Clandestino
04-24-2005, 12:32 PM
Buyers contend SAHA reneged on home prices
Web Posted: 04/24/2005 12:00 AM CDT
Ron Wilson
Express-News Staff Writer
When Sara Olivares moved into a new house four years ago, she couldn't believe her good fortune.
The real estate company put her in a lease-purchase program, with part of her monthly rent going into a down payment credit account.
After five years, if she followed the rules, she could buy the house for $42,000.
"I asked them, were they sure I could afford the house, because I only make $7 an hour," Olivares said. "And they told me, 'Sure you qualify. This program is for people just like you.'"
Even the name of her subdivision had a hopeful ring — Villas de Fortuna.
But now it appears that Olivares' dream of owning the home has been shattered.
The real estate company — the San Antonio Housing Authority — has told her the sale price is $71,000. It also said Olivares must prove she has good credit and that if she doesn't buy the house in a year she'll be evicted and forced to forfeit about $10,000 that's accumulated in her down payment account.
Olivares, a housekeeper with two children, thinks she's already proven she has good credit. When her oldest son was killed by a drunken driver a few years ago, she borrowed $4,500 to pay for his funeral, and, so far, she hasn't missed a payment.
But $71,000 for a house she thought was going to cost $42,000?
"If I knew it was going to cost that much, I wouldn't ever have moved in," she said.
SAHA has refused to recognize any oral commitment that may have been made to Olivares and said there is no written evidence she was offered the home for $42,000.
"We have found no documentation regarding any lower sales amounts," said SAHA spokeswoman Melanie Villalobos, adding the $71,000 figure comes from an appraisal in July 2001.
Olivares said she was never shown the appraisal.
The lease-purchase agreement required the appraisal to be done within 90 days of move-in. If it was done in July 2001, it was 45 days late — violating SAHA's part of the agreement.
SAHA admits the appraisal was late, but Villalobos said the agency is sticking with the higher sales figure.
Raquel Martinez, Olivares' neighbor, recently made the same grim discovery about her home. Told five years ago the house would cost $48,000, the price tag has soared another $23,000.
When Martinez asked SAHA for a copy of her July 2001 appraisal recently, she was told she couldn't have it and a second appraisal was going to be done that would likely push the price to $78,000.
Both Olivares and Martinez say getting contradictory information from SAHA comes as no surprise.
They said the agency told them when they moved in that classes would be provided on how to buy and maintain a house. But the agency only recently set up those classes, now that it's making a new push to sell the homes.
When SAHA Vice President Bill Phillips met with lease-purchase participants a year ago, he told them publicly they all would be grandfathered under their original Section 5(h) lease-purchase program — no matter what changes might come.
Last month, however, they were mailed information taken from SAHA's new program.
SAHA failed to respond by press time to questions about whether the residents are still under Section 5(h).
SAHA's Villalobos now says the women can choose which program they wish to participate in.
Documents obtained under the Open Records Act that detail the original program show SAHA would provide a "soft" second mortgage — effectively a "forgivable loan" — of up to $20,000 to guarantee that low-income residents could afford the homes.
Olivares and Martinez say no one told them about the second mortgage, including the mortgage banker who recently met with Martinez to discuss her loan.
Though the second mortgage is part of the public record, Villalobos said the women probably were not told about it. Only those applicants who are initially denied a mortgage are told about the extra help, she said.
To further complicate matters, Olivares now wonders if her house — located in the problem-plagued Mirasol public housing project — is even worth the $42,000 she agreed to pay four years ago.
When the water pipes broke, she said, SAHA maintenance crews botched the repairs.
The fence around her back yard has no gate, so if the city enforces ordinances requiring homeowners to mow the alley right-of-way, she won't be able to get a lawnmower back there.
For Martinez, the increased sales price adds insult to injury.
A teacher's aide who earns just $12,000 a year, Martinez installed new storm windows and a storm door at her own expense. If the price of her home goes up because of the improvements, she'll effectively be paying for the windows twice.
When Olivares and Martinez look at nearby homes that have been vacant for months, they notice other problems.
"See that house across the street?" Olivares said. "Thieves broke into that house by taking the door off its hinges. I have the same hinges on my door."
Two other houses, she said, had grass growing in the bedroom or garage.
The back porches on some of the vacant houses have pulled away from the foundations. Concrete pads for air conditioning units have also pulled away, exposing rebar.
After Olivares moved in and her son started cutting down the weeds in the yard, he came across a half-buried tire — a remnant of an unofficial dumpsite on the property.
Many homes were devoid of topsoil and lacked grass when residents moved in, casting doubt on whether the site was ever cleared as specifications called for.
The shifting foundations also raise questions of whether the foundations were dug to a depth of 12 inches and filled with compacted gravel as specs required.
None of the construction problems surprise community activist Ralph Velasquez, who said he's been meeting with a group of Fortuna residents.
"The only thing consistent about this subdivision is that the scarifying (original clearing of the land) was poor, the site preparation was poor, and the development was poorly planned and poorly executed," Velasquez said.
Across the street from Olivares and Martinez, many back yards slope steeply down to an arroyo that generally runs inside the property line.
"A man I spoke to who lived there complained that his yard was disappearing with each run-off and he's afraid for his foundation," Velasquez said.
As for Olivares and Martinez, Villalobos said both can get extra mortgage counseling before their purchase deadline arrives and that additional sources of financing might be available.
But both single mothers are wondering why they should even waste their time listening to SAHA.
"They used us. They were in a hurry to get us in here. They made all these promises," Olivares said.
"Now they just want to throw us away."
Web Posted: 04/24/2005 12:00 AM CDT
Ron Wilson
Express-News Staff Writer
When Sara Olivares moved into a new house four years ago, she couldn't believe her good fortune.
The real estate company put her in a lease-purchase program, with part of her monthly rent going into a down payment credit account.
After five years, if she followed the rules, she could buy the house for $42,000.
"I asked them, were they sure I could afford the house, because I only make $7 an hour," Olivares said. "And they told me, 'Sure you qualify. This program is for people just like you.'"
Even the name of her subdivision had a hopeful ring — Villas de Fortuna.
But now it appears that Olivares' dream of owning the home has been shattered.
The real estate company — the San Antonio Housing Authority — has told her the sale price is $71,000. It also said Olivares must prove she has good credit and that if she doesn't buy the house in a year she'll be evicted and forced to forfeit about $10,000 that's accumulated in her down payment account.
Olivares, a housekeeper with two children, thinks she's already proven she has good credit. When her oldest son was killed by a drunken driver a few years ago, she borrowed $4,500 to pay for his funeral, and, so far, she hasn't missed a payment.
But $71,000 for a house she thought was going to cost $42,000?
"If I knew it was going to cost that much, I wouldn't ever have moved in," she said.
SAHA has refused to recognize any oral commitment that may have been made to Olivares and said there is no written evidence she was offered the home for $42,000.
"We have found no documentation regarding any lower sales amounts," said SAHA spokeswoman Melanie Villalobos, adding the $71,000 figure comes from an appraisal in July 2001.
Olivares said she was never shown the appraisal.
The lease-purchase agreement required the appraisal to be done within 90 days of move-in. If it was done in July 2001, it was 45 days late — violating SAHA's part of the agreement.
SAHA admits the appraisal was late, but Villalobos said the agency is sticking with the higher sales figure.
Raquel Martinez, Olivares' neighbor, recently made the same grim discovery about her home. Told five years ago the house would cost $48,000, the price tag has soared another $23,000.
When Martinez asked SAHA for a copy of her July 2001 appraisal recently, she was told she couldn't have it and a second appraisal was going to be done that would likely push the price to $78,000.
Both Olivares and Martinez say getting contradictory information from SAHA comes as no surprise.
They said the agency told them when they moved in that classes would be provided on how to buy and maintain a house. But the agency only recently set up those classes, now that it's making a new push to sell the homes.
When SAHA Vice President Bill Phillips met with lease-purchase participants a year ago, he told them publicly they all would be grandfathered under their original Section 5(h) lease-purchase program — no matter what changes might come.
Last month, however, they were mailed information taken from SAHA's new program.
SAHA failed to respond by press time to questions about whether the residents are still under Section 5(h).
SAHA's Villalobos now says the women can choose which program they wish to participate in.
Documents obtained under the Open Records Act that detail the original program show SAHA would provide a "soft" second mortgage — effectively a "forgivable loan" — of up to $20,000 to guarantee that low-income residents could afford the homes.
Olivares and Martinez say no one told them about the second mortgage, including the mortgage banker who recently met with Martinez to discuss her loan.
Though the second mortgage is part of the public record, Villalobos said the women probably were not told about it. Only those applicants who are initially denied a mortgage are told about the extra help, she said.
To further complicate matters, Olivares now wonders if her house — located in the problem-plagued Mirasol public housing project — is even worth the $42,000 she agreed to pay four years ago.
When the water pipes broke, she said, SAHA maintenance crews botched the repairs.
The fence around her back yard has no gate, so if the city enforces ordinances requiring homeowners to mow the alley right-of-way, she won't be able to get a lawnmower back there.
For Martinez, the increased sales price adds insult to injury.
A teacher's aide who earns just $12,000 a year, Martinez installed new storm windows and a storm door at her own expense. If the price of her home goes up because of the improvements, she'll effectively be paying for the windows twice.
When Olivares and Martinez look at nearby homes that have been vacant for months, they notice other problems.
"See that house across the street?" Olivares said. "Thieves broke into that house by taking the door off its hinges. I have the same hinges on my door."
Two other houses, she said, had grass growing in the bedroom or garage.
The back porches on some of the vacant houses have pulled away from the foundations. Concrete pads for air conditioning units have also pulled away, exposing rebar.
After Olivares moved in and her son started cutting down the weeds in the yard, he came across a half-buried tire — a remnant of an unofficial dumpsite on the property.
Many homes were devoid of topsoil and lacked grass when residents moved in, casting doubt on whether the site was ever cleared as specifications called for.
The shifting foundations also raise questions of whether the foundations were dug to a depth of 12 inches and filled with compacted gravel as specs required.
None of the construction problems surprise community activist Ralph Velasquez, who said he's been meeting with a group of Fortuna residents.
"The only thing consistent about this subdivision is that the scarifying (original clearing of the land) was poor, the site preparation was poor, and the development was poorly planned and poorly executed," Velasquez said.
Across the street from Olivares and Martinez, many back yards slope steeply down to an arroyo that generally runs inside the property line.
"A man I spoke to who lived there complained that his yard was disappearing with each run-off and he's afraid for his foundation," Velasquez said.
As for Olivares and Martinez, Villalobos said both can get extra mortgage counseling before their purchase deadline arrives and that additional sources of financing might be available.
But both single mothers are wondering why they should even waste their time listening to SAHA.
"They used us. They were in a hurry to get us in here. They made all these promises," Olivares said.
"Now they just want to throw us away."