as caught trying to bribe then-councilman Daniel Arguello for his vote in support of a senior housing project on 210 N. Monterey Street . This proposed development benefitted from a 75% density bonus by taking advantage the city’s skewed density bonus policies favoring seniors. The financial gains to the developer due to this density bonus and other cost-sharing measures by the city appears to be significant because the developer, Mr. Williams, et al., found it easy enough to offer a bride of $25,000 to Mr. Arguello just for his vote of approval.
Why has the city discriminated against families?
According to the city’s 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan, family households are at least three times more likely than seniors to be in need of very low or low-income housing. And these figures suffer from outdated data and mask an even greater divide; overall, seniors represent only 13% of Alhambra’s population and only 11% of the total in need of low or very low-income housing. One cannot discount the need of seniors, and there are obviously significant numbers in need of affordable housing. But why did the city largely ignore everyone else?
When the SGVOG interviewed city management on October 22, 2010 and asked this question, city manager Julio Fuentes deflected the question by citing the number of units they city has built for families. When confronted by the disparity as shown in the actual numbers and that the city appears to be taking too much credit for the few family units they have created (see Figure 1 ), his then-director of development services, James Funk, jumped in and said “any affordable housing helps. I don’t understand what you are trying to get at here!” Mr. Fuentes then exclaimed, “Where are these people? Show me these families [that are in need of low-income housing]!” When the SGVOG cited census data, studies done by the state, the long Section 8 voucher waiting list, and first-hand knowledge, Mr. Fuentes focused on those for which the SGVOG had first-hand knowledge and implied that he may be able to do something 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 hi