Comments by Steve_Johnson
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on July 24 at 11:26 a.m.
I was a part of the "group 3" discussion; there were about 25 in that group. Not a single person favored a reduction in current building height limits. The best idea I heard was to sell parking spaces separately from living spaces in condominium projects.
If you are forced to buy a parking space (or 2) with a condominium, you are incentivized to have a car. A condominium without a parking space will certainly be more affordable. As for giving developers incentives to build smaller units, that's easy: don't give them a choice. R-3 zoning needs to be changed to limit unit sizes. This can be done with Floor Area Ratio (FAR) constraints, just as in R-1 zones. A 2BR unit in the R-3 zone currently requires 1800 sqft of land area; a 60% FAR would limit a 2BR unit to 1080 sqft of floor area. It's absurd to allow 3000 sqft 2BR condos in the R-3 zone.
Posted on April 18 at 8:45 a.m.
30% Affordable (code word for price-controlled and subsidized) combined with 70% luxury only makes our housing problem worse.
What is the point in allowing any luxury housing in mixed-use projects?
Is there a shortage of luxury housing which is more serious that the shortage of rental housing? The community needs 100% rental projects; when is the last time a large rental project has been proposed? Probably 30 years ago. The only way to get more rental housing is tall mixed-use projects in the commercial zones. The 60' limit should be retained for all-rental mixed use.
Posted on April 17 at 9:16 a.m.
There are other costs in providing this kind of subsidized housing:
- the Housing Authority pays no property tax on parcels it owns
- this is land that might otherwise be developed as market rate rental property
I support taxpayer subsidies to provide housing for the City's workforce, but not for the chronically homeless. A regional solution for the chronically homeless makes more sense. City funds could house three times as many residents if spent in New Cuyama.
Posted on March 14 at 8:50 a.m.
I don't recall protests against the Granada, the Arlington, or the Balboa building. I don't think the issue is tall buildings, but rather the rate of change in the CIty's appearance. A Measure E type of restriction on the rate of introduction of tall buildings might well be an answer.
And if you don't like canyonization, try walking a block.
Posted on January 19 at 7:24 a.m.
A $600K condo can be bought with 20% down ($120K) and a $480K loan. You can get a 7-year interest only loan at 6%, which will result in a $2400/mo mortgage payment. Add $500/month for taxes and $200 for the condo association fee plus home insurance. So the monthly cost is around $3100.
You need a monthly income of at least 3 times that (and that is stretching; 4 times is safer), but it can be done. So the family income needs to be around $110K per year. That would be a plumber and a teacher; sounds middle class to me.
But you do need the $120K down payment; it helps to have supportive parents.
On Blankenship Stops Building, Blames Loan Crisis and Permit Process
Posted on January 17 at 9:04 a.m.
"Most of the buyers for their $600,000 condos were subprime borrowers" - was that an opinion, or a statement of fact based on evidence?
On Blankenship Stops Building, Blames Loan Crisis and Permit Process
Posted on November 28 at 7:48 a.m.
The Chapala One project is advancing at a snail's pace.
Is the developer slowing the pace deliberately, hoping for a rebound in the market? Or is the financing shaky? Personally I don't think the structure is a monstrosity; it's big by Santa Barbara standards, but well located for that size. 'Course I would not want it located adjacent to my house. Yes, it contains mostly large, expensive condos; that's the bargain struck to get some Affordable units.
The City could just call the state's bluff and say "No Mas".
But there would be significant hardship to developers, architects, builders, and government planners, and the-sky-is-falling alarmists. Anybody know one of those?
Posted on November 7 at 9:12 a.m.
Answer:
November 1995 - 30.44%
November 1997 - 31.80%
November 2001 - 35.32%
November 2003 - 21.66%
November 2005 - 60.97% (combined with special Statewide)
It's a cinch that passage of Measure A would have resulted in higher turnouts. Not clear whether that is good or not.
On Williams and Schneider In; Francisco Triumphs Over Barnwell
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Previous Month
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on August 20 at 7:47 a.m.
Still drinking the Kool-Aid, I guess. How about an update on the County's fabulous plan to regulate parking in IV? Doubtless the response will be "maybe next year", as it has for the last 30 years.
On Isla Vista’s Facelift