22701015201
June 6, 2019, 12:36 pm
7.4k Views
22 Comments
By an edhat reader
The Santa Barbara Housing Authority (SBHA) is set to purchase 200 N La Cumbre Road. It was discussed at their meeting Wednesday, June 5th at 4:00PM. The plan is to have the Board authorize the purchase for $4.2M and place 45-65 low-income homes on the site. If approved the property will be purchased for development.
Has anyone heard about this plan and does anyone know the outcome of the meeting?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.
To use social login you have to agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website. %privacy_policy%
AcceptHere you'll find all collections you've created before.
SB Housing Authority does what it wishes with Carte Blanche from our City Leaders. They don’t care what impacts they have on YOUR neighborhoods or the Traffic issues that plague a town of 95,000 with 200,000+ vehicles… Santa Barbara’s infrastructure can only sustain so much- Whether that be water resources, sewage processing, road wear, traffic and most of all…QUALITY OF LIFE, which is quickly degrading in Santa Barbara / Goleta/ Carp. For some reason 20% of all housing units be taxpayer subsidized within the City of Santa Barbara isn’t enough- I guess the Barcara and other “service industries” and the uber Montecito rich who “need help” will continue to pay sub-par wages or under the table pay and WE, the taxpayers will subsidize the workers housing… Nice.
600+ AUDs Headed to the area. The Sears property owners want to build over 550 AUD plus commercial space. This SBHA property will likely be over the number proposed. Upper State will finally have to deal with the problems on the Eastside. You can thank the Councilmemers and mayor that support the AUD for future problems with traffic and unaffordability. They are: Murillo, Friedman, Gutierrez, Rowse and Harmon. If we want to save Santa Barbara we need to get rid of: Murillo, Friedman, Gutierrez and Harmon.
Interesting…….this parcel happens to be just inside the City of Santa Barbara boundaries, while a portion of the mall is County of Santa Barbara? We were only charged 7.75% sales tax at Williams Sonoma the other night. Would be nice to know where exactly the boundary is, as in County and City.
Who is expected to make up the loss of property taxes as the SBHA machine gobbles up private enterprise in this town? Where is the city’s profit/loss statement for the total of all these subsidized public housing schemes. Who benefits; who gets the windfalls; what overall loss to city revenues. Even when “free money” builds these windfall units.
Ringing another commercial retail sales tax generation location in this town with non-discretionary spending low income housing units is again sheer folly. Look at the downtown retail corridor and see how many SBHA are saturated in that now failing retail tax generating part of town. Low income housing on low value land should be the rule. Save market rate housing for high value land. SBHA needs to be checked and city council members need to stop patting themselves on the back, since they refuse to research the long term fiscal impact the ever growing numbers of subsidized housing impact on the rest of this city’s financial future. You did it; you created exemplary windfall housing for a chosen few. You will never build enough to meet the demand to live on the cheap in this town. Stop it!
Google is your friend . This parcel is well within SB City limits by over 3 blocks as is the mall in it’s entirety.
Don’t be silly. I don’t know the Latin but your comment is ‘escalation to the absurb’.
Our wonderful city council actually has another plan to “meet the demand to live on the cheap.” They have passed JustCause Eviction/rent control/mandatory lease. This makes tenants, in essence, own the landlords property for life, if they wish, as getting anyone off your property will now become all but impossible. Now all landlords, even those who live on the same property as tenants, would have to meet a nearly impossible set of conditions to ever remove anyone even if the tenant is dangerous to landlord or other tenants. It also makes the landlord have to pay big bucks “relocation,” and also makes it easy for tenants to just not pay rent at all. They get many months of non payment before a landlord is even allowed to TRY to get payment. This of course, only helps the problem tenants who want to freeload indefinitely. The good tenants don’t need these protections as any landlord in their right mind would not evict a “good” tenant. Turnover is mucho expensive! All this does is make the smaller mom and pop landlords who rent undermarket prices sell their properties in a panic–to big commercial interests. The end goal of these groups pushing for these draconian “just cause” rules, some state on their websites, is to end private property ownership and have all housing owned and allocated by the state.
It is our fault. We elected city council members who did not govern to our wishes. Instead they chose to give away housing in exchange for votes (how many people who are getting subsidized housing would vote against those who would create more)?
Yes, they all ran their campaigns on affordable housing , so if you voted for the new council, then you voted for more affordable housing. Every one of their speeches included this as a hot topic, not much on homeless or other things discussed BUT affordable housing for all who votes for them.
Pack em and stack em
City planners, at the behest of the council, WANT to degrade residents’ quality of life. Please explain this policy and how it is in the best interest of city residents to overbuild, create unmitigable impacts, lower quality of life,and generally FUBAR the city. Council must be held accountable for their malevolent behavior.
Quality of life in Santa Barbara is going down the tubes! That’s why rents and housing prices are falling so rapidly. Hey, wait a minute…
I am beginning to agree that the mayor and Friedman are sold out to real estate speculators. Recently both voted no on the requirement that new apartment/condo units include at least 15% (10% in downtown business area) affordable housing that would accommodate real middle class renters. The mayor is quoted as saying that this is a bad idea as it would drive away more apartment construction! What ever is being planned at the La Cumbre site it is not enough to simply mouth “AUD” as it is clear that money will figure out how to comply with these requirements without actually housing middle income folks (much less the poor).
And, of course, one of the murders last week was in a SB Housing Authority subsidized apartment. What we are subsidizing is more crime and more traffic. If that is what the residents want then all they need to do is re-elect the current city council.
so, you are saying there are no murders in expensive housing developments or expensive home? Jeezers, I wish I was rich so I won’t be murdered.
Really…? If someone has a different prospective than yours, they are MAGA, or Nazi’s or Communist’s… That says it all, right there…
@FLICKA, most of the people I know in Carp HAVE been affected by the changes there- One friend sold their home and moved to the SYV to get away from the smell of cannabis which was growing 100 yrds from their home…
You can’t find prepared, informed, educated life-experienced candidates to run for Council. They’re all mediocre or worse, owned by the Dem machine except for Rowse. 4 are up for RE-Election and will each keep their seats having voted as instructed by a Mayor, Gregg Hart, and their keepers AKA handlers.
Yes. Small units with no parking. The more we pack in, the more jobs we can support for government workers: teachers, nurses, social workers, psychologists, MTD, and all the Non Profit Organizations.
Santa Barbara’s elected Council wants 50,000 more “affordable” housing units to fill in every foot of space up to 4-stories to use every drop of reclaimed dirty water to satisfy their masters – the block voting DEM public that empowers Council and Sacramento to the demise of CA. How do you vote? Will you run as a grassroots “take s pause on growth independent candidate” to unseat a Rep? We need leaders ASAP. Run or find candidates.
We tried that last election, none of those Independent’s won. All the candidates that won, ran on affordable housing platforms. You voted for this mess. Our mayor loves this stuff, so does the 4th and 5th district elects. We had competent people running against them, but they were not democrats, so they lost.
Drop the term “affordable housing”; that is a nonsense term. Call it what it really is – subsidized, price fixed, windfall housing for a very privileged few. at the expense of the many. Audit who actually gets these few “affordable” units. You cannot run an honest campaign promising “affordable housing” – it is the basest pandering for votes possible. Reject any candidate who tries to sell you these lies.
Memo to Murillo – it is not your money to hand out; it is our money you take from us. From Noozhawk: “All of these projects are deserving,” Freedman said during (city budget) deliberations.
Mayor Cathy Murillo echoed his remarks.
“If we had the money, I would give it to all of you who are asking for it,” she said.