To the CM re: low income housing and the proposed GMO amendment
Cc: Healdsburg City Council
Hi David,
Thanks again for your invitation to talk on the phone yesterday. I am sorry that the day got away from me -and I imagine it was a busy day for you too with the City Council meeting in the evening.
I also regret that I could not attend the CC meeting and hope my questions here do not require you to repeat what you (or the City Council) may have addressed last night.
I have reviewed the job description for Housing Director here. Correct me if this is not the position in question! In the description, there isn't any language there specific to 'hunting down subsidies' that could be used to create housing for the lowest income brackets, but language like this ("Leads high level and complex projects including the proactive initiatives to identify and develop affordable housing opportunities ") certainly comes close enough.
There seems to be disagreement between what Gail Jonas claims (that subsidies are in fact available and that the city did not aggressively seek them ) and what Mr. Florian states in his letter to Mayor Mansell (" Any rental units targeted for over 80% AMI will be extremely difficult to finance because affordable housing funding programs aren’t available, including , of course, tax credits, and the welfare exemption won’t be available"). But perhaps Gail's concerns lie solely with the 80% and lower bracket. Regardless, I am certain a clear answer to the question about the availability, or lack thereof, of these funds for Healdsburg can be solidly addressed as part of the ongoing GMO amendment debate.
I am not interested in the question about whether the city was negligent in this quest in the past or not, and so I am not following in Gail's footsteps here. I am interested in the present and the future -and trust that city will make solid efforts to secure any funding that is available.
I do agree with her that the focus of all our housing efforts should emphasize lower income workers over 'the missing middle' and above, but I recognize that the scenario for developing either may go hand in hand. It's a matter of emphasis in speech and action -and of a need that is supported by Gail's interpretation of the Housing Needs Assessment in her email to the City Council.
There are a few in our community who do not see apartment complexes as being part of the social and aesthetic fabric of downtown (or near downtown) Healdsburg.
I disagree and welcome people of diverse incomes in all sectors of our town.
If there is political opposition to building low income housing of any sort, whether it be section 8 housing or inclusionary units on new hotel developments, I will be there to counter it.
Hi David,
Thanks again for your invitation to talk on the phone yesterday. I am sorry that the day got away from me -and I imagine it was a busy day for you too with the City Council meeting in the evening.
I also regret that I could not attend the CC meeting and hope my questions here do not require you to repeat what you (or the City Council) may have addressed last night.
I have reviewed the job description for Housing Director here. Correct me if this is not the position in question! In the description, there isn't any language there specific to 'hunting down subsidies' that could be used to create housing for the lowest income brackets, but language like this ("Leads high level and complex projects including the proactive initiatives to identify and develop affordable housing opportunities ") certainly comes close enough.
There seems to be disagreement between what Gail Jonas claims (that subsidies are in fact available and that the city did not aggressively seek them ) and what Mr. Florian states in his letter to Mayor Mansell (" Any rental units targeted for over 80% AMI will be extremely difficult to finance because affordable housing funding programs aren’t available, including , of course, tax credits, and the welfare exemption won’t be available"). But perhaps Gail's concerns lie solely with the 80% and lower bracket. Regardless, I am certain a clear answer to the question about the availability, or lack thereof, of these funds for Healdsburg can be solidly addressed as part of the ongoing GMO amendment debate.
I am not interested in the question about whether the city was negligent in this quest in the past or not, and so I am not following in Gail's footsteps here. I am interested in the present and the future -and trust that city will make solid efforts to secure any funding that is available.
I do agree with her that the focus of all our housing efforts should emphasize lower income workers over 'the missing middle' and above, but I recognize that the scenario for developing either may go hand in hand. It's a matter of emphasis in speech and action -and of a need that is supported by Gail's interpretation of the Housing Needs Assessment in her email to the City Council.
There are a few in our community who do not see apartment complexes as being part of the social and aesthetic fabric of downtown (or near downtown) Healdsburg.
I disagree and welcome people of diverse incomes in all sectors of our town.
If there is political opposition to building low income housing of any sort, whether it be section 8 housing or inclusionary units on new hotel developments, I will be there to counter it.
Comments
Post a Comment