22apartmentsLARGE

 

This is something I harp on all the time, the city contributing more to affordable housing;

“We are pleased to award $350,000 to Grandview LLC, owned by Mr. Ken Dunlap, for the purpose of constructing Westwood Apartments,” Community Development Director Darrin Smith said.

“We have heard for a long time about the need for affordable housing. Well, I call that the talk. Doing the talk. But I think what we’re looking at today is kind of doing the walk with it,” Ken Dunlap with Grandview LLC said.

Darrin Smith with Community Development says the money from the city will be given as a loan, to be paid back over the next 32 years.

Hey, sounds like a great program, and it is, BUT . . . am I the only one that thinks this is a conflict of interest that the development company Planning Commission Chair Ken Dunlap is involved with is getting this loan from the city?

Yes, his position is a volunteer one, but a part of me just says this isn’t right (ethical). I’m starting to wonder if there is any board/council member in this city anymore that is simply doing the job for the value of good government instead of self-interest?

17 Thoughts on “SF Planning Commission Chair to get a city loan for affordable housing

  1. From a financial standpoint, they could refuse the loan & designation, build this project with a few more amenities, charge market rent ($800-$1200) and make a lot more money faster as vacancies are running at 5% right now.

    Same thing Jeff Schershlight did when he offered to sell the City back his site for a downtown EC for the same money even after paying for the Zip demo, and you bashed the shit out of him regardless.

    Not everyone who develops real estate clubs baby seals to death in their spare time, a lot (if not most) of them in town are more about seeing the City move forward in a positive way even if that means less profits for themselves.

  2. Would agree 100% that what Ken’s company is doing is a great thing (even though, he will still make $$$ charging lower rents). My issue is that no one seems to have a problem with a PC member getting a (taxpayer) funded loan from the city. It is a conflict, no two-ways around it. But since there are no ethics laws on the books in SD, I guess what he is doing is ethical. Just like it is legal to drive drunk, as long as you don’t get caught 🙁

  3. rufusx on January 23, 2014 at 1:26 pm said:

    Damned if you do – damned if you don’t.
    Always looking for an angle – aren’t you?
    VERY cynical.

  4. Seems I am not the one looking for the angle. Seems Sy and Darrin Smith are tooting the horn of affordable housing and the instant Sainthood of Mr. Dunlap while ignoring the elephant in the room, ethics. We can do ‘good’ projects in this community like this, we can also do them ‘ethically’ is that too much to ask?

  5. Tom H. on January 23, 2014 at 1:52 pm said:

    (1) Artificially affordable housing, consisting of new construction on the edge of town, is a pretty massive distortion of the natural housing market, which can provide affordable housing naturally if certain barriers are removed (density limits, parking minima, etc.)

    (2) How affordable can this housing be when it is in the middle of a brand-new suburban tract, requiring miles of driving for basic tasks, and is far removed from many public services that low-income persons are likely to need?

    Remember that early zoning laws were essentially thinly-veiled attempts to put a cover charge on new developments to keep out the riff-raff (low-income types). Minimum lot sizes, garage requirements, landscaping ordinances all serve to drive up suburban housing prices and keep ‘those people’ out. Now that we’re living with the fruit of several generations of this living arrangement, we’re trying to force artificial low-income housing back into the market, since the market is forbidden from providing it naturally.

    Here’s two ideas that would require no public subsidy, increase property rights, and potentially provide secondary income sources for homeowners:

    (a) Allow homeowners to let out bedrooms in their homes by right, without requiring conditional use permits.
    (b) Allow the construction of accessory units (“granny flats”) in single-family lots by suspending certain setback requirements for small structures.

    “Granny flats” or “carriage houses” are adaptable housing units which fit in well with single-family neighborhoods, provide housing for people in many stages of life (older parents, college students home for the summer, young single people, etc.). It’s also a relatively painless (and popular) way to incrementally increase density in “built-up” neighborhoods.

  6. Lamb Chislic on January 23, 2014 at 2:06 pm said:

    Payback to MMM’s campaign manager? Looks like he’s working a deal on the Arena: http://mattyzimmer.tumblr.com/post/74250816547/the-latest-on-augies-move-to-the-arena.

  7. As a city official said to me today, when we were discussing this, “If you need something from the city you will play nice with who ever you need to in order to get something later.”

    Your welcome Rob Oliver.

  8. will augie pay for the use of the arena, or is this a freebie? I wonder what alumni and boosters think of the move?

  9. Augie’s move is very strange, as they spent years and years fundraising for their little athletic building. Part of the reason they wanted it was to create a home court advantage. Now they want to play in front of thousands of empty seats? Weird.

  10. pathloss on January 23, 2014 at 7:58 pm said:

    Don’t we have this figured out yet? It’s inferior construction for top price with insiders skimming for personal gain. Short term it’s a place for impoverished. It will have to be demolished or burn down within 5 years. Then, it’s back to homelessness.

  11. Think About-It on January 23, 2014 at 9:03 pm said:

    Tom H. is right on the money. Thanks for the insightful comment.

  12. If this SOB mayor wasn’t such a corrupt snake we could believe these projects were all on the up and up.

    I don’t put anything past this subprime credit card, sweetheart land deal leech.

  13. Tom – SOME communities in the area HAVE more than one class of “home occupation” – making conditional use permits unnecessary for MOST in home businesses – such as letting rooms. This is an idea that has already come and been implemented. SECOG even has a set of boiler-plate statutes available for local adoption that create this change.

  14. Actually – when Augie did play at the arena, way back when I was at school there – the place was often times quite full. I think they drew bigger crowds just because it was a bigger venue. They thought that by building an on-campus venue, they would get larger student crowds. Didn’t work out that way. Actually led to lower alum and general public attendance.

  15. When did you go, Ruf? I know in the 70’s, there was a great city interest in Augie basketball. There were two main reasons – 1. they were pretty good. 2. they were the only game in town above the level of high school (SFC was a joke back then). My dad used to go, and I’d sometimes tag along, and there were quite a lot of regulars that would all sit together. By the time I got there in the early 80’s, though, that fan base had pretty much died off. They were still pretty good, but the public and student interest was seriously waning. Decades later, I just don’t see how this makes sense. They don’t have their natural rivalries with USD and SDSU anymore, which were the only matchups that needed the Arena. Once the Skyforce came to town, the non-student attendance almost completely went away…and I just don’t see it coming back.

  16. The Augie is really a head scratcher. To put that much money into the Elmen Center, then throw it under the bus? Last nite Augie hosted USF and the womens game was at 80% of full capacity. The men’s game 90%. Not a sellout, but at least at the E center, the college gets a lions share of concessions.

    So why the hell the move? Makes no financial or common sense.

    Talk of the seat backs at he arena by Zimmerman reminded me of something else. I talked to a few friends who have sat for years with the same block of fans,(about a 100 or so) at skyforce games. Season ticket holders all. I was surprised to hear they are not real happy with the seating. Too small and cramped. I forgot to ask. What percentage of seats at the “throwback” style pentagon has seat backs?

  17. hornguy on January 25, 2014 at 8:03 pm said:

    – In a community this small, if you were to disqualify everyone who benefits directly or indirectly from the work of the planning commission from serving on the planning commission, you would have virtually no body of citizenry from which to draw a planning commission if one stipulates that the individuals selected should also have a professional background in land use, planning, zoning, etc. I happen to like having smart, informed people serving on municipal bodies and not having the intellectual equivalent of Lora Hubbel serving everywhere. Part of that means acknowledging that people will occasionally have to recuse themselves from certain discussions.

    – So long as objective criteria were met in allocating the funds and so long as Mr. Dunlap neither voted on nor participated in any discussions about the development in his role as a member of the planning commission, there’s no conflict of interest here. I know you love to blow your anti-developer siren every chance you get, but you’re reaching here.

    – As Sy alluded to in his first comment, affordable/workforce housing simply does not happen without government incentive. Absent local programs, the 9% credit and 4% credit under LIHTC, etc., this stuff’s not getting built. Period. The loss in revenue and the strings that come from government financing aren’t worth it. I guess the alternatives in your world are that either people with Mr. Dunlap’s expertise never serve the public or that he slaps up some market-rate housing there.

    – Lots of people who need affordable housing (defined at 30% of AMI or less) aren’t poor in the sense that they need to be centrally located and near public transit and other public services. This location is actually quite good – it’s suburban, it’s in a safe neighborhood, and it’s near schools. It also facilitates economic integration in some of these outer residential areas.

    – Tom H. has some good ideas in #5 provided infrastructure concerns can be addressed. In the core of the city, many streets are barely wide enough to accommodate one car if there are cars parked on each side of the street, and many of these properties lack the side-to-side width to add a non-obstructed parking pad for an additional vehicle (a not-uncommon requirement for granny flats or bachelor apartments). If there are ways to manage the traffic issue, I’d say absolutely, the city should pursue these opportunities.

    – Who cares where Augie plays? B-rate school with a C-rate athletic program. There’s an outdoor court at Bakker Park. Let’s put them there. They can make homemade snow cones and serve them under the park shelter next to the court.

Post Navigation