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 was 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 s