move toward more rehabilitation of existing units because of the tremendous need, not because he opposes construction of affordable units.
"I want to make sure we look at the community as a whole and make sure we have balance," the licensed architect said.
The council denied recommendations of the Planning Commission for more aggressive construction.
Gary Naselroad, a retired Southern California Edison manager who sits on the commission, said the city has probably done more than any other in the county to build units for low-income households. That doesn't mean it can stop, he said.
"We have eight and 10 people living in one-bedroom apartments," he said. "We can't ignore that problem."
The prospects have improved for renovating existing housing, with more than $6 million coming into a city housing trust, City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz said.
Substandard housing conditions are "a huge problem," but the city has limited funds to address them, Bobkiewicz said.
More and more, residents expect bigger paychecks to be spent in Santa Paula after recent votes ending the repeated rejections of higher-income projects. In June, voters approved using farmland for a 1,500-home project east of town, a year after allowing up to 495 lots for upscale homes in Adams Canyon, on the city's northwestern edge.
But even as Santa Paulans look to 25-year-old Moorpark's prosperity, some in Moorpark admire the character of century-old Santa Paula.
"Santa Paula has a lot going for it that Moorpark will never have," said hardware store owner Dale Whitaker. He admires the historic downtown, the Santa Paula Airport, the fabric of the place.
"They have generations and generations of people that have been there, where Moorpark is basically new."
— Staff writer Carolyn Quinn contributed to this report.
Posted by goldeneye on July 6, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Police services should be planned for any of these housing units otherwise Santa Paula will be subsidizing a its own gang problem.
Posted by keepin_it_real on July 6, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ventura County do it's fair share? We just want to be in the middle? I'm sorry, but I am not too keen on my tax dollars going to these projects. If these people are living 3-4 families in one household and they are paying $900-$1000/month, that is $250-$300/month per family. How much do you think you would have to pay if you were in a low income housing? Less that that? Nobody cares if I can pay my bills or not. I take care of myself. Also, how many of these families are collecting welfare too?
If these families want low income housing, how much lower can it get? I'm sorry but if it was me, I would work 2 or 3 jobs if I had to to get ahead. Most families have a double income too. I don't think the County of Ventura or anyone else are responsible for this. People need to work things out themselves and do what needs to be done. I know people who have. Single mother with 3 kids, got a little assistance for a short time then got on her feet and moved on. She worked 2 jobs and stayed off welfare. She is a good mom and her children have what then need and not alot more. I don't see her whinnng about who is going to help me. She helped herself. It can be done guys.
Posted by cowchip on July 6, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This problem will only continue to get worse. Because these people are generally lazy and uneducated, they will always believe that society owes them something. When do we say enough is enough, already!
Posted by etpilot57 on July 6, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Low-income housing for farm workers? Gimme a break!
Why can't the housing authority check these people's documents? From what I understand, most of them are here illegally. Why the heck should WE subsidize THEM? I am so sick of paying taxes to support illegals whose biggest product is gang bangers. They siphon our hospitals, prisons, and schools dry.
Not only are these people violating federal law, but local fire codes, too. Many are paid under the table and avoid paying taxes themselves.
Santa Paula can't afford to pay their police officers and fire fighters now-- just imagine the deterioration and mayhem in the town once MS 13 arrives! We'll all need concealed weapons permits.
Posted by chair on July 6, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem isn't housing, it's pay. Our esteemed national governance determines the lowest possible rate for the lowest cost area in our country and bases its minimum wage rate on that. The states are quite free to raise that rate but, due to campaign contribution considerations, keeps even that lower than it needs to be. (Our politicians use the "entry level job" excuse as a palliative to the hard facts.)
On the other hand, our national governance is quite capable of considering local costs in rating cost-of-living allowances for our military and their civilian employees. Why can't it base our national minimum wage in like manner?
Hust be campaign contribution considerations in that mix, too!
Let's face it: By definition half our populace falls on the unhappy side of the Bell Curve. It used to be that such folks could afford single-family living based on the wages earned by the adult male member. Mom could raise her kids. The Elites decided life was way too cushy for their lessers and arranged things so that Mom had to work, too. More money for the Elites by doubling the production at little more than Pops used to earn. It took time, it required much dissembling, but it worked!
Now we have the mess we're in; we have vastly increased gang activity; we have immense numbers of kids feeling hopeless. What does the future look like to a lad with a 90 IQ?
Yes, all of us would have to pay more at the store, but all of us would be able to pay more at the store were rational minimum wages prevailing.
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on July 6, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
etpilot57,
Right on the money.
Illegals are bringing down the incomes of hard working americans.
I see a lot of low income residents who play the system and lie about their income, besides not paying taxes on it.
No more hand-outs. Let's also get westlake, newbury park, camarillo, and thousand oaks to step up. Yes, the places where the CEO's of the companies that hire illegal aliens live.
They need to enjoy the slums other cities do.
Posted by ironwoman on July 6, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Salaries aren't very good," she said. "Everything goes into rent."
Welcome to life...most of our paychecks go to our mortgage, car payments, food, daycare, clothing, utilities, etc.....It's called Life.
If you don't make enough, go back to school, stop having kids, and get an education to better yourself.
Not everyone is dealt a good hand in life but people seem to manage and don't take advantage of the system.
The State is in a budget deficit and it makes me wonder who gets the real advantage around here.
Not the working middle-class.
Posted by freethought on July 6, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Backers say it's time for other cities in Ventura County to do their fair share of providing housing the poor can afford."
They must have commented BEFORE looking at the chart above, which clearly shows that Santa Paula is far behind everyone else in doing ITS fair share. In fact, 7 out of 11 cities have exceed (some by huge amounts) their state-set goals. Santa Paula sits at a mere 26%. These "backer" didn't just put their feet in their mouths, they swallowed both legs whole.
However, I would agree that more low income housing will only add to their problem. I have seen (and even lived with) first-hand how low income housing and neighborhoods with brand new city-defined "affordable homes" turn to cesspits in less than a year after completion. These types of homes are bad for the community and, therefore, bad for the economy. If places like Santa Paula, El Rio, and Oxnard are to have any chance at changing their image, they will have to start with trimming the decay. Building more low-income homes and apartments only add to the existing decay.
Posted by THX1138 on July 6, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While it's good to provide for those that are less fortunate, there should be a limit to how much assistance is provided.
This is a multi-faceted issue and I noticed the Star steered clear of mentioning illegal immigration and those that exploit charitable programs.
Unfortunately there isn't an easy way to monitor [or impose monitoring of] low-income folks who request assistance. Are they taking responsibility for their actions so as to move up the social-economic ladder[?]. Are couples using birth control and is learning a new trade even considered[?]. Perhaps welfare should limit benefits so couples will think twice about having more kids[?].
Sure there are those that legitimately need assistance. However more effort should be made to weed out [opportunist] those that chose to exploit taxpayer funded programs!
Posted by freethought on July 6, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ironwoman - I am sorry to say that you are wasting your breath. Many who fall into the definition of "low income" only know how to do two things well - breed and complain. To add to this frustration, there are way too many bleeding hearts in this state who will continue to support those who plague our tax coffers by receiving free health care, low cost housing, free education (and free meals) for their school-aged children, and free (insert pretty much anything you like here). In order for a positive change for the middle class and higher citizens to occur, a borad-based attitude change is required. It is possible that this could happen, but highly unlikely.
Posted by freethought on July 6, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"borad-based" - should have been "broad-based".
Sorry!
Posted by freethought on July 6, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cowchip - Your statement will seem very uninformed and somewhat prejudice to many. It will SEEM that way. I, however, understand what you are saying. I know someone very weel who works in the Rio school district. She told me that most parents of children receiving free breakfast and lunch at school in that district are absolutely shameless in their tactics and will verbally attack school employees if their kids don't receive the absolute best choice of lunch for a given day - even when THEY fail to complete required forms by the required date. It's always someone else's fault. That even applies to the parents who are obviously here illegally (yes, the school employees can tell). I won't even get into what I see at the hospital emergency room and the supermakets. Your statement seems harsh, but I understand exactly where it comes from. Many of us are becoming just as frustrated as you.
Posted by steveinsocal on July 6, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cowchip... don't confuse lazy with uneducated...
Chair... the voice of sanity and reason amongst the (depressingly) familiar diatribe... I don't read anywhere in the article that those interviewed were illegal aliens... the common denominator appeared to be that they had Latino roots and for the main were agricultural workers...
Whilst this country fails to understand the difference between minimum and living wages, in an area where agriculture is a major contributor, these issues are going to continue to arise...
Posted by AskingQuestions on July 6, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Steve Smead is a landlord in Santa Paula. Sounds to me like he doesn't want competition for his rentals. How many families have moved out of his property to move to more spacious, more desireable and more affordable housing?
Posted by keepin_it_real on July 6, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since I made my post earlier this morning, I see there are a lot of us who feel the same about this issue. I see no problem with TEMPORARY help for those who NEED it. But, these people want a permanent fix. They want to get ahead at the taxpayers expense and they feel it is owed to them. I also agree they are also making money under the table and don't pay taxes themselves so why would they care.
Things must be better here than at home or they wouldn't be here. And why not !! They are here illegally, they are making money, also living off of free money and food and still complaining because they want a better place to live? GO HOME !!!!
Posted by mikesmason on July 6, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Freethought, check the header on the chart, it says "units for all income levels" I don't think it represents a goal for low income housing.
Posted by Artloverbut on July 6, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have always wished to live in a nice house in the cliffs of Spain overlooking the Mediterranean. But one day I sat down and compared my salary with the cost of living in Spain and WHAM, it hit me. I didn’t have enough money to live unassisted in this locale.
Using some common sense and honesty I chose to live within my means and remain here.
It appears if your dream destination is California, more importantly Ventura County, you need only arrive and the taxpayers will assure you have all the necessities. Hardly seems fair. Here’s a suggestion for all those complaining about not having enough money for rent- MOVE!
Until the liberals and politicians pull their head out of the sand this place will continue to decline in quality of life issues. The rest of you can fight the good, but losing, fight. After 30 years, I’m moving.
Posted by Wkg4theDream on July 6, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are many of us working hard for the dream that we cannot afford. In these tough economic times when real estate values are plummeting, rentals and leases are going up. Read the story people! Some of us are working hard, pulling together 2 and 3 incomes to be able to afford the LOW COST housing!
If Santa Paula wants to raise the economic level of their city, there is one thing to do (and it won't help me) and that is those who have rentals like the man in the article, bring your families back (sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, etc) and them live in your properties. They are in the "upper economic levels", right? Many of the properties in town who rent to multiple families are the "old" families and they are the ones that are renting illegally. Those who are building the beautiful units like the one on Main St and the one on Harvard, they are renting LEGALLY. Don't be fooled into thinking that those in the article, aren't in it for themselves. They don't want the competition. They have their houses on the hill -- they don't care about the rest of us.
Posted by Will on July 6, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We need a real cost analysis of how much the price of low end labor really changes the cost of the things we consume. With record corporate profits way above historical trend I expect that it is less than we all assume. Nobody talks about it. There is no analysis in the public forum.
About a year ago I looked at the total cost of labor for a head of cabbage and it was less than the price variability between stores for a head of cabbage. It isn't growers who set the price. For them the option is go out of business or play the game. With NAFTA and free trade I do not know if there is a way to support fruit and produce growers with price supports like they do in other commodities. If wages go up but growers here are supported then we can pay farm labor more money and that would be good for Mexico. Instead we will continue to destroy our government budgets to subsidize business.
Some type of reckoning is coming.
Posted by lakerboy805 on July 6, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
who is letting all these illegals continue to come into the country...Repulicans and Democrats..I don't hear OBAMA or MCAIN saying anything about illegal immigration and stopping the flow..so you OBAMA and MCAIN supporters what's the deal? tell me what your president is going to do..I don't like any of these candidates so i'm not voting for any of them..
Posted by freethought on July 6, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mikesmason - It does refer to low income housing. There are at least two levels - low and very low. There may be more, but I am not aware of them. If it meant "all", the numbers stated wouldn't make any sense. In fact, it doesn't make sense for the state to have goals set for "all".
Posted by whatever on July 6, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some type of reckoning is coming. Yes Will and it is the CA everyone use to know becoming a State that no one will want to visit anymore. A State completely run by Liberal Democrats. A state that there will no longer be diversity because it will be just a part of Mexico with uneducated people living off the Gov. Why do you think there is such a big problem and it is getting worse? Because the Liberals want the votes of all the low income people so they promise them more and more freebies which in turn brings more and more low income uneducated people who will never be anymore than they are now.
Posted by christafrankmiller on July 6, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
etpilot for president!!
Posted by Brownpride on July 6, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why the heck to do we need this many farm workers? Santa Paula will never be Moorpark... Theres no fixing that ghetto. Keep the gangs in SP.
Posted by Brownpride on July 6, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Santa Paula is like Mexico without the American tourists" <---- Truth
Posted by cowchip on July 6, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Steveinsocal...I absolutely am not confusing lazy with uneducated. It's basically safe to say that those who believe that society owes them are the same people who are unwilling to better their lives because they are lazy. A lazy person won't make the required effort to become educated...it's easier to live off the system.
Posted by lancelot40 on July 6, 2008 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, I agree about the latino..at schools, all the mexican kids have free meals, and believe me there are 4-8 kids in one family...when parents pick them up from school...you should see their vans...latest most expensive models...and in their payday, you should see the lines at western union, they send all their under the table money to Mexico...and then come and ask for houses and better salaries...gimme a break...all this makes me sick...and worse, our leaders (mayor, governor etc) don't see and don't do a damn thing.
Posted by tgduran007 on July 6, 2008 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You sit here whine, cry and complain you bunch of gluten stuffed pigs. You all are hypocrites. You blame everyone but yourselves. How about looking in the mirror? You are just as responsible for the poverty and low class that exists in our communities. You can't have it both ways. You point the finger at everyone else but yourselves. You blame the government and corporations yet you fail to see that you create the problem too. Illegals are deeply rooted in our society because you create the demand. You all love the fruits they pick, the cars they wash, your lawns they cut, the hamburgers and bacon they cook for you. I would respect your comments however I can't because I stand behind you in line when you're waiting to fill your pie hole with that bowl of chili cheese fries that the illegal just cooked for you. I hate you hypocritical people with a passion. You all treat and talk about "these people" like animals..it's truly sad.
Posted by pjlove10 on July 6, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tgduran007, I agree with you to a point. The types of jobs you speak of are always going to be there. Whether its the nonskilled illegal, the high school dropout, or the person just trying to make extra money. It just so happens that most illegal immigrants come here to find a better life, and to help support their family still living back home. I think the general frustration, including myself, is that most hardworking middle class people find it hard to have to contribute even more these days. We all contribute to society, but it's when situations are controllable too. The multiple children, the fancy cars, and the unnecessary spending. We are not saying that we are perfect. I think those that are frustrated and speak out are actually living responsibly and planning out the next steps in their lives, rather then just live day to day and not have any sense of budgets, family planning, etc...
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on July 6, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whatever,
The problem is being caused by both the liberals and the conservatives.
We need to get rid of both parties in this state.
All our democratic senators and the mayor of Los Angeles and San Francisco, who are calling their cities "Sanctuary Cities".
I think all cities, not only Santa Paula, should stop providing low-income housing and verify income and legal status. Oxnard provides low-income housing and some buyers don't even live there because they rent out their low-income houses (illegal). Some took equity out of their low-income house on current values (also illegal under the low income contracts), which was in the newspaper. I don't believe any of them were prosecuted.
Posted by jill on July 6, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Artloverbut, well put!
The more you hand out, the more people take. This is the land of "gimme." Some people think they are entitled to handouts. I've had my hard time and never asked for assistance. Instead, I put my nose to the grindstone and worked my way out of it.
Posted by keepin_it_real on July 6, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
duran--Do you like the idea of supporting people with your hard earned tax dollars? I don't. These families want a better way of life at the taxpayers expense. They get paid for what they do and they are the ones compaining and whinning they want better homes and want someone else to pay for them.
These are hard times for everybody. There are 2 cities want to hit us where it hurts with a raise in sales tax. Gas is so high it is crazy, and the cost of food is going thru the roof. The last thing we want to hear is people complaining they want the taxpayers to help them have a better place to live.
Yes, I know they pick our fruit and cut lawns and so on. But if they want a better way of life, they need to take the bull by the horn and better themselves, like the rest of us did. Go to school, work a couple of jobs if needed and pay taxes. The attitude that we are here doing jobs you don't want or won't do yourselves does not warrent hand outs by the taxpayers. We are not responsible for you having a home to live in, free food and medical care.
And, oh, I know there are those who are doing the crying to the same tune who are driving vehicles I can't afford. What is wrong with this picture? If it is so bad here then think how it was back home. Get any handouts there? If I moved there would some one give me free money, food, medical and housing? I don't think any other country does that for any one. It is sink or swim and that is the way it is. I am swimming because I choose to help myself.
Posted by calibaby1978 on July 6, 2008 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WHY IS THER A 5 YEAR WAITING LIST FOR HOUSING WITH THE cITY OF sANTA Paula Housing? Give the people on it 3-5 years to get their act together then release their voucher. Let someone else who is in need. I have seen many people who are still on Section 8 Housing and have been on it for years. They drive nice new cars, wear LOTS of nice gold chains around their nects and the women alway seem to have nice nail jobs. WHOOPS!! Guess they could not have these nice things if they were taken off houing. There are families abusing Section 8 Housing by have people living with them. Check the mail that comes to the house, check the credit report and see who is living at that address. Do a spot check on the home late at night. WHOOPS AGAIN!! The Housing Authority states that they have "no man power" to enforce such projects. Do they not have a "Housing Board"? Are these "Housing Board" members not paid for attending meetings? I know of several cases that have been reported and these people are still abusing the system. Mayve the City of Santa Paula should look into this. Just a suggestion.
Posted by jill on July 6, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That always kills me - the person living in a ramshackle rental driving an Escalade and going to nail salons, etc.
Posted by Ness on July 7, 2008 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cowchip!!!!!! I will not even take to much of my time to respond to your ignorant, pretentious and above all repugnant comment, but us folks here in "lazy and uneducated Santa Paula"...never asked for your help and never will. So, i would suggest you retract your disdain comment before you continue appearing as a "lazy uneducated Ventura County resident!!!"
Oh, and P.S. if you need help deciphering my sarcastic comment, use a dictionary.
Posted by johnnyringo on July 7, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pretty obvious how the majority commenting feel about the whole subject matter. Yes, it's strange that some people think we should provide "housing" for non-documented people when Federal & State law prohibit them having driver licenses and insurance to go to and from work? This country needs to make up its mind. Do we want borders, or NOT? Do we want imported workers, or NOT? You may not know, that in the Middle East (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) immigrants from Pakistan, Indonesia and etc. are held in virtual slavery, abused and killed every day, and no one cares. Here in the US, it is apparently cruel not to provide medical care, housing, and a window in every jail cell. We are soft, we have lost our way, and that is why we are now in such deep, deep, s**t. We need change yes, and we need housing and socio-economic balance or we will sink to the level of Zimbabwe.
Posted by daugtherofimmigrant on July 7, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ill always be the first 2 defend immigrants. BUT!! before any of you get all crazy & excited on me, I will admit, & I don't agree with some "some" of their doings.
When it comes 2 housing, oh hell no! I dont agree in building for some & not others. I think, & this is my humble opinion, Santa Paula should build, but perhaps they need a real salary analysis first. If we did one then we would see what kind of housing one could afford here.Key is making sure that when you do an analysis it has correct info. Im still not sure how this info is gathered. It's like G-Lo says "I'm still trying to figure out how they collect this info when half of us don't answer the door, or respond 2 any type of survey". But see.. most farm laborers, not all but most especially single people only work through out the farm season, typically 1/2 - or 3/4 of the year. Then they go 2 Mexico & come back during the beginning of the year, 2 do their taxes. IF they worked year round then their income would not be so low. This is why I have a fit, because their w2's show they only make so much, then they qualify for all benefits. BUT it would be wrong just to blame them & their doings for having so many low income people in our town, because then we have people who were born & raised here you see them all of the time, they are perfectly healthy, can work, all you SP locals know exactly who I'm talking about & sure you know at least one, they work only a certain amount time, then they stop working because they know how much they can make a year in order 2 qualify for benefits. If they make more then it all goes down hill, no welfare, medical, or housing. It wouldn't be fair 2 say it only happens in SP it happens everywhere, But because SP is the topic then I am focused with the town. But people play our system big time and it's time 2 stop the madness!I have been told 2 my face when applying for work, they can't work o.t. or they can't make more than 10.00 an hour or else they wont qualify. I look at them wanting 2 slap them.
ETpilot57 commented that illegals biggest product is gang bangers whoah, whoah, whoah! I know you are angry & frustrated, as well as I, but no need to get excited, that is not true, unless you have seen a survey we have missed? Im not going to say they don't have them, because they do, but thats not their biggest product. Most of our cholos in SP come from way back when. There are 3rd or even 4th generation cholos in SP and majority didnt come here illegally. If you meant 2 say Hispanic, although it hurts me like a MOFO, I'm going 2 agree with you, but only because we live in a town where Hispanic is Majority.
Keepin_it_real- really $900-1000 rent? Where? Or did you also exaggerate?
So 2 fix the problem we first have 2 figure out how much out of the year did one workd, if they worked 1/2 year & no real reason behind it, then they need 2 get 2 gettin. Let me tell you if "low income" housing didn't exist we would all be making ends meet somehow!
Posted by B8R_N4MD on July 7, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Freethought, nowhere in that chart does it refer to low income housing, it states it represents ALL housing units. mikemason was correct.
I agree some housing should be temporary and not permanent like it is now. Some people stay on it knowing they dont need to find a better job to afford their rent, abusing the system day after day.
As for the people up on the hill not wanting competition, that is absurd. If they agreed to put their rental units in the housing program, they would be guaranteed a steady monthly income at market rate prices. They have nothing to gain except a better economic city to live in by not wanting too many low income houses.
Posted by freethought on July 7, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
B8R_N4MD - My mistake. However, my point on too much low income homes still stands. I used to live in one of those neighborhoods. If I had come up with an extra $20K, I could have bought a home without all the applicable resale restriction, and I would have been in a better neighborhood. Those homes bring down the value of the rest of the neighborhood by virtue of the residents. Low income housing is a bad idea. If you can't afford to live in the area, then live somewhere more affordable or rent.
Posted by freethought on July 7, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On the comments about those in low income homes or living with multiple families under the same roof AND driving expensive vehicles - I can not only vouch for that, I can tell you what neighborhoods you can find plenty of examples of this. In my old neighborhood, there were dozens of high end SUVs. At least two of those were Hummers. I also saw several Cadillacs, Mercedes, BMWs, and a Jaguar - all relatively new. The majority of the households don't make more than $50K per year, yet there would be four or five very new vehicles in front of some of these homes - all worth much more than mine. How is this possible? Simple - banks were giving money to anyone with a pulse, and our city and state governments have seen fit to provide a multitude of services and goods for free. Most of these folks have a "me first" mentality, and our politicians are feeding that personailty. The whole thing is very frustrating.
Posted by justmeinsp on July 7, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
part of any household budget is to decide what to spend your money on and can you afford the things you want. Living in S.P., I've seen numerous people in line at the grocery store with their food stamps & WIC coupons, chatting or texting on their cell phones and then hauling their tax-funded purchases out to their big SUVs... come on!! I actually heard one conversation between 2 20something women where the one said "yeah, we've moved in with my relative cuz we couldn't afford to pay both the rent and the Suburban's payment. As soon as we've paid off our truck, we'll move out to our own place." Now THAT's priorities for ya!
Posted by BeaHappi on July 7, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why aren't the farmers and ranches asked to provide housing for the workers? Like bunk housing or something like that?
I can't even get started on a rant about people who live in subsidized housing, etc. yet find a way to have luxury vehicles, cell phones, and name brand everything.
Very, very frustrating.
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on July 7, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oxnard provides low-income housing and some owners don't even live there. They rent out their low-income houses to other families (which is illegal under the low income contracts). Some took equity out of their low-income house on current values and made a profit (also illegal under the low income contracts). This was in the newspaper. I don't believe any of them were prosecuted.
Posted by freethought on July 7, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
vcsexplorer11 - If you know of a particular instance where someone is renting out their "affordable home" in Oxnard, you can rat them out by calling Ernie Whitaker at the Oxnard Affordable Housing office. He can't stand when people take advantage of the city's good will.
Posted by getreal on July 7, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I want to know how 3 paychecks cannot pay the rent of $1100. You mean to tell me that the THREE adults in the family mentioned in this article, make approximately $400 a month each? Or less? Are you serious! Thats not even minimum wage by my calculations. Maybe you should stop picking the lemons and get a minimum wage job! I really wonder what kind of cars they drive and what luxury items they blow their paychecks on. It's not like they have multiple children either, theres only ONE. They don't need low income housing, they need someone to show them how to budget.
Posted by getreal on July 7, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My appologies, two children.
Posted by getreal on July 7, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And another thing! A HOMEMAKER!! I would love to be a homemaker but I can't. I have to work along with my husband to support my family. Maybe I will quit my job so I can qualify for low income housing. This is absurd. I am so sick of supporting people who are too damn lazy to work. Get a freaking job lady!
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on July 7, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
freethought,
The question is, has anyone in Oxnard housing actually done anything but shake a finger at the criminals who scam the city in low-income housing? What did they do to all the criminals that took money out of their homes? Oh yes, nothing, those poor criminals. They just didn't know better. A language barrier perhaps.
Posted by lunachick4life on July 7, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can you say NYC Projects, Cabrini Green, etc? Lower 9th ward...humm, no rebuilding since homes were NOT owner occupied and slumlords won't rebuild for a community of people unable to afford market-adjusted rates. Find me a community where owner occupied housing fell to the substandard levels seen in subsidized housing nationwide. They don't exist.
Unlike Moorpark, S.P. has not been able to extract its economy from agriculture, expand its economic reach to the neighboring affluence and attract a broader economic populous.
As long as you have multigenerational families earning a living in the unskilled labor market, subsidizing what ever family exists here or abroad, the future looks bleak.
Not only do police and fire services suffer, so do the schools. Children attending schools with a majority of students who can not see a future beyond what their own families have achieved are fighting an uphill battle not easily won.
I guess the saying goes; you reap what you sow....
Posted by p.oherlihy on July 8, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Freethought...The STAR graph includes high end as well as low end housing. It is misleading. If you break it down, you will see that Santa Paula has consistently met the low income numbers but has failed to meet the high end numbers. These RHNA numbers also show that other cities in the county built mostly high end.
Currently there is a big push by Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation to build over 120 high density units in a big box project on only four acres.
Santa Paula has approved two large mid to high end housing projects that are going forward right now (500 houses in Adams Canyon and 1500 houses in East Area 1). But this will take about five years to happen.
The moratorium on low income housing will only apply to the high density projects. Instead, the city council would focus on rehabilitating and upgrading our existing rentals to meet the RHNA requirements.
Upgrading existing housing gives more benefits to SP. One, smaller rentals pay property taxes (CEDC does not). Two, upgrades will be for existing residents who already live here. Three, blighted neighborhoods would be improved.
Therefore, it makes good sense to have a moratorium on these high density eyesores until housing balance is achieved through new development.
Mayor Gonzales, and Councilmen Fernandez and Luna are under tremendous pressure by CEDC and other special interest groups. They have a good vision for Santa Paula. The STAR did not report this accurately.
Posted by keepin_it_real on July 8, 2008 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dtrofimmigrant--Hi, I should have made myself more clear. It was just an example, sorry.
Beahappy--re; aren't farmers providing bunks for farmworkers? I think they do, or maybe they use to. Part of the problem is I guess it isn't good enough for them anymore. Somehow, I think some feel they want more but they want it given to them, instead of doing what they need to do to better themselves.
I am in the middle, and I work my butt of without any help. I have what I need, I pay my bills and my taxes. Maybe I get to splurge once in a while (when I get a tax return) or work a little OT, but don't live beyond my means. And, oh, I don't have a nice fancy car either. I think I would be laughed out of town if I started crying, I now want to live in a nice big house instead of my nice little decent apartment and I want the taxpayers to pay for it. See how ridiculous that sounds? Hummm, I guess if that is going to happen, I will have to get a 2nd job and I still won't be able to. So here I am and I accept that.
Posted by freethought on July 8, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
p.oherlihy - I'll agree that the numbers are misleading. I'll also agree that the more dense projects are definitely drags on the neighboring home prices, so a moratorium is definitely in order. However, I will go further to say that all low income housing, whether densely constructed or not, also brings down home prices. I used to live in one of those communities. It was a complete msitake. My neighborhood was brand spanking new in 2000, yet it went downhill within a year. It's not the homes, but the type of character that qualifies for low income homes. I felt a bit ashamed to think I needed to live in one of those homes, and that motivated me to better my income situation. Most of my former neighbors consider themselves lucky to have what they have, and will never try to improve their situation. They have told me this much. Basically, I don't see how low income housing ever improves a town's financial or social standing.
Posted by p.oherlihy on July 8, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Freethought, if cities don't build any low end housing they can be sued by these special interest groups like CEDC.
Santa Paula has two choices of what kind of low end to build. First, they can build high density, big box eyesores that don't pay property taxes. Or, second, they can rehabilitate existing rentals that do pay property taxes.
The second option is by far the best.
However, this will not stop CEDC and their lawyers from proposing high density outrages like Plaza Amistad. They do not care about Santa Paula.
A moratorium on high density low income housing is necessary to keep this relentless pressure and lawsuits off the city council. CEDC is wasting Santa Paula's time and money.
Posted by daugtherofimmigrant on July 8, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
keepin_it_real - man I got excited for a second, LOL! I understand this is a very frustrating topic.
to everyone - seriously like many other subjects that we have read about low income, housing,and welfare, it gets really frustrating and pisses us off. But the people that have that power to do something, don't, all they suggest is to build more housing for low income. PAAALEEEASE!!! SERIOUSLY, if these people were given a time limit where they could stay and then move on to better places, really they could do it. They don't because honestly, WHY? Why work, when they get free food, almost free housing, and drive nice cars and dress all fine and divine (or atleast they seem to believe). I think GETREAL mentioned she is tempted to quit her job, honestly that has crossed my mind for a second, why work? You know why we don't quit are jobs, because we have high hopes for ourselves and our families, because we have pride, because we don't want to be one of those that people stare at when we are paying at Tresierras or Vons with our food stamp credit card (I got a kick out of those).
I believe in helping those that are going thru a tough time, when they honestly have lost their job and can't seem to make ends meet, but when you have those that were raised and now raising their offspring with food stamps and housing, I don't think so. I know a few people that have lived off of welfare and housing for several years and I am curious to know it there is ever a limit for this? They arent going anywhere, why should they when they get it for free.
How about assisting with employment training instead of housing? Or perhaps assist with housing while training, they can take short courses, computer, filing, assembly, beauty school, and employment assistance after their done with training. Then they can send them off and have them pay their own rent and bills.
In regards to farm laborers - I am telling you I know that most of them are only here through out the season they go back home and then they have the nerve to claim they are low income! Who the hell can afford to take a 3 month vacation back home in Mexico spend money like no other, come back file taxes get a major refund because they only make 25,000 a year (in a 8 month period) and qualify for all of the assistance. This is why if there are any teachers reading this they will tell you that kids are always behind because they miss so much school.
Stop the madness!!
Posted by BeaHappi on July 8, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In the early 80's I worked for a savings and loan in Oxnard and we had many migrant field workers as customers. I remember being amazed at how much $$ they had in the bank - sometimes more than $30K in a passbook savings account. In talking with them I learned that they lived multiple families to a home so that they could spend less for living expenses. Many of them drove beater cars for the same reason.
So regarding the above statement about 8 - 10 ppl sharing a one-bedroom apartment; well for many of them it might be a choice rather than a necessity.
The people that I got to know were saving as much money possible so that they could take it back to Mexico and "live like kings." (their exact words).
Posted by bugmenot on July 8, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SINK OR SWIM!
Posted by freethought on July 8, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
p.oherlihy - Absolutely, you are correct about CEDC not caring. However, the voices of the Santa Paula residents can count for quite a bit if they all come together on the issue. Santa Paula has absolutely pristine views. It is a complete shame that the town did not build itself to match. It's about as sad as Port Hueneme in that respect.
Posted by FedUp on July 8, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CEDC is all about building communities to unite low income mexicans who can feel like they are still living in mexico, with all the benefits of the good old us of a.
CEDC uses government subsidies to build developments for those who are not here legally. Sure, the person on the lease may be a "citizen" but the 4-10 people sharing the home are not.
look at the other CEDC developments around the county, and tell me what you think about them. Start at Cabrillo Village off of Saticoy Ave in Ventura. if you do not get shot for asking for directions when you are down there, I will be pleasantly surprised.
you can call me a racist if you want. I dont really care anymore. all you people who support "businesses" like the CEDC all deserve what is going to happen in 20 years, when we are living in a third world society, thanks to your brainless decisions....
Posted by BeaHappi on July 8, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FedUp - RACIST! :~) (just had to say it!)
We looked at new houses right across from Cabrillo Village (15 years ago). We liked them but when we checked with Ventura PD about good/bad neighborhoods those were were told to avoid bordered...you guessed it...Cabrillo Village.
For crying outloud...no wonder people risk their lives to come into this country!
Posted by p.oherlihy on July 9, 2008 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There were three housing element workshops in Santa Paula that were televised. At the first meeting CEDC packed the room with Spanish speaking supporters and their children. Many stammered through statements which led me to believe that their speeches were written by someone else. They were not there at the second meeting. The third meeting was packed again. It was a real dog and pony show.
Here is the problem. Last year, the city council denied a zoning change that would allow CEDC to build a 150 unit project called Plaza Amistad on only four acres. CEDC then sued the city. There is a lawsuit right now.
To compound matters, the previous council under Mary Ann Krause (who lost re election over this issue and others)and Gabino Aguirre, gave CEDC $400k for Plaza Amistad. Even though the project was denied, CEDC refuses to give the money back. CEDC also has a $4.1 million grant from the state to build this denied project. This is our tax money.
This misleading STAR article is part of the first public relations attempt by CEDC to submit a new proposal for Plaza Amistad in August (one year after denial). CEDC wants to make a racial issue out of this when it is actually an economic issue. CEDC does not pay property taxes which would go to schools and the city. Yet they overload city services.
Steve Smead and Larry Sagely are prominent and involved members of the Santa Paula community. There is a real need for the moratorium. Santa Paula has done it's fair share to provide low income housing. The RHNA numbers prove this. Santa Paula has two approved upscale housing developments in Adams Canyon and East Area 1. We need to wait until they are completed to bring SP into economic balance before authorizing any new low end housing. Both these developments provide work force housing and in lieu fees that could be used for infill projects and rehabilitation of existing rentals (that do pay property taxes).
The current city council majority of Mayor Gonzales and Councilmen Fernandez and Luna see this new vision. The minority councilmembers Gabino Aguirre and John Proctor are firmly aligned to CEDC.
One final caveat. Over the last ten years CEDC has gone on voter registration campaigns to gather absentee ballots. In the last election there were 845 undervotes (there were three seats open yet people would only vote for one seat). It is suspected that most of these undervotes went to Gabino Aguirre. Is CEDC using their dense projects to create a special interest voting base? Many people believe so.
If the "new" Plaza Amistad is rejected in August, CEDC and their lawyers are poised to sue again. Their only grounds for this lawsuit would be racial discrimination. That is why CEDC is pushing the race card so much.
The BIG LOOPHOLE (that CEDC exploits)is that if a child is born in America, then the parents are also elligible for low income housing--even if they came here illegally.
Posted by FedUp on July 9, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The BIG LOOPHOLE (that CEDC exploits)is that if a child is born in America, then the parents are also elligible for low income housing--even if they came here illegally."
which is the giant loophole in all of these government subsidized programs. Section 8 housing is the same way. This is one reason why people need to stand up and say something against groups like this. it is disgusting how these groups can utilize tax payer money to fund projects for those who are here illegally. and that money they are using to pay their lawyers... yeah, thats right. that is your taxes hard at work as well.
Posted by keepermel on July 9, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you add up all the handouts and benefits, it looks like being a farmworker is one of the highest paid jobs in California. Where else is almost every penny you make extra spending money? I would love to be a stay at home mom and send my kids to major universities and drive a car bigger than my rollerskate...I guess American citizens are excluded from the American dream. We have to be awake for the reality of work as many hours as you can and still have an empty fridge at the end of the month. And don't forget that community college looks like the only option by kids even have a chance at. But you better believe that they will respect the value (or lack of a value) of a dollar, and earn everything they have.
Posted by mypov on July 9, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i have no problem with low income housing, one thing you can say is that the housing authority does a really good job in making sure that only tha appropriate people are living there and neighbors always rat eachother out if they dont. And if your child is a gang member or is a criminal they will evict the family. My problem is that they should investigate a little further, i dont wanna judge but alot of low income residents have one or more new vehicles, how is that???? im not referring to all. And low income housing should be a help not a lifestyle, some people will stay for more than 20 years. thats ridiculous!!
Posted by mypov on July 9, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Calibaby; your rite in alot of ways, as for other comments alot of illegal immigrants do pay taxes,because they must provide documents to work, they mayb borrowed documents but they pay taxes. Seriously though its not all thier fault, us citizens also abuse the system as well as people from mexico, middle east and phillipines. its the governments fault. Free medical to anyone that comes here for help, how about a $5 co- pay for medical or how about a $20 co-pay for W.I.C or a share of cost for parents who have CDR. Wouldnt that help our society???
Posted by FedUp on July 9, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"And if your child is a gang member or is a criminal they will evict the family."
not true at all. I know ALOT of gang members who still live in Cabrillo Village. they are told that if they are convicted of a felony, that person is not allowed to live in the community anymore. however, I have seen that rule being broken plenty of times.
so, when an illegal is using someone else's SS # and are paying taxes, then it is ok? lame argument. how about when they use that same SS # to get a loan for that new escalade that they will never, ever pay off because it is not their credit that is being damaged. please, get a clue.
as for the lazy americans, I could not agree more. put them in the fields, and make the high school kids wash dishes, bus tables, wash cars, mow lawns, etc like I was doing 15-18 years ago.
Posted by johnnyringo on July 9, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
P. O'Herlihy has it right. But here's the thing. Can CEDC really get into a pi**ing match with the City of SP when CEDC cannot return or explain where the $400 K went? They are a 501 -C charity, their books should be open. The City is eventually going to demand to be shown, very specifically, where the $400 K in RDA TRUST funds went and WHY it cannot be returned, like right now. CEDC has played their cards wrong again, my guess is, they do not HAVE the $400 K nor can they stand the light of day showing how and why it went "away" for a non-project. We'll be waiting!
Posted by C2ShiningC on July 10, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It also makes sense to call a "time out" when you don't understand exactly what is happening to your money, all $400,000 of it. I'd suggest also looking closely at who is actually getting the obscene income tax credits these projects generate. They are officially called Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). $5,000,000,000 worth (Yes, Billions) are being created per year. Even better, it seems they can be traded as "equities" and are good for up to 30 years. So if you are wondering why the heavy handed push for low income housing, there is the incentive. I don’t buy the philanthropy persona projected by the builders, this is about money, lots of it. And it comes from skimming off any increases in property taxes sorely needed to keep up with inflation into the RDA slush fund and the Federal Income Tax Credits engineered by the people at HUD.
Posted by bgarcia77 on July 10, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Racism is alive and well in our county! Each one of your ignorant comments simply reiterates this fact. It is indeed very sad!
Posted by p.oherlihy on July 11, 2008 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bgarcia77, So Mayor Gonzales and Councilman Luna and Councilman Fernandez are racist too? Like I said, CEDC is trying to turn a bad development into a racial issue.
If SP and the state gives money for low income housing and the developer makes an unsafe high density project, does that mean the city automatically approves it? Heck NO!
The developer has the resposibility to build a project that conforms to city visions and standards. CEDC failed to do this with Plaza Amistad. Now, CEDC is keeping the $400k and also suing the city.
CEDC and their activist lawyers are playing the race card. That makes them the racists!
Posted by Wkg4theDream on July 11, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
p.oherlihy: I would say they are sellouts -- ignorant people who refuse to acknowledge their culture and their obligation to give back to their community. "They made it" and they should be working hard to provide others of their culture the same opportunity--in housing, education, and jobs. They bought into the lies that this is about "economics". This is not about "economics", this is about brown skin and there are many in SP who want no more brown-skinned people moving in. The THREE you mentioned, well their immigrant ancestors are probably turning over in their graves.
Posted by johnnyringo on July 12, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To WKg4theDream: True, the THREE did make it, and they "made it" on the own, without hand-outs. What you apparently want is based on the the same kind of victimization ploy Jesse Jackson has used for years. In America, you can make it, and most who do, are NOT given a leg-up, they do it through hard work, education, and yes, let's face it, A LOT OF LUCK! Our Council now is right on target, you are living in 1948, Dude or Dude-ess.
Posted by p.oherlihy on July 12, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wkg4theDream, Sellouts?? Hardly. Perhaps you should try and grasp the concept of serving the entire city of Santa Paula and not just special interests.
What you might not realize is that most people who live in Santa Paula consider themselves American first and their cultural heritage second. This is what makes us a community.
Gonzales, Luna, and Fernandez are true heroes in our city. They represent the majority of voters who know that Santa Paula is truly a gem with tremendous potential.
With the focus on both infill and rehabilitation of existing rentals (that pay property taxes), these councilmembers know that our RHNA number could be met. Both Adams Canyon and East Area 1 have inclusionary agreements. In other words, "high tide floats all boats".
This is why it is important for a moratorium on big box, high density low income projects. We have several already and none of them pay property taxes.
The city has an economic choice, that's all.
The CEDC supporters want to make this a racial issue when it is not. Wkg4theDream's racial backstabbing is part of their plan. How dare you badmouth their ancestors in their graves!!!
Gonzales, Luna, and Fernadez's forefathers came to America to BE Americans! They would be proud of their families.
Posted by whatsup805 on July 17, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.
The article does not talk about ILLEGALS. They are talking about low income housing. The lowest paying jobs are fast food industry. McDonalds in LA just got hit with a $1 million dollar fine for providing papers to illegals. Instead of doing the right thing and paying people a good wage they dont, they hire someone else who will do the same job for $7 bucks an hour.
Lets see 7x40=280, 280x4= $1,120 minus taxes...i see why they would have 6 adults in a 2 bedroom house.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.