Affordable Homes Tug-of-War

I had similar (but not as extensive) affordable housing issues when I lived in Boulder. I was making about $30,000 as a teacher, and with a few low-value inherited assets this was just a little too much to qualify for affordable housing. But I still couldn't afford to buy even the lowest-priced condos.

My own and the Gilberts' experiences show why these affordable housing programs don't work. Middle class and lower middle class people, who often work in critical professions, get shut out. Meanwhile corrupt people find ways to make money from the system by renting out units or borrowing against them.

What communities like Santa Barbara and Boulder need are more small and dense housing, like condos and townhomes, that could sell for lower rates and that would be more ecologically efficient than suburban sprawl. These could then sell at market value, without all the restrictions on builders, red tape and ineffectual enforcement of the "affordable housing" systems. I've never understood why the city councils don't create tax or zoning incentives for reducing the number of wasteful McMansions and for increasing the building of denser and lower-cost housing.

In this situation, I certainly hope the County sticks to its guns. It would be a small step towards regaining the immense amount of credibility it lost in its impotent management of this program. Why didn't the County simply buy the property back for 257,000 and restart the process with a qualified buyer? The original owner and MorEquity deserve to be left holding the bag for violating the program requirements. If they do, it might discourage other lenders from engaging in the same practice. Until the County demonstrates an ability to enforce program requirements, lenders, owners and potential buyers will keep trying to bend the rules, and qualifying families will continue to be left out in the cold.

And we wonder why there are so many long time local working folks ending up living in RV's? Not an unattractive option considering the others.

Or just giving up and leaving altogether.

SB is a nightmare of epic proportions when it comes to housing. There is plenty of housing...just crack open a paper and look at the rental ads; but hardly any but the few can afford or quality (yes...QUALIFY) for those rentals.

And once in the rent trap, it's almost impossible to get out. Home ownership...real homeownership of a modest little home...as opposed to living in a cell in a hive with 100 other worker bees on the same property (IE a condo), is absolutely unattainable. Renters run on that wheel like demented hamsters for their entire lives, putting out the energy, thinking they are getting somewhere, when all they get is the right to hand over 3/4 or more of their paychecks to a landlord to pay his mortgage in hopes of getting to stay there another month.

It's just insane, and it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better; I said it in 1984 in an article I wrote for this paper's precursor and I'm saying it again.

Shelter instability is the rot that is destroying this area; never have I been anywhere in my life where shelter is such a common topic of conversation. In most other places, people just go to their jobs, live their lives and never even think about shelter.

Until we can do better than this, we have more of the same to look forward to. Stay tuned for more homelessness and more rank and file workers escaping the area.

I couldn't agree more with Holly, but I am in the trap of a mortgage that's reset upward and an income not (would that I were a city or county employee!) It looks as though I (and family) will have to leave.

That's what happens in a desirable area. It's expensive, the ordinary one-two, supply and demand. No one has the right to live here; it's a privilege. Those who demand more housing are getting more expensive housing for those who can afford it and who then hire or demand more services by people who can't afford to live here.

Indeed, it will continue to be more of the same, as it has been --- unless those who want dense and denser housing succeed ...and destroy the ambiance and appearance and reality of Santa Barbara so fewer will want to be here (although that latter is not likely to happen in coastal California.)

As for those like the two-salaried Gilberts trying to get around the County's affordable guidelines: I hope the County holds firm --- and thoroughly investigates and punishes scams.

I am also with the county on this one and by the way, I believe the gentleman in this story already owns a unit in this complex with his first wife(?)

I don't believe the "two salaried" Gilberts are trying to "get around" the counties affordable housing guidelines. They actually qualify and are in the affordable housing program. The property was foreclosed and went to auction. The county has had the opportunity to buy this property back since last May. Why did the county wait until the Gilberts were in the final stages of escrow? This is a family with children who both work in this community. They are not looking for an investment property.

Thank you, Martha, for this well-written story on an important issue for the South Coast. It appears the News-Press will be forever lost as a trusted community newspaper. I'm glad the Indy has stepped up its coverage.

While this family certainly shouldn't lose the money they've put down and it's unfortunate that they have already given notice on their rental property and will likely have to move out at the end of the month, it is entirely unfair that Santa Barbara County affordable housing is opening up to higher income buyers. This article is way too sympathetic toward this family and I just cannot feel sorry for a family that is having a tough time buying a house that should never have been available to them (because of their too-high income) in the first place! If they can afford a half-million dollar house, then yes, by all means, go buy one. However, these houses were meant to be affordable housing units and should not be half-million dollar houses for higher-income folk. Yes, the former owner of the house screwed up borrowing that much money -- but it was the bank who allowed it! Why must the lower income SB County residents suffer because of the bank's poor choices or even because of the former homeowner's choices? I am hugely disappointed in the county for allowing the banks to take these houses out of the affordable housing program. I'm also surprised to see an article sympathizing with the non-low-income buyers in the Independent.

I too find it interesting that his name is still on another property on the same street... Can anyone explain that?

I also hope that the county sticks with their decision. These people do not qualify for this affordable unit and need to buy where they can afford to live. As a single mother, born and raised in SB, working in SB, I had to make the decision to move and commute in order to buy a house. Of course I would rather have stayed in SB and raised my children closer to our family, but that simply was not an option. At the time I made too much to qualify for the affordable units that were available, so I bought elsewhere. It is not a right to live in SB, you must be able to afford it. Teacher or not, we all have jobs that contribute to making SB run. We all want afforable housing. We all want to stay close to family and work. I could go on and on, but we just don't get what we want. Yes, they should get their money back, and yes the homeowner, lender and county were wrong in not following the rules. However, that is not reason enough to let them buy the unit, they make too much for this unit! Sorry but you have to wait until one in your bracket is available, just like the rest of us.