to residents in Alhambra, regardless of age, the city is denying those in need of low-income housing the opportunity afforded to them by the state and federal government. After 2008, the city changed their density bonus laws to comply with the state law. But by this time, the damage had been done. The city is largely built-out in terms of large rental units. And if recent activities are any indication, the future actually looks worse, as evidenced by the examples cited of the wrongful selling of affordable units to investors, the use of Specific Plans to bypass affordable housing concessions from developers while still giving them large density bonuses, and the borrowing and subsequent loss of former redevelopment agency affordable housing coffers.
The question still remains: Why not base eligibility for affordable housing solely on income? Seniors certainly wouldn’t be precluded, nor would families, single mothers, the disabled, or any others provided they met income requirements. By doing so, the city would be closer to addressing the needs of its residents.
The question still remains: Why not base it solely on income? Seniors certainly wouldn’t be precluded, nor would families, single mothers, the disabled, or any others provided they met income requirements. By doing so, the city would be closer to addressing the needs of its residents, and that, in turn, would reduce housing stress and promote a more amiable environment. It would also be closer to meeting its ethical obligations.
 City of Alhambra, Alhambra Consolidated Plan for Housing & Community Development (2010-2015), 2010.
 Kathleen Short and Timothy Smeeding, Understanding Income-to-Threshold Ratios Using the Supplemental Poverty Measure: People with Moderate Income, U.S. Census Bureau, SEHSD Working Paper Number 2012-18, August 21, 2012.
Jason DeParle, Robert Gebeloff, and Sabrina Tavernise, “Older, Suburban and Struggling, ‘Near Poor’ Startle the Census,” New York Times, November 18, 2011.
 State density bonuses are proportional to those most in need. Bonuses are greater if developers dedicate units for very low-income groups and are less for moderate income. This is done to offset losses to their bottom line. No age restrictions are placed on these bonuses.
 Kimball, Tirey & St. John LLP, March 2011: In 62+ senior housing, no one under the age of 62 is permitted to live there, with three exceptions: 1) a live-in caregiver who might need to live with the senior as a "reasonable accommodation" based on the disability of a resident; 2) an employee under 62 whose duties require that the person must live on the property; and 3) underage occupants residing at the property prior to 1/1/85 (California law) or 9/13/88 (Federal law) are allowed to continue their tenancy. 55+ senior housing is more complex. The California Unruh Civil Rights Act (which sets forth the rules for senior housing in California) was amended in 2000 to require that, for all tenancies beginning 1/1/01 or after, at least one member of the household must be 55 or older. There are no exceptions to this rule in non-subsidized housing, which means that underage, disabled residents may not move into a 55+ property by themselves â€“ they would have to live with a "qualifying senior" (someone 55 or older) in order to legally reside in the community. There are some federal subsidy programs which are entitled "elderly/disabled." In properties operated under those programs, an exception must be made in order to comply with the program requirements. (Effective January 1, 2011, California law was amended to specifically provide that selection preferences based on age imposed in connection with federally approved housing programs do not constitute age discrimination in housing.) With respect to secondary residents (those living with the qualifying senior), the most restrictive rules allowed are to require secondary residents to be "Qualified Permanent Residents." Qualified Permanent Residents must be 45 years of age or older, unless the person is: 1) a spouse or cohabitant of the qualifying senior; or 2) a