omething for them if they were to give his office a call.
The interview revealed the “regional” stance the city takes with respect to affordable housing, similar to its approach when addressing services for the homeless. That is, they rely on outside entities to address these problems and appear to have little in terms of a strategic plan to address such issues, instead focusing on short-term fixes that amount to appeasement. The city tries to comply with state law by doing the minimum possible, and in the case of low-income housing, it did worse by sidestepping the group in need of it. When the three were asked why the city rewarded developers with exorbitant bonuses if they developed senior housing, they cited the need to address the forthcoming baby-boomer retirement flood. There was no answer when the SGVOG asked for a fiscal basis for this claim. Nor was there any response when asked why the city incentivized the use of federal grant funding for senior projects.
The city of Alhambra incentivized the use of state and federal grant subsidies on senior affordable developments only, while not affording the same incentives to family-based affordable developments. Such policy is not suported by the community's needs. Nor is it supported by state and federal guidelines.
One reason may be the perception by some within the city that lower-income families are undesirable neighbors. This income group has been unjustly stigmatized as undesirables that are troublesome to neighborhoods. In Alhambra, lobbying groups such as the chamber of commerce and the pro-business city council have promoted policies to thwart any images with negative connotations to businesses, however false their assumptions. In other words, the city appears to be saying “the low-income element is bad for business,” and that if they must tolerate them per state law, they will take the geriatric crowd as the lesser of evils because they lack the energy to cause problems. But while they guild the streets, the customer’s purchasing power is negated by high rents which, in turn, contributes to the high turnover rate amongst failed businesses. In this regard, the business lobby is hurting its customer base rather than helping it.
Characterizing those who qualify for low-income housing as pariahs is unjust. Studies for the Western San Gabriel Valley have shown occupations that would qualify as low income include security guards, EMTs and paramedics, retail salespersons, preschool teachers, mental health counselors, and cosmetologists among others—the very people who contribute to a successful city (Table 3) . These are people who are key to the local economy but cannot even afford to rent a home, let alone purchase one. To afford a two-bedroom apartment, a family needs an annual income of $57,880 in Los Angeles County, and this assumes no monthly debt such as car or credit car payments .
The trend continues
After 2008, the city changed their density bonus laws to comply with state law. But after nearly 20 years of non-compliance, the city is mostly built-out in terms of large rental units. And although the city now complies with state law, it hasn’t stopped them from exceeding density bonus regulations. Even worse, they are granting density bonuses without any return to the community in the form of affordable units. Specific Plans are the new vehicle of choice to circumvent city planning ordinances which otherwise restrict the number of units per acre. These are special zones that are engineered by the city to serve their needs. Most recently, they have been employed to allow mixed-use housing developments along Main Street with densities that exceed the requirements as listed in the general plan. This policy appears to be at odds with the state law, yet they are routinely passed with little to no discussion at the city’s open meetings. Because they are city-engineered maps, there is no requirement for any set-asides for affordable units.
The Zen Terrace debacle
The city’s development services department was found to be less than diligent when it comes to protectin