To whom it does or doesn't concern:
 
Deep inside November's ballot measures, is the proclamation that "$200 billion in properties will be acquired to redevelop California." Only now all of us in rural Sonoma County have been issued rezoning which will result in higher fees for minor and major repairs, which leads to blighting and eviction. Down the road from me where Lowe's now sits, the county ran a Gravenstein apple farmer out of business, gave him less than $100,000 for his land and home and told him he had the famous "tiger salamander" on his property. Well, recently they sold it to developers for millions and of course that means more tax revenue for the county. Now they are saying the "tiger salamander" has moved up the road to my house, not the county worker's (Public Works) house that lives on the other side of the creek in a flood zone!!! Who subsequently was issued permits to build an extra garage in it to build his airplane. They ultimately want to widen the road and this rezoning will devalue my house so that when the state comes in, it will be worthless.
 
They are also saying we are in a "biotic habitat" meaning...anyone in rural areas within 100 feet of a seasonal or year round drainage ditch, culvert, stream, creek, weep, spring, river or wet spots fall into this category. We will have to tear down our fences as they can only be 18 inches tall and if they are taller, we have to pull an environmental impact report. That will cost us $10,000 to $20,000 a pop. One of the people on the planning commission, Nadine Sponamore is in that business and she will make millions on this new enforcement!!!
 
Sonoma County is going after Kendall Jackson's Vineyard land for 1300 acres. Included in this overreaching are farmers and ranchers that feed them, vineyards that keep that keep them happy on occasion, families and the elderly living on fixed incomes. So much for Bush "wanting every American to own a home and family values." It is kind of hard to do when left with a $300,000 mortgage with no home to live in, file bankruptcy and nobody wanting to rent to us or lend us money to buy another one. I am a full time student attending the Santa Rosa Junior College. We are struggling living on my husband's income with our two kids. I have written to my local government, state government, executive government and nobody can give me a price for my home now and I am just waiting for the axe to fall.
 
If you see me with a will work for food, home and education sign, you will know who won. The realestate developers that contributed to Bush and Schwarzeneggar's campaigns and the local officials (mayor of Sebastopol will receive $400,000 when it is achieved). They want to make money on the blood, sweat and literally tears of other's hard earned work. America needs to look in the mirror and note that it is not following the US Constitution or the laws of the land and that tyranny is now ruling in our country. How can we judge other countries as "evil doers" when evil is going on in all levels of government? Wake up America!
 
Sincerely,
 
Rachele
Sebastopol, CA

Edited by author 01-18-2004 09:22 PM
OK, Susan, I found the reference I was looking for. It's in "Fine Homebuilding" Magazine, Spring/Summer 2001, by John Abrams. It's about a co-housing project that Abrams and others put together on Martha's Vineyard.

Here are the key grafs on how they kept the housing affordable into the future:

"The core group of homeowners, which by this point represented 10 households, was committed to accommodating income diversity and providing desperately needed affordable housing. Therefore, we agreed that four houses would be deeply subsidized and sold to qualifying buyers who made less than 80 percent of median local income. Four more houses would be lightly subsidized to accommodate those for whom Vineyard housing prices are just out of reach. Here's how we subsidized the houses:

* Internal price structuring, which shifted a higher percentage of the shared costs (development and design costs, infrastructure and common facilities) to the larger houses. In other words, thoseof us who bought three- and four-bedroom homes not only paid additional construction costs but also paid a higher percentage of the shared costs of the project.

* Cash fund-raising (tax-deductible donations to the Island Affordable Housing Fund).

* Reduced mortgage rates from our two public-spirited banks (6 percent as opposed to 8 percent).

The four deeply subsidized houses also have limited-equity deed restrictions designed to maintain perpetual affordability by limiting appreciation and future resale prices. The two-bedroom homes appraised for about $200,000. We sold four of them for about $120,000 and wrote into their deeds that they must always sell for 60 percent of their appraised value. "

The limited-equity deed restrictions provide perpetual low-cost housing. This strikes me as a really sensible solution, far better than the "normal" system used here.

Susan, I did read about a more sensible solution. Know let's see if I can find it.

Makes me think of "Land - it's the only thing that matters, it's the only thing that lasts" or something of that sort, from Gone with the Wind. More people are coming and want to come, yet, last time we checked, raw land isn't being made at a particularly rapid clip. The Burbank homes at DeTurk, and others, around Sonoma County, are just such innovative and exciting examples of what can be done. Yet, as I understand it (Pleeease do correct me if I'm wrong) these homes only stay in the "affordable" range for a set period of years. So, at some point they can be sold by their owners at full market value, even though they were obtained with government assistance of some kind. This, again, creates a need for new affordable housing supply over and over. And where is the land coming from for this? So tough! Are there communities that have placed continuing resale restrictions on housing classified as "affordable?" Where the need to create new affordable housing is lessened by the retention of the current supply in the range of "affordable?" Housing is clearly a place where capitalism has failed and where many types of government assistance (from shelters to aid to grants to tax breaks and more) has not provided a simple roof over the heads of all in our country who wish it. Obviously if I was clear on the solution I'd be working to see it done...but I think, like many, I'm vexed by this problem... Susan

It is indeed tricky, Vesta. I've been looking at housing issues for 20+ years, reading, researchng, visiting good examples and so on. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I do have some observations:

1. Traditional solutions, -- 3-bedroom detached single-family houses -- such as the proposed Burbank Housing project proposed for Forestville, work well for a minority of the housing-needy population. Those projects are aimed toward two-parent households. But only about 25-30 percent of all households fit that description.

2. Real communities have mixes of people and of housing. Single people, childless couples, single-parents, retired couples, retired singles all have different housing needs. These groups comprise about 70-75 percent of all households. But there is little housing aimed for them. That's one of the reasons that residential tracts are so sterile: they are monocultures.

Did you notice the article in this month's Russina River Monthly on Affordable Housing. Even though Guerneville was not designated as a site for the housing projects like Forestville and Graton were, RROC is still addressing the issue - and what I find promising, is that they are discussing upgrading existing housing - which is right in my line of thinking!

The side issue is how to keep it affordable as housing prices go up and that's an interesting twist in and of itself. Improvements were deemed minor and therefore requiring stable prices for one period of time - and major requiring stable prices for longer. That put the home owner at risk of losing the value of the home as the prices increase over time. It's a tricky one!