Correspondence - Item #3 HA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ibarra, Evelyn From:Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 16, 2024 3: To:eComment Cc:Hernandez, Johnathan Subject:Re: July 16 2024 City Council Item 27 and Housing Authority Item 3 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. I write with an update: I oppose the item. C&C contacted me and confirmed that currently, the non-affirdable units (the market rate units) are subject to local rent stabilization and tenant protections. By approving this item, it will eventually result in a net loss of affordable housing in our city. By converting market rate units subject to rent stabilization, all units will be exempt from the protections afforded by the hard won local protections. Additionally, C&C has a bad rep with the senior citizens living in C&C units on a fixed income. I encourage the council to reach out directly to tenants living in C&C properties to find out more from tenants themselves. Sincerely, Nathaniel On Wed, Jul 10, 2024, 2:03 PM Nathaniel Greensides < wrote: Dear City Council, I write neither in support nor in favor of the item, but wish to note some points of consideration. When this property became an affordable housing project in 1995, 48 percent of the units became permanently affordable. Now in 2024, we a request to 1. renovate the property (which includes a relocation plan for current tenants; permanent relocation for some and temporary relocation for other tenants) and 2. make all units affordable rental units, but only for the next 55 years. Regarding the first point, I question the need to replace amenities which may not need replacement and as is the standard for many if not most renovations of residential property in America - utilizing financial debt products subsidized by our tax dollars despite over three decades of rents having been collected. Where replacement of current amenities and features is needed, by all means, it should be allowed. However, upgrades and renovations are not the same as replacement and repair. Furthermore, by today's current laws, this type of project if it had broken ground today, would not be required to create as many affordable units being created; which means to say that the City Council of the 1990s (or at least the laws by which the City Council was bound) cared more about housing affordability than the laws and standards by which we operate today. Regarding the second point: I don't think the local and state housing crisis will resolve itself by the year 2079. We live in a beautiful area where demand for housing is never going to cease. Even in 2008 when we saw the housing market crash nationwide, for Santa Ana residents then and now, rents and incomes still remain largely unable to allow most residents to purchase property or afford market rate rents. Prioritizing short term gain over long term stability for our city is and always has been shortsighted - the City's pension liabilities for generations past being funded with debt products will inhibit the growth and capabilities of my generation as well as generations younger than myself for multiple generations to come. Lastly, again as I wrote in a separate comment regarding information sharing and collaboration among housing developers, this particular developer should be required to work with younger local community based organizations to increase the number of local housing developers in our City since they have almost four decades of experience in existence. 1