ilding code, they are required to provide a minimum number of units with reduced costs for the community.
The city gave exorbitant financial incentives to developers if they built affordable housing and restricted it to seniors only. This has resulted in over 99% of low-income rental housing restricted to seniors despite demographic data that show seniors represent only 11% of those in need.
This is best explained by an example: Say a developer decides to build a condominium complex and the land on which it will be developed sits within the R3, high density residential area of Alhambra. The Alhambra city code says that such developments are restricted to a maximum of 24 units per acre. To address the need for affordable housing, the state mandates that Alhambra offer the developer the chance to build more than 24 unit per acre in exchange that some of the units be sold at reduced rates for those in need. By being allowed to develop more units per acre, the developer can generate more revenue, which, in turn, is used to offset the lower profit on the affordable units. By having these affordable units available to those in need, the community’s housing needs get addressed which helps to somewhat justify the higher density and associated burdens placed on residents such as increased traffic. Ideally, everyone pitches in to help: developers provide some units at reduced rates, nearby residents adjust to the higher density, and cities are expected to help by properly planning for infrastructure and open space upgrades in the affected areas.
Here’s the problem: From 1989 to 2008, the city had laws in place which permitted density bonuses up to 400% if developers were to build units dedicated to seniors only (see Table 2). In the example above, developers would be allowed to build 96 units per acre when they otherwise would only be able to build 24 per acre under existing building codes. At the same time, they offered significantly smaller bonuses for non-age restricted units (see Table 1). Developers, whose goal is to provide a return to investors, are all but guaranteed to follow the path where they can build the greater number of units per acre of land. Never mind that the city’s demographics do not support this need, they can draw in others from surrounding areas. In other words, the city gave exorbitant financial incentives to developers if they built housing and restricted it to seniors only—a deal they could not refuse. Note that this policy conflicts with state law which actually places a bonus cap on units dedicated to seniors, possibly a recognition of the problem at hand.
By having been given permission to develop up to four times the number of units per acre they would normally be allowed, developers are making out very well. And the city evidently got what it wanted through these skewed set of rules while still satisfying its obligation to the state for the creation of affordable units. But it is the residents and community at large who are left with the short end of the stick. The units created for low-income groups are now age restricted to those 62 and older and, as a result, are not available to families, single mothers, and anyone else. And the nearby residents are burdened with higher densities, increased traffic, and additional pressure on city resources such as open space. Ordinarily, residents would be protected from such burdens by the existing building code.
But it gets worse. The city of Alhambra also permitted huge bonuses to developers if government assistance funding was used for senior projects, but gave no such bonuses to otherwise unrestricted projects. Furthermore, the city usually decides which projects get government assistance. This is an illogical policy that appears to be driven by something other than what is best for the community. It also makes the city susceptible to corruption.
Such unsound policies facilitate situations similar to when a former Alhambra mayor-turned-developer was convicted in 2007 of bribery for a subsidized senior housing development. Former mayor J. Parker Williams w