HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Item #27
Ibarra, Evelyn
From:Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, July 10, 2024
To:eComment
Cc:Hernandez, Johnathan
Subject: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.
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.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Greensides
Ward 5 resident
1
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
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Greensides
Ward 5 resident
2