The often repeated slogan of "Because affordable or subsidized units are funded by local governments, they are required to only use government-approved contractors and often all union labor" as being the reason that a 400 square foot low income unit costs $1,000/square foot to acquire land and build vs. $150 for a single family home has no support. A public records act request for properties built by major develeopers, reveals that for a $14 mil project $4 mil goes to land acquisition and construction, the other $10 mil goes to the developer fees. You are welcome.
“To put this into context, the $750M that could have been allocated to Oakland would still have only resulted in 750 new units over more than a decade.”
This isn’t correct. City $ is only seed $ in the capital stack. It is multiplied many times over.
A big criticism of the BAHFA bond is it only would have returned 80% of the tax amount from Oakland to Oakland
The answers to your questions are available on the internet, you can join a housing group to learn about AH finance, listen in on the Council committee meetings, read staff reports, or meet with the folks at the Dept of Housing and Community Development.
Typing this phrase into your search bar returns lots of publications: "books on california affordable housing finance". Why are you asking me to do that for you?
In other words, neither you nor anyone else has any basis to believe your claims.
There are no question marks denoting a question in my comment to you. You have been directed to prove your contentions. The onus is on the proponent to prove his claims. Short of verifiable evidence and authority from a published book of finance, your claims have zero merit.
You don't have the power to "direct" me or anyone else. You can choose to learn about AH finance or to remain ignorant of it. The choice is completely yours, but it doesn't change the facts of how it works. In my opinion, you are an example of what's wrong with our political discourse: ignorant of the facts, and unwilling to do the work to become informed.
You posted a comment in a quasi public forum inviting comment. Upon receiving comment, you object. One has to wonder. Your bear the burden of proof for your claims, by citing to a publich book of finance to prove your claims. Short of that, your claims have zero merit.
Affordable housing is a misnomer - and to suggest non-union jobs would be utilized to drive down the costs is unrealistic. If counties and municipalities really want to reduce the cost of housing they must lobby state and federal laws that dramatically drive up the costs of development. Repurposing office and commercial space that has exemptions from traditional development would be a big step in the right direction for larger scale solutions to seriously address the homeless crisis, instead of padding the pockets of traditional developers.
As for Chief Mitchell’s comments about the reduction in crime - let’s remember he serves at the pleasure of Thao who wants this to be her narrative and a serious break from what’s really happening on the streets of our city. Mitchell has barely been seen since taking office in May, primarily because Thao wants it that way. We need to recall Thao and elect a mayor who actually has a plan and keeps a chief accountable. Crime will continue to burden the residents of Oakland until we have a mayor that’s willing to take political risk and is actually competent to do the job.
The often repeated slogan of "Because affordable or subsidized units are funded by local governments, they are required to only use government-approved contractors and often all union labor" as being the reason that a 400 square foot low income unit costs $1,000/square foot to acquire land and build vs. $150 for a single family home has no support. A public records act request for properties built by major develeopers, reveals that for a $14 mil project $4 mil goes to land acquisition and construction, the other $10 mil goes to the developer fees. You are welcome.
“To put this into context, the $750M that could have been allocated to Oakland would still have only resulted in 750 new units over more than a decade.”
This isn’t correct. City $ is only seed $ in the capital stack. It is multiplied many times over.
A big criticism of the BAHFA bond is it only would have returned 80% of the tax amount from Oakland to Oakland
Identify a "capital stack." Identify how a stack multiplies itself many times over. Please provide a citation to a published book of finance.
The answers to your questions are available on the internet, you can join a housing group to learn about AH finance, listen in on the Council committee meetings, read staff reports, or meet with the folks at the Dept of Housing and Community Development.
Typing this phrase into your search bar returns lots of publications: "books on california affordable housing finance". Why are you asking me to do that for you?
In other words, neither you nor anyone else has any basis to believe your claims.
There are no question marks denoting a question in my comment to you. You have been directed to prove your contentions. The onus is on the proponent to prove his claims. Short of verifiable evidence and authority from a published book of finance, your claims have zero merit.
You don't have the power to "direct" me or anyone else. You can choose to learn about AH finance or to remain ignorant of it. The choice is completely yours, but it doesn't change the facts of how it works. In my opinion, you are an example of what's wrong with our political discourse: ignorant of the facts, and unwilling to do the work to become informed.
You posted a comment in a quasi public forum inviting comment. Upon receiving comment, you object. One has to wonder. Your bear the burden of proof for your claims, by citing to a publich book of finance to prove your claims. Short of that, your claims have zero merit.
Do your homework, Jose. Get up to speed. You need a baseline level of understanding to be a part of the conversation.
Why is the San Francisco Chronicle giving publicity to Cat Brooks? Most people have never heard of her and a lot of the ones who have don't like her.
The bond was abandoned because it costs money to put it on the ballot and it wasn't going to pass.
Affordable housing is a misnomer - and to suggest non-union jobs would be utilized to drive down the costs is unrealistic. If counties and municipalities really want to reduce the cost of housing they must lobby state and federal laws that dramatically drive up the costs of development. Repurposing office and commercial space that has exemptions from traditional development would be a big step in the right direction for larger scale solutions to seriously address the homeless crisis, instead of padding the pockets of traditional developers.
As for Chief Mitchell’s comments about the reduction in crime - let’s remember he serves at the pleasure of Thao who wants this to be her narrative and a serious break from what’s really happening on the streets of our city. Mitchell has barely been seen since taking office in May, primarily because Thao wants it that way. We need to recall Thao and elect a mayor who actually has a plan and keeps a chief accountable. Crime will continue to burden the residents of Oakland until we have a mayor that’s willing to take political risk and is actually competent to do the job.