CITY COUNCIL
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor
Angelique Ashby, Vice Mayor, District 1
Sean Loloee, District 2
Jeff Harris, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Jay Schenirer, District 5
Eric Guerra, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, District 8
CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney
Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor
Howard Chan, City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer
City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency
Successor Agency
City Hall-Council Chamber
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-5163
CORRESPONDENCE
Description of Attached: Correspondence received after publishing the Agenda.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, May 31, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Consent Item 12
12. Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project File ID: 2022-01097
Location: 440 Arden Way, District 2
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution documenting the local contributions being provided to the 440 Arden Way Affordable Housing Project and supporting the project’s application for State Local Government Matching Grant funds.
Contact: Danielle Foster, Housing Policy Manager, (916) 808-1869, [email protected]; Michael Jasso, Assistant City Manager, (916) 808-5704, [email protected]
From: clerk
To: Public Comment
Cc: Katie Gresham; Mindy Cuppy
Subject: FW: concerns about Item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project on the city council agenda May 31, 2022
Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 8:49:48 AM
Attachments: 053122 item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project.docx Item 12 comments Dean Dal Ben 05312022 local government matching grant (lgmg) resolution for state funding application - 440 arden way state surplus property affordable housing project.pdf
From: Dean Dal Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 11:15 PM
To: Angelique Ashby <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; clerk <[email protected]>; Eric Guerra <[email protected]>; Jay Schenirer <[email protected]>; Katie Valenzuela (City) <[email protected]>; Jeff S. Harris <[email protected]>; Sean Loloee <[email protected]>; Angelique Ashby <[email protected]>; Luis Montes <[email protected]> Cc: Dean Dal Ben <[email protected]>
Subject: concerns about Item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project on the city council agenda May 31, 2022
I attach my comments and concerns about Item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project on the city council agenda May 31, 2022
I urge you to oppose this item. It does not help the city or the people of Sacramento. It takes steps backwards in addressing the many housing and homeless issues we face. It continues the same old fake solutions, the efforts that have failed and will continue to fail. There is no such thing as free money. Someone pays and in this case, few benefit.
Note to the city council clerk – please include my comments in full into the public comments section included for item 12 for the May 31, 2022 city council meeting.
Please contact me if this cannot be done. There is not enough room to do so in the online ecomment 1000 character section to do this. Thank you.
I look forward to your reply, regardless of your position. This issue affects all of Sacramento, and goes far beyond each individual city council district.
Thank you,
Dean Dal Ben
6 Shipman Ct. Sacramento, CA 95823
District 8 [email protected]
My concerns about Item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project on the city council agenda May 31, 2022
I urge you to oppose this item. It does not help the city or the people of Sacramento. It takes steps backwards in addressing the many housing and homeless issues we face. It continues the same old fake solutions, the efforts that have failed and will continue to fail. There is no such thing as free money. Someone pays and in this case, few benefit.
If asked how much has been spent in Sacramento from government funds, taxes, fees, subsidies, tax incentives, needs based programs and grants, set asides, and other sources (federal, state, and local) in the last decade for housing for the homeless or those with low income, no one here could answer that question. If asked in the same period how many achieved housing success and independence as a result of those efforts, no one here knows. If asked how many provided this housing had jobs and were able to support themselves and their families as a result of those efforts, no one here could answer that question. If asked how many were able to move on from homelessness and low income housing and find a better life during the last decade due to these efforts, no one here could answer that question. I have asked these questions at various times to staff and elected representatives and never got an answer. I ask you those questions today. I eagerly await your answers. Tell the people! Transparency!
The Sacramento Bee reports on May 30, 2022 that Sacramento is seeking a CA state grant of $82 million to build 124 apartments (1-3 bedrooms). Average cost per apartment is over $661,000. 25% of this housing is for the homeless. The city also waives $470,000 in fees that would be collected if market rate housing was built. This is on state owned property, so there is no cost to buy this land. There will be ongoing costs to maintain, repair, and manage this project after built. These are some of the issues you will vote on for item 12.
Redfin reports the median price of the 777 homes sold in Sacramento in April 2022 was $518,000. If you used only the $82 million state grant money to pay cash for these homes, you could buy 158 homes with no monthly mortgages to pay! If you exclude 30% of those homes that are most above the Redfin median price, you might be able to pay cash for over 300 homes! Even if you set aside 50% of those purchased home for those with low income, we could help more people than planned for the 124 apartments at the Arden Way project. Most of these homes will have at least 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. All of these homes will be in diverse neighborhoods with great neighbors. Isn’t this the picture you have of Sacramento?
I know there are other expenses beyond a mortgage payment when living in a house, but should we try this method and see if we get better results? We likely will help more people in ways far beyond providing housing. If there are concerns about ownership issues, I am sure lawyers could come up with binding agreements and grant deeds to handle any issues related to accountability and responsibility for those eligible for this housing.
I know this state grant money may not allow this level of flexibility. If that is true, Sacramento should get the state legislature and the Governor shift the $82 million to quickly approve of this as a trial project to see what happens.
Is the city really working to solve the city’s housing problem? Could more people be helped get their first home? Is the city council willing to try better methods and explore better options? Are we going to throw away this opportunity? Shame on us if we do.
Why is using government funds to build apartments and housing for the homeless and those with low income so expensive compared to private funds used to build market rate housing? Imagine how much housing could be provided if the state sold this land to a private developer who could build market rate apartments with a set aside for some low income housing, Imagine if money raised by the sale of this land plus the $82 million grant money was used to help people buy their first home.
Does the city want to seek prosperity for more people or is the only plan accepted is to repeat high costs to help fewer people and have them live in areas where hope is more of a dream than reality.
I urge you to oppose item 12 and seek a better solution. There is no rush to do a bad thing.
Dean Dal Ben
6 Shipman Ct. Sacramento, CA 95823
District 8 [email protected]
My concerns about Item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project on the city council agenda May 31, 2022
I urge you to oppose this item. It does not help the city or the people of Sacramento. It takes steps backwards in addressing the many housing and homeless issues we face. It continues the same old fake solutions, the efforts that have failed and will continue to fail. There is no such thing as free money. Someone pays and in this case, few benefit.
If asked how much has been spent in Sacramento from government funds, taxes, fees, subsidies, tax incentives, needs based programs and grants, set asides, and other sources (federal, state, and local) in the last decade for housing for the homeless or those with low income, no one here could answer that question. If asked in the same period how many achieved housing success and independence as a result of those efforts, no one here knows. If asked how many provided this housing had jobs and were able to support themselves and their families as a result of those efforts, no one here could answer that question. If asked how many were able to move on from homelessness and low income housing and find a better life during the last decade due to these efforts, no one here could answer that question. I have asked these questions at various times to staff and elected representatives and never got an answer. I ask you those questions today. I eagerly await your answers. Tell the people! Transparency!
The Sacramento Bee reports on May 30, 2022 that Sacramento is seeking a CA state grant of $82 million to build 124 apartments (1-3 bedrooms). Average cost per apartment is over $661,000. 25% of this housing is for the homeless. The city also waives $470,000 in fees that would be collected if market rate housing was built. This is on state owned property, so there is no cost to buy this land. There will be ongoing costs to maintain, repair, and manage this project after built. These are some of the issues you will vote on for item 12.
Redfin reports the median price of the 777 homes sold in Sacramento in April 2022 was $518,000. If you used only the $82 million state grant money to pay cash for these homes, you could buy 158 homes with no monthly mortgages to pay! If you exclude 30% of those homes that are most above the Redfin median price, you might be able to pay cash for over 300 homes! Even if you set aside 50% of those purchased home for those with low income, we could help more people than planned for the 124 apartments at the Arden Way project. Most of these homes will have at least 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. All of these homes will be in diverse neighborhoods with great neighbors. Isn’t this the picture you have of Sacramento?
I know there are other expenses beyond a mortgage payment when living in a house, but should we try this method and see if we get better results? We likely will help more people in ways far beyond providing housing. If there are concerns about ownership issues, I am sure lawyers could come up with binding agreements and grant deeds to handle any issues related to accountability and responsibility for those eligible for this housing.
I know this state grant money may not allow this level of flexibility. If that is true, Sacramento should get the state legislature and the Governor shift the $82 million to quickly approve of this as a trial project to see what happens.
Is the city really working to solve the city’s housing problem? Could more people be helped get their first home? Is the city council willing to try better methods and explore better options? Are we going to throw away this opportunity? Shame on us if we do.
Why is using government funds to build apartments and housing for the homeless and those with low income so expensive compared to private funds used to build market rate housing? Imagine how much housing could be provided if the state sold this land to a private developer who could build market rate apartments with a set aside for some low income housing, Imagine if money raised by the sale of this land plus the $82 million grant money was used to help people buy their first home.
Does the city want to seek prosperity for more people or is the only plan accepted is to repeat high costs to help fewer people and have them live in areas where hope is more of a dream than reality.
I urge you to oppose item 12 and seek a better solution. There is no rush to do a bad thing.
Dean Dal Ben
6 Shipman Ct. Sacramento, CA 95823
District 8 [email protected]