ck into subsidizing developers without creating affordable units. The crux of the problem is that the ARA used the redevelopment vehicle as a subsidy for corporations and businesses. It strayed from the core values of the redevelopment program. It paid for such things as recurring costs in the form of leases and maintenance. Still on the books is over $3,300,000 the ARA gave to New Century BMW to subsidize their construction costs; $320,000 to Kohl’s to come into town; and over $35,000 in rental and maintenance payments on behalf of businesses. At the time of this writing, the city is still fighting to have such payments continue to be paid through the tax increment funds that would have gone to the ARA.
These specific cases are a small subset of the millions of dollars that have already been spent in similar ways. This was made possible, in part, by utilizing the 20% set-aside that the city was required to dedicate to affordable housing. Whenever the city was required to payout portions of its tax revenue back to the state for things such as the Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF) to help schools, the city opted to use the affordable housing set-aside funds rather take away from its practice of subsidizing retailers. On the books was over $6,400,000 of loans taken out against this account. Efforts by the SGVOG to stop this risky practice since there was a good chance such funds would be lost forever were unheeded . Predictably, when the state shutdown the redevelopment agencies, this money that the ARA was suppose to use for affordable housing projects was completely lost.
It is more likely that the businesses will still get their money, with so many people lobbying on their behalf, including the city’s appointees on the ARA oversight board. But the working poor, without a voice, are left holding the short end of the stick.
Perspective from the wider viewpoint
Although Alhambra is not alone in this practice, no other city in the San Gabriel Valley reserves so much of its affordable housing stock for seniors. Pasadena has a senior population with similar proportions to Alhambra’s at 11%, but the city dedicates only 57% of its affordable rental units to them. Baldwin Park, a city which has a similar household income to Alhambra, has a senior population of about 6.2% and sets aside 47% of affordable rental housing to those 65 and older. And Monterey Park, which has a significantly higher percentage senior population than Alhambra at 18%, dedicates 72% of affordable units to them.
Nationwide, the net worth of households headed by adults ages 65 and older was 47 times that of households headed by adults under the age of 35 as of 2009.[ Unlike the working poor, seniors benefit from strong lobbying groups, AARP being one. Efforts to perform wealth redistribution will also favor the elderly in the form of Medicare and Social Security. Locally, cities such as Alhambra only consider income when determining qualification for affordable housing. But while seniors often have fixed incomes, their net worth is substantially higher. In fact, the city relies on seniors being able to sell existing homes in order to afford the many senior units developed in Alhambra over the years. It is worth noting that the senior development at 210 N. Monterey Street which was at the center of the scandal involving a former Alhambra mayor-turned-developer, J. Parker Williams, and then councilman Daniel Arguello (Arguello was responsible for notifying authorities and was not implicated in the crime) is still in development, albeit with new partners. But at the November 7, 2011 Planning Commission meeting where it was up for approval, Development Services Director Mary Swink responded to a question regarding whether there would be enough seniors to qualify for the low to moderate-income units, she responded “they way seniors get in to these units is by selling their existing homes and then buying these units. It does not count as income. This is what the [county] housing department has told us.”
By not providing affordable housing 