Posted on 01/28/2007 1:45:48 AM PST by Lorianne
A group of residents in the pricey Marin County community of Strawberry are mobilizing against an affordable housing plan by the renowned charity Habitat for Humanity, saying it would blight their neighborhood.
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.
About three dozen residents who live near the proposed construction site -- 16.5 acres just west of the Tiburon city limits -- are attempting to raise $100,000 for legal fees to challenge the project, which still must be approved by the county Planning Commission.
"Habitat for Humanity goes into blighted neighborhoods and fixes them up. Here they are going into an enhanced neighborhood and blighting it," said Bill Duane, a 58-year-old resident of Bay Vista Drive, near the proposed site. "I'm not against low-cost housing, but this is social engineering. The county does not have the right to choose my neighbors."
Such a ruckus is not unusual in Marin, where homeowners have been notoriously hostile to development, especially the kind that threatens to lower the value of their property. But the charity made famous by former President Jimmy Carter would seem an unconventional target.
About 100 Strawberry residents packed a recent Strawberry Design Review Board meeting. They said they support, and in some cases have participated in, the charity's work, but do not believe the development will fit into their neighborhood, where most homes are worth between $1 million and $2 million.
"The homes are of a certain type and would not fit in. The placement of these homes would really stand out," "There are other places in the county where low-cost housing would be more appropriate."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I lived in Marin when the book and movie came out, albeit in Novato which wasn't really a part of Marin or, if it was, the armpit (or worse) part but the liberal virus just couldn't be held at bay forcing me north until I couldn't handle it any longer and "came back home".
Wonderful place, lousy politics.
I understand completely.
I lived in Tiburon for awhile.
This is just the start. The next stage is masked nightriders come to the homes of the poor and burn hottubs on their lawn.
For the most part I did enjoy my time there but whew, there were times when you could cut the pretension with a knife.
The people in Marin County are so wealthy they don't just get the crabs, they get lobsters!.....Robin Williams
Me neither - People don't want the dregs forcibly placed directly in their neighborhood.
"How much traffic & parking congestion could actually result from 4 homes?"
In a neighborhood I lived in about 10 years ago, we had an owner who decided to rent rooms. I've counted as many as 12 cars at that house on too regular a basis to be 'entertaining friends'.
Ah, another file product of Marin County.
Liberals practicing one of their most holy sacraments: Hypocrisy.
I suspect you're right. They vote left because they are so enlightened and care for the poo-o-or. When the radical weenies they put into office actually bring home their ideas, then it's a different story.
Q: What's the definition of a Conservative?
A: A Liberal that's been mugged (or been screwed over by socialism).
Not to worry. Typically, all these vehicles are parked on their front lawns.
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.
Given what I've seen in government-funded low income housing, I think that it generally should be abolished. It's nothing but government-sanctioned freeloading by the majority of the inhabitants.
Considering Jimmuh's recent actvities, I'd worry that the low income housing would be housing muzzie terrorist cells.
Can you imagine the first tax bill?
You build a $75000 home in a 1-2 million dollar area. The assessment will be huge!
It's a big country and there can be lots of variation on the pattern, but in general I favor shifting from fixed site projects to vouchers. But that leaves the problem of ensuring that there is enough low- and moderate priced housing spread around in dispersed locations that lower income people can actually afford.
I live in D.C. so I'll use it as an example. We have had the historic pattern of the city being used as the dumping ground for the left-behinds as the middle class fled to the 'burbs. Now gentrification is pushing the poor out of many of "their" traditional neighborhoods. This is good for the city itself, which is sprucing up very nicely in many areas. But where are the poor supposed to go?
Part of the problem is that the suburbs are highly resistant to building low and moderate priced housing. This has been a political issue for years and some suburban jurisdictions have done more than others, but there is simply not enough. Most of the job growth, especially in the entry-level, low skill ranges, is out in the 'burbs. Low income people need to be able to find housing where the jobs are -- and ideally they shouldn't have to have a car to do it.
One occasionally reads stories about the poverty superstar who rises at 5 to drop her kids at her sister's place by 5:30 so she can take metrorail and three busses to get to her minimum wage job by 9:00. Then she does it all in reverse to get back home by 8 that night. My hat is off to such people, but as a social/transportation/housing model, it's bound to fail. So the issue remains: how do we break up the large, toxic concentrations of the very poor? And how do we get enough moderate priced housing spread throughout the metro area and in reasonable proximity to jobs?
I'm not opposed to zoning and occupancy regulations; I don't want poor families tripled up in tiny apartments or absentee landlords operating flophouses on suburban cul de sacs. But the suburbs can't have it both ways. If suburbanites don't want these things, they need to be supportive of a reasonable amount of decent affordable housing in their areas as well. Like, just maybe, a Habitat project in la-la land. Dispersion is important. Every area has to carry part of the load. Every cul de sac doesn't have to have a section 8 unit, but there does need to be more affordable housing near suburban job centers.
I took a trip to France once, and as we were pulling up to a small country house, I noticed the next door neighbor had two or three cars up on blocks in the yard. I started laughing hysterically at seeing that in France.
It was very difficult to explain this to my gracious but puzzled host. The cars were Peugot's and Citroen's. Not a Camaro or Oldsmobile in sight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.