|
|
|
Uploaded: Wednesday, February 27, 2013, 1:50 PM
Affordable housing project helps some, hurts others
|
|
by Daniel DeBolt
Mountain View Voice Staff
Photo
 | The city's below market rate housing program took a strange turn Tuesday night with the approval of an affordable housing project at 819 N. Rengstorff Avenue -- it displaces the same number of people it will eventually house -- while raising concerns about low pay for construction workers.
After a 6-1 vote with Mayor John Inks opposed, city-hired ROEM Development Corporation is now nearly set to build 48 studios above a 1,600-square-foot retail space at the corner of Old Middlefield Way and Rengstorff Avenue. The building has been home to 12 low-income households -- 48 people in total -- as well as La Costena and La Bamba taquerias and two small retailers. Only one of the taquerias may return to the retail space in the new project.
"This is not fair," said Juan Media, a resident who will be displaced after living in the building for 30 years. "My four children was born right there. I don't want to move from there. All my kids went to Monta Loma, Crittenden, Los Altos, Mountain View High School. I have 16 year old boy -- two more years" until he's an adult.
"There's a large number of women and children," said resident Don Bahl, speaking for the residents. "They said they considered themselves one big family. There's no way they are going to be able to pay the rent in the places they are going to."
The city is allocating nearly $1 million to relocate the families, including the cost difference between their old rents and new rents for 42 weeks. A city staff report said that tenants currently pay an average of $842, $1100 and $1,310 for one, two and three-bedroom units respectively. That's less than half the average market rates of $1,830, $2,299 and $2,900. The report says 15 children live in the building.
The rents of the 400-square foot studios to be built at 819 N. Rengstorff Avenue will range from $500 to $775 a month, aimed at people who make between $21,300 and $33,725 a year, or between 30 and 45 percent of the area median income. Three quarters of the existing tenants earn less than 50 percent of the area median income, according to a city staff report.
Council members have defended the project by saying it will replace a 1940s building that has long suffered from safety concerns and code violations.
Looking at the project's costs, Sean Hebard of Carpenters Local 405 said it appeared that ROEM was leaving little for construction worker pay.
"I'm assuming that ROEM, through their subcontractor, is saving 50 percent on wages," Hebard said.
To see how, he said he went to a ROEM project being built in Santa Clara and found that workers are receiving no regular wages or benefits.
"Drywall installers were being paid a little over $3 for a 4-by-8 sheet nailed in place," he said, while the subcontractor currently has its license suspended by the state.
After the union highlighted the issue, four of the council's seven members supported a "prevailing wage" for workers on the project. But City Manager Dan Rich said five votes were required to transfer the full $1.6 million from the city's ample housing funds to pay the higher wage. The motion failed, 4-3. The council eventually voted 6-1 to approve the project without prevailing wage, with Inks, a subsidized-housing critic, opposed.
"We should be paying the folks we employ a fair and livable wage," said council member Margaret Abe Koga, who raised the issue for a vote. "It comes down to values."
Council members Ronit Bryant and Jac Siegel agreed, while member Chris Clark said he was on the fence before voting in favor.
"If we are not insisting on decent wages being paid, there really is a complete disconnect," Bryant said. "There is no logic in, 'Let's build this as cheaply as possible.' The way to move forward is for people to paid wages to live in market-rate housing. We collect the money, we do have money."
Members Mike Kasperzak, Mayor John Inks and John McAlister were opposed to paying a prevailing wage. McAlister, a a business owner, did not comment as to why.
"Adding on a tenth of the cost at the last minute... I just can't support that," but Kasperzak said.
On Wednesday, after the meeting, Jonathan Emami, vice president of ROEM, addressed the carpenter union's comments.
"I know nothing about what subcontractors are paying their employees or what type of benefits, but I would think that what he said was false," Emami said.
As to the cost of prevailing wage contracts, he said, "It could be as little as 30 percent higher or could be as high as double. Prevailing wage is always substantially higher."
He noted that ROEM's affordable housing project under construction downtown on Franklin Street uses 20 to 25 percent union labor, even though council members declined to pay a prevailing wage on that project as well.
See also: Restaurant faces wrecking ball
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Nick, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 2:22 pm I still don't understand why the city (via tax dollars) is paying $1M to renters. If you don't own your own property, there's no guarantee that you'll be able to live there forever. Seems like these folks got an incredible deal to be able to get cheap rents there for 30 years, and now they're getting big payouts on top of that?
They should move somewhere cheaper if they can't afford the rents here.
|
|
Posted by Otto Maddox, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 2:56 pm Can you imagine renting the same terrible apartment for 30 years?
Maybe have a few less kids and work on getting a better paying job.
I've never agreed with subsidized housing. If you want to live in an expensize (relatively speaking) area it's up to you to afford it.
I somehow manage to afford it. Why do I have to pay half of these people's rent as well?
And what different are 48 tiny apartments really going to make for people? This is all just feel good nonsense wasting our tax dollars.
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 3:14 pm Does this seem like a practical use of a zillion tax dollars?
How about a little deeper reporting on this story? Like WHY city staff is pushing this project? Or just how much federal grant money is at stake should the city fail to implement this farce?
|
|
Posted by Ted, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 3:51 pm Only the government could screw things up this bad. LMAO.
|
|
Posted by Pear, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 3:54 pm "it displaces the same number of people it will eventually house"
It displaces 48 people to build 48 units so is this article saying that each unit will house exactly one person?
|
|
Posted by Rob, a resident of another community, on Feb 27, 2013 at 4:08 pm I feel sorry for the people who are basically forced to move out of the area that they called home for decades. I used to live in Mountain View for 20+ Years, but the cost of living became too expensive for me to support my family so I moved to a city out of the bay area and now my money goes to the local businesses in the city I currently live in. I used to feel a 'connection' to Mountain View becuase thats where I was raised, but now I am glad that I live in a smaller city where I can afford to live. No doubt Mountain View has more than enough revenue from the people who can afford to live there.
|
|
Posted by WastedDollars, a resident of the Gemello neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 4:25 pm On its face, this seems like a huge waste of millions of taxpayer dollars! Also, I hate to sound petty, but La Costena has the best burritos in Mountain View and will be sorely missed!
|
|
Posted by Rodger, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 5:53 pm Cancel the project or house the displaced people ofsite at their current rents until the project is complete and then move them back at their current rent. What kind of a city government does this to people, one controlled by people who are do not understand what it's like to not be able to get jobs that pay big bucks.
This action is wrong.
|
|
Posted by Doug Pearson, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 7:36 pm I was struck by a statement by Jonathan Emami, vice president of ROEM, "Prevailing wage is always substantially higher." How can a prevailing wage always be substantially higher?
|
|
Posted by Gene Cavanaugh, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 7:49 pm Wait - if you think someone is doing something wrong, work at voting them out of office. Whining doesn't accomplish much.
As to "they should <somehow afford it>, no sympathy". Jesus and I both feel otherwise, and I am not especially religious - I just think he got it right.
|
|
Posted by Political Insider, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 9:20 pm This project is the poster child for why BMR housing is a farce. Removing low income people to replace with a very expensive project and hand over larger subsidies.
Politicians likes this type of government pork because they get their names on a plaque.
As to the wages, the union guy offered hearsay, which was enough to bring out more silliness. None of the council members have a clue about what is a fair or liveable wage. Maybe some of them should get real jobs and see what is a decent wage.
|
|
Posted by Greg Perry, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 9:22 pm
Prevailing wage is higher because California defines "prevailing" as the mode, or most common, wage.
In practice, the mode is the wage defined in the largest union contract, and therefore higher than most workers get. (There might be ten times as many workers who are paid less, but unless they get paid exactly the same amount, that won't change the mode.)
If you defined prevailing according to the median, then you would get a wage that is more moderate and not always higher.
|
|
Posted by kman, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2013 at 2:30 pm This financially makes little to no sense at all. It's another money pit our clues consul is getting us into. And sure, why not, it's not there money.
To think that rent will be $500 to $775 a month is only a pipe dream.
|
|
Posted by David, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2013 at 3:08 pm As long as we keep voting for idiots like Ronit Bryant, this is the kind of waste and bad decisions we can expect. In her words, "We collect the money, we do have money."
How about collecting less of the money instead? Then regular rents wouldn't be so expensive, and we wouldn't need to even consider subsidizing housing. How is spending $1M on these few families fair to all the other families struggling to pay bills? Or all the other families who would like to move to Mountain View and would happily pay their rent?
To those taking the $1M: be ashamed, and quit mooching off others.
|
|
Posted by John, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2013 at 1:32 am Couldn't resist commenting on the obvious. This has to be an onion article? This can't be true? Your driving off low income residents and businessrs and replacing them with == low income residents?
Follow the money .. someone's getting some...
|
|
Posted by Mary, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2013 at 6:52 am Why don't you admit that never raising your property taxes causes most of the problems? You sit in your million plus houses that most of you paid next to nothing for and never admit it that something needs to be done.
|
|
Posted by American Citizen, a resident of the Jackson Park neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2013 at 7:57 am Hey, welcome to United Nations "Agenda 21". You are now left the American sector and are now under Global control.
Look it up for yourself, Mountain View was an early adopter of Agenda 21. Also check out the Georgia Guidestones for reference and get ready to "Drink the Kool-Aid".
|
|
Posted by Kman, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2013 at 11:49 am Oh Mary, that is what happened in the early 70', everyone thought that raising the property tax would solve all there problems. And guess what, it got so out of control, that prop 13 had to come in and solve the problem by controlling property tax inflating. Maybe a few individuals can afford an increase in there property tax, but that's a small majority.
Guess who it would hurt the most, people that live on fixed income, yes, your grandmother, my grandmother, that can't afford to give more.
But i guess you don't care about that, you and all your like want free money to do with as you want. That is wrong, the taxes in this state are already through the roof. The Key here is to use the money wisely, just like any household. But the gov keeps on pushing a pension fund that will eventually break the bank with it's exponentially expanding cost. Now the gov. is pushing Highspeed trains down our throats whether we want it or not. They will spend Billions on just researching it and then Billions to put it in place and then Billions to maintain it. This is just a small sample of missues of money. But Mary you want grandman and grandpa to pay for it. I hope this open your eyes to reality.
Before you start looking for new money, try looking within at the way the government missuses the vast amount of money it already gets.
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2013 at 3:32 pm Failing to see the connection between prop 13 and the 'need' for subsidzed housing. Please enlighten me!
|
|
Posted by tex, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2013 at 4:20 pm The real reason is City Council member Mc Calister needs people to live cheap so he can pay them minimum wage at his ice cream shop on El Camino.
The truth.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
