Reply With Quote
Okay this thread has been officially hijacked.
How do these people not pay taxes if THEY HAVE TO WORK TO GET SAHA HOUSING?!?!?!
Seriously, some people only read what they want to. They are not getting FREE rent, they are paying 1/3 of their monthly salary to be there. Maybe its not what the rest of us would pay in total, but its the same percentage.
And the person afraid of getting shot driving through Stone Oak just because 64 families moved in near a golf course that you likely don't even play at is one of the dumbest of all.
When my mom got cancer and had to quit her job when I was 12, we were in low-income housing and on food stamps and all that other good stuff. Would you have been scared of me, or my cancer-ridden mother? Seriously, most of these families are single-mother families that are the result of divorce or deadbeat dads, and there is nothing to be afraid of- except ignorant fear itself.
Okay this thread has been officially hijacked.
Getting shot was an exaggeration .
My point is simply, why bring 'low income housing' to one of the most expensive parts of San Antonio to live in? There has to be other areas they can build in.
Higher prob of blue collar crime, aint no minority convicted of fraud, they go away for armed robbery and things of that nature
Good post.
This is the same point I brought up earlier, but as you said, some people read what they want to.
Alot of times, some people just have no clue whatsoever what it's really like to be part of the working poor, absolutely no idea at all, even though many times they actually really think they do.
So we have 2 apartment complexes that are not well run, are infested with mold, and are generally undesirable at this time. If SAHA can get them cheap and this is a better investment for their money at this time, wtf are people going to about? Because thats the bottom line. If its a good fiscal move, then its going to be done. People can and moan all they want, but no judge is going to rule in favor of pissed off Stone Oak residents over 64 low income tenants.
But can they buy/operate them legally?
From Councilman Wolff:
Link
Emphasis mineReal estate speculation is risky, and while I have confidence in SAHA’s ability to build and maintain affordable housing, I’m just as certain they should not be in the business of real estate speculation. This point is further illustrated by Texas Local Government Code 392.004 which states, “It is the policy of the state that a housing authority manage and operate its housing projects in an efficient manner to enable it to set rentals at the lowest possible rates consistent with providing decent, safe and sanitary housing and that a housing authority may not construct or operate a project for profit or as a source of revenue to a municipality or county.”
How is putting low income tennants in a high income neighborhood fiscally responsible?
If anything it'll drive down the property value of neighboring structures and hurt the bottom line at the neighboring businesses. Maybe not a lot, but I doubt it will HELP them. It's not fiscally responsible, it's charity.
Charity which can still be given...just not in the middle of Stone Oak.
Last edited by Please_dont_ban_me; 10-31-2006 at 04:49 PM.
Lmao.
That's so ed up.
Thats a good question. I'm not familliar with the legalities involved with SAHA taking over this type of property and what they would have to prove in order to do so legally. Speculation wouldn't be the case here, however, because it isn't as though SAHA would be planning on flipping the property in order to make a profit.
I guess it depends on whether or not profit would be defined as the facility making more money than it costs to operate or if they define it in a system wide manner. In otherwords, can this complex be used to subsidize other complexes SAHA may have that are losing money?
Yeah, that doesn't sound xenophobic at all. Good thing there is no racial stereotyping going on there. White people are nosy and call the cops eh? I guess Stone Oak has no hispanics and I guess all the new tenants would be brown or black because there are no poor white people. Nice.
What I believe he means by "speculation" is this
Alvarez explained that the revenue generated from the 577 market-rate leases will subsidize the 65 public housing units.
You know, if people want to have a legitimate beef with this situation, it should be along the lines of the tax exemption SAHA would get on the entire complexes which would cost NEISD money. ing about a handful of people moving in is ing silly.
That can't be the case because thats how SAHA does business everywhere.
Of couse there are poor white people, turn on Springer for proof
It's already started, Commissioner Larson weighed in with that fact in a letter to SAHA.
If anyone knows how to use the tax codes to their benefit its rich people. Thats the biggest objection anyone can laydown right there. 200k a year is a lot of money to a school district and theres no way NEISD lets it go without a fight.
You gotta think of the kids here, it's a better story if their projects are in the ghetto and they crawl out, so for them and their future rap career they're better off somewhere else.
Our lack of understanding about other classes, cultures and people reinforce our stereotypes every day about folks whom we know little about. We live in a culture of fear and it's pretty pathetic...
What most people don't realize is that the people who move into low-income housing are already in their communities.
And I have never seen a study that proves low-income housing drives down property values. I'm not saying there isn't one out there, but I have yet to read one.
I'm a long time Sonterra Resident who was at yesterdays meeting. Here are some highlights of what was discussed broken down in financial and emotional.
FINANCIAL
- The properties will cost SAHA $58 million
- The entire property will receive a tax abatement costing the state millions in loss tax revenues.
- The cost to NEISD will be $300k per year
- There were hard facts presented that showed other housing complexes that allowed subsidized housing saw considerable drops in occupancy and an overall deterioration of the property.
EMOTIONAL
- There were countless stories of people who worked their way up from poverty without public assistance and now live in stone oak. I'm one of those people.
- Most in stone oak want diversification but believe earning the American dream is better than welfare.
- HOWEVER, this is my personal opinion. Most people in that meeting yesterday need to look themselves in the mirror, because many of them receive welfare in the form of Medicare and Social Security on the backs of their children and grandchildren
There's a ton more to consider but those are some of the highlights.
Well then, looks like it won't make financial sense, what say you Amy?
Does it have to make financial sense or is it a social experiment?
Almost anything can be manipulated to make sense financially. You could argue the low income person would become higher income and would contribute more to society in the future.
Most in Stone Oak dont want diversification, unless its of their portfolios. See others can play the stereotype game also!
The vast majority of people in this nation recieve some type of public assistance of some type, as twocentsworth pointed out, or will recieve some type of public assistance.
If we are talking a grand total of 64 units in these two complexes then who cares? The application process will most likely be long and there will be many checks done to ensure there is no criminal risk in the people being placed. (Go ahead and go play stereotypes again, because you cannot predict crime in people just based on race and class and not call yourself sterotypical on these issues)
I've seen this done in other places in regards to public assistance and it runs fairly smoothly and there isnt really a problem anywhere.
Its all about NIMBYism as pointed out long ago and a classism that many have toward others.
As I think Manny pointed out, classism is the new racism.
If all these families were white nobody would have a problem until they found out they were also poor, then the whole charade would begin and this is essentially what this all is.
Regarding the tax abatements, its something that has long been done in this city, not exactly a new thing, and why the huge outrage now over this is beyond me.
NEISD would lose the tax monies, and thats something they will fight tooth and nail until their dying day.
Regarding the last point about occupancy rates going down and a property deteroiating...these two properties are going to have these same two issues regardless of SAHA buying the properties as things stand now. Sure rents are high, but I know that they were both having problems filling the units. When you dont have that rent coming in, you have to cut costs and its often on non essential maintenance.
you need to look in the mirror when calling other people racist because you're pretty hard core. btw, 64 to start when occupancy rates fall and the property starts to deteriorate 64 will turn into a whole lot more. It makes sense because the city won't have to advertise or worry about people not paying rent. They can put a low income tenant and get the tax payers to pay most of the rent.
Why would occupancy rates fall and why the would the property start to deteriorate? Because 64 units will house lower income families? The same kind of lower income family you came from? What if one of them worked in Stone Oak but can't afford to live there, this is a great opportunity for them. This is definitely classism which is just an extension of racism.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
