The Piercing Truth

This is right from the dictionary and seems to describe Albuquerque, Berry and Schultz. Fascism (f ash ,izem) noun An authoritarian right wing system of government and/or social organization. (in general use) extreme right wing, authoritarian, chauvinistic and/or intolerant views or practices. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one group over another, national, ethnic, especially social strata or monetarily; a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. Compliments of one of our Eyes

Sep 27, 2007

City Slum Lords

We've all heard of affordable housing and by and large we all want affordable housing. October 2nd voters here in Albuquerque will get the chance to vote for a General Obligation Bond whose stated purpose is to provide affordable housing to those who can't afford their own home.
"Shall the City of Albuquerque issue $10,100,000 of its general obligation bonds in support of the Workforce Housing Act to provide resources towards the construction and rehabilitation of high quality, permanently affordable housing for low to moderate working families, including affordable senior rental?"
Wow! Sounds great doesn't it? We're going to use our tax dollars to help working families afford their own homes; and more importantly these patches of paradise will be "permanently" affordable. The Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board (not surprisingly) came out in favor of this G.O. Bond just yesterday.
"This bond represents the first of three installments over the next six years into a Workforce Housing Trust fund. Every dollar from the city's trust would leverage $4 in private money, focusing those resources on Metropolitan Redevelopment Areas and properties along transit corridors.

Some programs are more beneficial for the first buyer, who later sells the property at market prices. This program maintains affordability by limiting the amount of equity that accrues to owners and keeping the sales price below the market level for subsequent buyers."
The tricky part is the last part, that says "this program maintains affordability by limiting the amount of equity that accrues to owners and keeping the sales price below the market level for subsequent buyers." The ordinance creating this affordable housing "opportunity" is O-06-8 and was passed just a little over a year ago. The Ordinance explains it this way:
"In a neighborhood with increasing housing prices the goal is to preserve a mixed income environment and avoid the dislocation of low income residents by creating a reserve of permanent workforce housing protected from price increases and danger of converting to market rate housing, allowing renters to own their housing, and otherwise financially insulating low income residents from financial burdens of gentrification while accruing its benefits."
What that means is that the city will use our tax dollars to help "low to moderate" income families buy homes that are "protected" from the market, making them "permanently" affordable. In other words, these "owners" will be paying a mortgage on a property that they don't truly own because they won't be getting the equity that is naturally created through time and the free market increase in property value. In short, their financial position will be only slightly better than renters because most of the equity they receive would be the equity that they put directly into the property through their payments.

The result of this type of affordable housing program is predictable; run down properties that have little or no value due to the cap on equity imposed by the affordable housing ordinance. Why would an "owner" invest any of their own money in a property where their investment can't grow? It would be better to rent a house or apartment where the property owner at least has some financial motivation and legal obligation to keep the property in good repair.

Another requirement of this legislation is that "affordable" housing must be included in new developments. Look, impact fees have already added $10,000 to houses being built on the West Side; $10,000 that contrary to assertions by socialist politicians is not paid by the developer but added to the price of the home.

Only government logic can justify raising the price of homes by $10,000 and then complain about the price of homes and the need for affordable housing. Like impact fees, the cost of the "affordable" units will be paid for by the other home owners in the development raising the cost of homes and pushing homeowners out of Albuquerque; and yes, that means more sprawl.

In 20 years, you'll be able to spot the "affordable" eye sores in every development where this short sighted socialist scheme is in effect and the neighborhood slum lord will be the City of Albuquerque. What do you bet that the Almighty Mayor's Safe City Strike Force won't answer your calls when you're complaining about one of their properties?

No matter how you slice it, these ordinances create a series of hidden taxes and fees that are borne by the rest of us. The system is deceitful and dishonest and right now the only way to put an end to it is to make sure the program is not funded.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

If I'm reading this right, these home will be mingled in with upscale homes. If that's the case then, these homes will naturally drag down the values of the upscale homes as well.
Absolutley VOTE NO on this bond.

Anonymous said...

If I'm reading this right, these home will be mingled in with upscale homes. If that's the case then, these homes will naturally drag down the values of the upscale homes as well.
Absolutley VOTE NO on this bond.

Brian said...

Good post today...for once

Anonymous said...

I live in a neighborhood of $200-350,000 homes. Like it or not, when you spend cash on a property, you shop with the thought that higher property values will equate to lower crime. With this kind of "mixed income" environment it just fosters crime. Here is my little theory. the world is just set up where everybody wants to keep up with the Jones. when you are poor and live among the poor, "the Jones'" don't have much more than you. your level of discontent is lower and you strive to grow more incrementally. If you are poor and live in a house that is extravigant beyond your income level. you dont have the money to furnish it like your two neighbors on either side who actually can afford to live in that neighborhood, what happens? I'm not saying that everybody becomes a thief but discontent grows. People will extend themselves into deep debt to just fit in, then there will be more bailouts and social programs to make them feel better.
My neigborhood is jacked up. Investors came in with interest only loans and bought up 60-70% of the homes and rented them out at below market values. Some of them allowed city housing subsidies so $250,000 homes were renting for $800 to people who had criminal histories that made me uneasy at night. I spotted this problem early and our neighborhood fought the developers and investors but in the end, a 12 year old was murdered in our neighborhood and now everybody wants to leave. The home is vacant with bullet holes still in the walls and stands as a testament to what this kind of "mixed" neighborhood will bring to you and yours. Enjoy!

joe schmedlap said...

Their quote: "In a neighborhood with increasing housing prices the goal is to preserve a mixed income environment and avoid the dislocation of low income residents by creating a reserve of permanent workforce housing protected from price increases and danger of converting to market rate housing.."
------------
How in the hell is it a danger for housing prices to increase?? How big a socialist would you have to be to think this is possibly a good idea? One thing for sure, no one involved in this has any concept of either financial theory nor have they ever read up on the "broken windows theory" of crime & it's prevention which the poster above was describing. One can only hope that when their appraisal comes back below market due to having one of these homes on their block that they can hold the city liable for the difference.

Anonymous said...

Vote NO on the affordable housing and give the $10 million to the Police, simple solution to a complex problem.

Anonymous said...

I agree that a no-vote is a good vote. However, do you really want to give Ray 10 million more? Not a good idea, the officers that need it will never see it.

Anonymous said...

This is all on O'Malley, everyone in the building industry knows that money will go in her pocket if this is passed. This is what O'Malley does for a living, she makes money off of poor people, instead of giving them a hand up, she takes from them..
O'Malley is bad for the City, she should be defeated as well as her proposition for affordable housing.

Anonymous said...

This is without a doubt the most idiotic plan that I have seen come out of City government in a very long time. Of course anyone with more than pair of functioning brain cells should vote NO on this one. But the Eye would be doing a great public service if he/she would list the names of the Counselors that proposed, seconded, and voted in favor of putting this bond issue on the ballot. Maybe we can get rid of some of them during the same election that this bond issue goes down in flames (I hope)

Please Mr/Ms Eye help. Albuquerque voters tend to approve most bond issues mostly because they're too busy or apathetic to research them fully (and yes I'm guilty of that too). All it seems to take is some clever and sympathetic wording ("...for the poor...", "...for the seniors...", "...for the children...") and ABQ voters go for it hook,line, and sinker. I have a policy of voting NO on these because I know that for the most part it either raises taxes or prevents them from being reduced , but far too many voters haven't figured that out.

Anonymous said...

Three posts up, no kidding, Ray will spend that money in the giant hole called Open Space...

Anonymous said...

Katerine Martinez is dateing one of Mayor Martin Chavez aides. I quess she is a rubber stamp for the Mayor!

Anonymous said...

That's just great. Who's Paulette
dating?

Anonymous said...

Who's Dating Greg Payne?

Anonymous said...

Who'd want to?
If I had my druthers as a women, I'd rather go Lez.

Anonymous said...

Journal today says that O'Malley co-sponsored the affordable housing proposition. O'Malley stands to make money off of the proposition, at least that was what I was told last year when the Council was debating the issue. If it passes, watch were the money goes, see where it is spent....Then you can see if it is true about O'Malley lining her pockets.

mike harris said...

Hmmm..Katherine Martinez dating a friend of the Mayor. Paulette dating Jason Daskalos, Greg Frost, Ron Bell, Greg Payne and few others in the real estate biz. She's a rubber stamp for the Mayor. How many socialists does it take to ruin a city? Just these few. Vote against them and run them out of town!!!!!

janice brewer said...

Yeah. Paulette's the worst one. Marty comes knockin' and she's a Republican turned socialist at the drop of the hat. Free thinker? She's a non-thinker. Look at her track record. Albuquerque does not need this woman voting for Marty on the council.

k said...

You're crazy. Only you fascists would be against giving a hand up to people so that they can actually get out of the cycle of poverty.

Typical. Conservatives thinking that they owe their lives all to their own work. And not to all the advantages they've received.

jj said...

That isn't fascisim, it is simply an attempt to explain that this is not how capitalism works. There can’t be equity in the market for the street or block that these homes are on, since the adjacent homes will have to include this lower valued home in their comps when they try to do market analysis. This creates a whole street full of victims, who didn’t get a government program but instead saved to buy into the area. Now assuming that these homes are starter homes in less valuable areas (i.e. unlikely to start the program in Tanoan) the victims you have created are also working class families that earn less and are most likely on their first home as well. So in effect you create a street full of victims of your policy who are only one step further up the ladder than the family you help. Only a Socialist could think that was a fair trade.

jj said...

That isn't fascisim, it is simply an attempt to explain that this is not how capitalism works. There can’t be equity in the market for the street or block that these homes are on, since the adjacent homes will have to include this lower valued home in their comps when they try to do market analysis. This creates a whole street full of victims, who didn’t get a government program but instead saved to buy into the area. Now assuming that these homes are starter homes in less valuable areas (i.e. unlikely to start the program in Tanoan) the victims you have created are also working class families that earn less and are most likely on their first home as well. So in effect you create a street full of victims of your policy who are only one step further up the ladder than the family you help. Only a Socialist could think that was a fair trade.

John said...

I can't believe what I'm reading here. You would actually put the value of your property before giving someone a chance to own a home?

Then again, it must be easy for you to criticize legislation like this. You're probably all homeowners, who are just waiting for the day when you can sell off your property off for more money than what you bought it for.

But I'm a renter. My family hasn't been able to own a home in over a decade. And with the constantly rising land/housing costs in the West, I seriously doubt we would ever be able to afford a home at market value.

So the way the system works now, we would never be able to own our own home, much less sell it off for a profit. So I guess what I'm getting at is, I could care less about your property values. I don't care about making a profit off a home. I just want a house so that I can live in it, not so I can sell it off.

All I want is a freaking place to freaking live. Is that really too much to ask for? Huh?

You've painted a grotesque generalization of the people who need affordable housing. Do you think we're all criminals or drug addicts who make our living off of growing weed in the basement? Has it never crossed your mind that not everyone owns a home for its property value? Did it ever occur to you that some of us just want a place to LIVE?

Then again, maybe I'm just biased. After all, it's the purchase-live-sell mentality that makes housing so unaffordable for the rest of us. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

^^^
If you owned a home, chances are, you would be singing a different tune.

It is the "purchase-live-sell mentality" that drives economy. I'm guessing that you either dont know anything about economics or dont care.

Contradict yourself much?
"But I'm a renter. My family hasn't been able to own a home in over a decade."
"I just want a house so that I can live in it, not so I can sell it off."
So...you're a renter that is homeless? If you really dont care about making any return on a home then renting is perfect for you as it is cheaper than buying and you wont make a profit. So what exactly is your problem with "the way the system works now"?

By the way, I'm a renter too (because I'm still a youngster). I just seem to have a higher education than Albuquerque has given you.

Anonymous said...

Yep - you have a place to live - it\'s called an apartment!

Anonymous said...

John said, "I could care less about your property values. "
Just one of many reasons why I would not want you as a neighbor. At the very least, if you do not share common interest with your neighbors, then you will never be a good fit in the neighborhood.
I suspect that people like you are the ones who are always clamoring about needing programs like this to be "fair" to the poor. What about all of those who worked for their homes. Who got a second job to get the down payment? The reality is that owning a home is possible for just about anyone who is really willing to sacrifice to get one. the mortgage is just about the same as rent, it is just the down payment and credit history that is required. If you need a down, get a second job for a year and you will have it, or get into one of the many programs that covers your down payment. There are tons of these. If your credit history is shot, well, I don't think that government should be in the business of rescuing people from the consequences of their own mistakes.