[Lorianne]

Habitat officials said they were surprised by the vehemence of the opposition.

I'm not.

[Lancey Howard]

I would love to know the voting pattern of these Strawberry residents.
If they're Democrats, screw 'em - - build away, Jimmy.

[endthematrix]

I wouldn't be shocked if eminent domain takes a few wealthy homes and GIVES them to the poor. After all, that is charity and any complainers will get 15 minutes of chastising from the MSM!

[billybudd]

"There are other places in the county where low-cost housing would be more appropriate."

Translation: I don't want to live next to some filthy poor people.

The legal issue is: does the county have the legal authority to deny construction permits based on the criteria these people have outlined?

The ethical issue is: should you have the right to choose your neighbors, even though they've bought their property (or had someone buy it for them)?

I'm for property rights, so I say, if you buy it, you own it. If the existing residents want to prevent this development, they could pool money and buy the property. Then they could immediately resell it with conditions on the type of housing that can be built there. That way, they essentially pay the transaction costs of the process for the right to decide what gets built. It might even be considerably less than the $100,000 legal fund they're planning to set up and would have 100% chance of success, unlike the legal challenge.

[eastcobb]

Truth be told, Habitat For Humanity shouldn't try to build in million dollar neighborhoods. The people who would live in these HFH homes probably can't afford to live in that area anyway.

[boxerblues]

The group is convinced that the plan to build four three-bedroom units of low-income housing in their neighborhood would result in increased traffic and parking congestion and lower property values.

How much traffic & parking congestion could actually result from 4 homes?

[meyer]

Habitat officials said they were surprised by the vehemence of the opposition.

I'm not.

Me neither - People don't want the dregs forcibly placed directly in their neighborhood.

[DesScorp]

NoCal is full of leftly moonbats with money. So they're hypocrites now. Kind of a "good for thee but not for me" stance.

[Chickensoup]

My community fought Habitat and its own local church that sponsored it. The church had to sell the land in the ensuing legal battle and that ended the issue.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Even better, have "Triplewide for Humanity" come in and import a few dozen rednecks.

[Lewite]

Surprised that a bunch of SF liberals do not want more drug trafficking, robberies, knifings, prostitution, car jackings, purse snatchings, rape and murder brought into the area. Oh, do not even think about the problems in the school system when these unruly thugs take it over and education has to be dumbed down even more to keep riots down to a minimum.

[tlb]

This is just the start. The next stage is masked nightriders come to the homes of the poor and burn hottubs on their lawn.

[sergeantdave]

Liberals practicing one of their most holy sacraments: Hypocrisy.

[moonman]

"would result in increased traffic and parking congestion and lower property values"

Not to worry. Typically, all these vehicles are parked on their front lawns.

[sphinx]

I don't know the area so I'll defer to those who do, but in general I think low-income housing should be dispersed. Concentrating the very poor has been the highroad to a social disaster.

The problem with scattered site housing, of course, is that many more neighborhoods have to be asked to take a share. That causes friction. That is understandable but it is still no reason for wealthy communities to be exempted.

At this point, we get into the site specific issues. Are there jobs in the area for the folks Habitat wants to move in? One of the benchmarks for housing decisions is that the people who work in service jobs in a community ought to be able to live in reasonable proximity. Ideally one should be able to live without a car. If the Habitat houses in this story are within reasonable range of a shopping/entertainment district or some other job concentration where these folks might find work, it might be a good location.

As an aside, I don't know what Habitat's track record is, but I have the notion that they don't cater to out-and-out bums. They do some screening and expect people to be working.

[BuffaloJack]

Considering Jimmuh's recent actvities, I'd worry that the low income housing would be housing muzzie terrorist cells.

[LambSlave]

Reading the posts here, it seems that most are unfamiliar with HFH-- I am shocked by the assumptions some posters make. It IS NOT government subsidized, and the residents are obligated to pay the mortgage in full just like anyone else. They get great deals, because labor is provided by volunteers and materials are obtained at great discounts by generous people. HFH does a throrough screening of applicants, and selects those who hold a job responsibly and are willing to undergo training for understanding how to manage their finances. HFH has an unbelivably low default rate (two defaults in the hundreds of thousands of mortgages they have put up around the globe over a twenty-year+ history). Most of the groups funding comes from Christian churches, and the folks who move into the houses are wonderful, greateful people-- typically young families.

[KittyKares]

Let's create some jobs and housing for illegals up there so the residents can experience the benefits of diversity.

[Wheee The People]

Here they are going into an enhanced neighborhood and blighting it

LOL...feel the love.