I understand that tax credits are a good source of development financing, as they are sold off and thus converted to cash. Do rental units for lower incomes receive more tax credits? I am very suspicious of non-profit developers’ claims to target low-income folks, since they gravitate toward 100% AMI condos just like the private sector, but do it with public subsidy. Recently, EBALDC received units, as part of a city settlement, that were subsidized rentals. EBALDC is going to “sell” them as BMR condos, removing them from the rental market and targeted a higher-income group than the folks there before. The neighbors in the building objected to the below-market “ownership” units, saying they would compete with their own units when they were resold, and asked that the units be preserved as low-income rentals. The only explanation the Council could give was that it was cheaper to set them up as BMR condos, and they didn’t care that they weren’t rentals or for low-income families.

I will correct some of the statements in my blog above. I should have included Rick Holliday’s tale of removing tons of trash, including a meth lab, and his pioneering vision to increase West Oakland’s housing stock by 10% while restoring an important historic building. I agree with Just Cause that we should maximize subsidized units (like, with density bonuses and little parking), but not at the expense of market-rate units, which pretty much fit the affordability thresholds anyway.

The first EBHO representative (I can’t understand his name…sounds like Ho Elton?) began by saying “EBHO strongly supports the current staff recommendations as greatly improved from the condition 100 proposal that was submitted earlier this year.” Hardly a “strenuous objection.” He then went on to suggest an alternative proposal.

“EBHO is proposing that 100 of the units be rental that serve households making 30-60% of the area median income, and that the remaining units be ownership opportunities of 100% AMI. This will cost the city considerably less money, while at the same time providing affordable housing opportunities for Oakland’s low to moderate income residents. Please consider this as you discuss the staff’s recommendations.”

Personally, I think this is an excellent plan. The second EBHO representative, Alyssa Dennis, complained about the purchase price.

Adam Gold from Just Cause Oakland began his comments by saying that Just Cause had originally wanted the developer to pay for the subsidized housing, but then went on to endorse the proposal. He made no complaints about the purchase price.

“I think the proposal in front of you is something that increases the number of affordable units and makes the city’s expenses a little bit less. But the crucial thing to Just Cause and our members who fought on this is that we have to make sure that there’s significant amount of affordable housing that gets built at Wood Street because it’s such a major project. And so anything that will save money to the City in terms of the final cost of what they’re subsidizing to this project so that other affordable housing can be built and will make sure there is more affordable units at Wood Street is something that we’re gonna want to support and look at. And I think just one thing that’s not in the staff report that we want to suggest is that there is some community process and input on the RFP itself. Cause I think there are things that could be worked in there such as preferences for more affordability within that parcel that gets purchased, maybe a mixed of rental and home ownership, things that could be incentivized to get that development even better for West Oakland residents.”

The summary presented by the staff said that the ownership units were at 60% AMI, and were for-sale. The non-profit developers wanted the 60% units for-rent (which I agree with), but in exchange, the for-sale units at a higher affordability threshold, ie a higher price. I will double-check the report, but that was my understanding, and it also fits with EBHO’s claim that more expensive units would lower development costs.

Come on. Did you watch the meeting? Nearly every speaker on the item was proud of the agreement they had reached and spoke strongly in favor. One person complained about the land buy-back. I get that you’re trying to make a point about BMR units, and it’s a valid one, but you can’t just invent public testimony because it helps your argument.