HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 - PUBLIC COMMENT_GreensidesFrom:Mitre-Ramirez, Norma
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Public Comment for Agenda Item #1
Date:Monday, August 03, 2020 12:52:34 PM
Attachments:image001.pngimage002.png
Good Afternoon,
The below communication pertaining to an item on tonight’s Planning Commission meeting has been received.
Respectfully,
Norma Mitre | Assistant Clerk of the Council
Clerk of the Council Office | 20 Civic Center Plaza | Santa Ana, CA 92701
P: 714-647-6520 | F: 714-6476956 |nmitre@santa-ana.org
http://www.santa-ana.org/
http://www.ocvote.com/
Please visit the online Holiday and Closed Friday Schedule at https://www.santa-ana.org/holiday-and-closed-friday-schedule.
This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not theintended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediatelydelete the email you received. This e-mail (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such, may,therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.
Effective March 19, 2020, Gavin Newsom, Governor of the State of California, ordered all individuals living in the State ofCalifornia to stay home or at their place of residence, in response to the global COVID-19 outbreak. City operations arelimited to essential staff. Due to these emergency circumstances, the City’s response to your Public Records Act requestwill be delayed. Thank you for your patience in these unprecedented times.
From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 12:49 PM
To: eComment <ecomment@santa-ana.org>
Cc: info@thaivietphan.com; Contreras-Leo, Cynthia <ccontreras-leo@santa-ana.org>; Phan, V. Thai <vphan@santa-ana.org>; McLoughlin, Mark
<mmcloughlin@santa-ana.org>; Garcia, Norma <ngarcia10@santa-ana.org>; Nguyen, Ken <knguyen20@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Planning Commission Public Comment for Agenda Item #1
Dear Planning Commission,I do not support this item. The idea of reducing requirements for developers and speculators to include housing affordability in newprojects would be irresponsible to all Santa Ana residents. This pandemic will have disastrous long term economic effects and reducingHOO requirements at this time will forever ensure that Santa Ana residents (and their children/the city's future) have zero chance ofremaining in our city. Reducing the HOO requirements will create immediate destabilization of the housing market in our City. Tenantswho live in Santa Ana currently will be priced out at a faster rate by new speculators and developers should the reduction in HOOrequirements be enacted. This type of speculation and development devoured many urban and suburban cities in California after the 2008 economic crisis. Areport from 2018(https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/acceinstitute/pages/1153/attachments/original/1570049936/WallstreetLandlordsFinalReport.pdf?1570049936) by the ACCE Institute, Americans for Financial Reform, and Public Advocates - all groups which advocate for bettereconomic opportunity for tenants - explains why this is a bad thing: MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
When houses are sold to cash-carrying investors for conversion into rentals, prospective homeowners and “mom and pop”
landlords are crowded out of the market, and communities suffer — particularly communities of color.Wall Street landlords are accountable to investors to increase profits. That pressure is compounded by Bond Rating Agencieswhen they threaten to downgrade securitization deals if landlords fail to set “competitive rents” and minimize “loss” throughspeedy evictions and aggressive fee collection.Tenants are negatively impacted, with large annual rent increases, fee gouging, a high rate of evictions, and rampanthabitability issues.The damaging effects, like those of the predatory lending that led to the financial crisis, appear to disproportionatelyimpact low and moderate income families and communities of color.Federal government policies have spurred the trends discussed here. For example, most of these large institutionalized companiesare receiving a huge tax break, being exempt from federal taxes due to their status as Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs).Wall Street landlords have become a growing political lobbying force, with the 2014 launch of a new trade group called theNational Rental Home CouncilWhen applying the findings of the report to Santa Ana, it becomes apparent that reducing HOO requirements will send a clear messageto non-community based investors: Santa Ana welcomes the destabilization of the local economy and does not care about the goal ofattainable and affordable housing. While the ad hoc committee's recommendations, consisting of former council member Iglecias alongwith current council members Solorio and Villegas, may appear to be a good faith attempt to incentivize increasing the amount ofhousing units in the City, the proposed amendments only serve to allow for big name corporate landlords and developers to turn quickprofits on land here in Santa Ana. There are community based entities (such as Community Land Trusts) which exist in Santa Ana andserve as the best means against incentivizing outside entities' ability to destabilize our communities. I ask that the commision not vote in favor of the proposed amendments.Sincerely,Nathaniel GreensidesWard 5