×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.
Back to Home

STATION 3: New Homeownership

We want to know if we are headed in the right direction. Your feedback will help us refine the study’s final set of recommendations. Whether you agree or disagree, we want to hear your thoughts!
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

in reply to Glen's comment

Diane Chase Nov 5 2023 at 2:02PM on page 1

This is a great idea; not everyone wants or needs a gigantic home. But there needs to be decent outdoor space to create a sense of spaciousness psychologically.
0 replies
in reply to Bill Motmans's comment

Zoe Nov 3 2023 at 2:51PM on page 1

Well stated, as usual!
0 replies

Rick Morris Nov 3 2023 at 8:35AM on page 1

This is away to increase property tax revenue and increase growth not improve quality life. Is continuous growth the only trick in the pocket of the city planners? Plus I get offers at least once a week from companies that want to buy the back half of my lot. This will increase big business ownership in our city, cut trees and reduce green space. In my neighborhood we are already being bought out for short term rentals. I do not support this program.
0 replies
in reply to AB's comment

Francesca Reitano Nov 2 2023 at 8:58PM on page 1

Other
And ADUs should definitely NOT be used as short-term rentals (Airbnb, VRBO etc.). That is NOT creating housing.
0 replies

Glen Nov 2 2023 at 5:25PM on page 1

Other
There are lots of 1000 sq ft houses in my neighborhood and the prices keep going up. If we want to encourage homeownership for missing middle demographics, programs need to be set up to assist first time home buyers from previously excluded groups. How about help qualifying for low interest mortgages, low down payments and eliminations of onerous fees. It would be more productive to give incentives and exemptions to these buyers, than to wealthy developers and landlords.
1 reply

Glen Nov 2 2023 at 5:00PM on page 1

Other
Most of there proposals for MMH seem aimed at multiple units on a single property which will translate into more rental properties. Corporate buyers will continue to gobble up properties with cash and turn single family properties into cash cows. Rents will be as high as the market will bear. There needs to be regulations to keep Corporations, LLCs, and out-of-town investors from taking part in this program. I don't believe the City has the cojones to do it.
0 replies

Jason Nov 2 2023 at 11:26AM on page 1

Other
The best way to promote homeownership, is to provide financial education in schools as well as reducing taxes.
0 replies
in reply to Bill Motmans's comment

Molly Luna Nov 2 2023 at 10:04AM on page 1

Greenspace
You brought the truth to light Bill. This is about making money under the guise of the housing issues and climate concern at the expense of many. The irony is that the tradeoffs will most likely negatively impact the very problems they are attempting to address while creating new ones they didn't account for in their theories.
0 replies
in reply to Rick Henry's comment

Molly Luna Nov 2 2023 at 9:55AM on page 1

Other
I completely agree Rick. All density logistics and tradeoffs aside, this will make developers and management companies a lot of money but not make living more affordable for most.
0 replies
in reply to Brandon Mettler's comment

Molly Luna Nov 2 2023 at 9:50AM on page 1

Other
There's plenty of apartment complexes to help fill that need. Unfortunately if you want to have any environmental stability for runoff and heat you might need a little more space.
0 replies
in reply to Peter S's comment

Molly Luna Nov 2 2023 at 9:46AM on page 1

Other
Maybe we should look into that more. I just know that rental prices in this city haven't served many for a long time either.
0 replies
in reply to Michael Turgeon's comment

Molly Luna Nov 2 2023 at 9:41AM on page 1

Other
The market may fluctuate profit wise on homeowners for sure. But if you watch the trend of rent prices at the whim of landlords and property management companies in this city over the years, the renters have been the losers almost always. There is no profit for renters who are paying the equivalent of a mortgage with nothing to show for it when they need to move. And unlike a mortgage that can be stable and predictable financially, renters are given a little notice that they will suddenly need to increase the housing cost in their budget.
0 replies

Brooke Goforth Nov 1 2023 at 9:22PM on page 1

Disagree. Seems to me someone’s cooking up a politically correct stew for residents. I would rather have improved infrastructure and updated schools.
0 replies

AB Nov 1 2023 at 6:35PM on page 1

Other
These ADUs are blue being built to make money. The wealthy are just getting wealthier. The ADUs are not being built as affordable housing which is the purpose of the program. There is no oversight
1 reply

Peter S Nov 1 2023 at 4:04PM on page 1

Other
Herein lies the rub: we have built a system in the US since WWII where the primary path to wealth-building is home ownership. When the promise of home ownership is that it will make you wealthy through appreciation, it is guaranteed that your home in the future will be unaffordable for many, if not most, future buyers. And here we are.
1 reply

Brad Warren Nov 1 2023 at 3:37PM on page 1

I oppose MMH housing proposals in historically single family zoned neighborhoods.
0 replies
in reply to Bill Motmans's comment

Jan Nov 1 2023 at 10:50AM on page 1

Well stated!
0 replies

jackie whitelam Oct 30 2023 at 8:33PM on page 1

Would the city of sacramento consider doing a program like they have in Detroit where I believe tiny homes were built on tiny lots and the person moving into it was then allowed to own it after making payments they could afford for seven years - at that point, Detroit gives them the flexiblity of selling it at its appreciated value. this creates a dilemma it's good for that person as a wealth generating tool, but it doesn't keep it affordable for the next buyer.
0 replies
in reply to Mike O’Brien's comment

Austin Oct 30 2023 at 9:53AM on page 1

Building Heights
Requiring parking incudes car use. Limiting parking induces transit and other alternatives to get better and reduces the crowding of roads from cars. There is no world were we do not increase density and reduce the need of cars if we want to have any chance of even slightly mitigating climate change.
0 replies
in reply to Mike O’Brien's comment

Austin Oct 30 2023 at 9:50AM on page 1

Building Heights
The market can never and will never solve the housing crisis. There simply is to much monetary incentive to maintain housing stalk at a supply that maximizes profit. If there are enough houses profit goes down. The government must subsidize housing or we will forever have a housing crisis.
0 replies

Mike O’Brien Oct 30 2023 at 8:29AM on page 1

Other
This program seems to be force feeding the city’s desired conclusion. The “bonus program” would create govt funded incentives, eradicating required market forces and thus taxpayers would actually be paying for the program. Builders will be unable to have projects pencil out and won’t be interested. Last and also important is the proposed lack of requiring off-street parking, which will further crowd roads. Consider that impact on the hundreds of narrow streets throughout Sacramento
2 replies

Deborah Condon Oct 29 2023 at 11:51AM on page 1

Other
The cost of lot splitting and high fees have stopped me from developing my deep lot. It is a major disincentive. I was told it was a minimum of $40,000 just for the application to simply put an imaginary line on paper to show the new lot even if I had no plans to build immediately. And I would have to tear down an existing garage even though I would still own both lots until at some future point I would develop. Why would anyone do this except to build very expensive new housing to recoup these high fees? Yes, fee reduction is needed or all you will see built are high priced units.
0 replies

Deborah Condon Oct 29 2023 at 11:46AM on page 1

Building Heights
I not a big fan of tiny homes of ADLs and think the building on limited space is better used building multi-story shared housing like duplexes triplexes or 4-plexes. The success of infill homes that are three stories along alleys creates the possibility of condo's or rentals on a small space. ADLs waste a lot of lot footprint and most of the ones in my neighborhood are offices and guest houses and really not rentals and never new home ownership. Affordable by design - smaller pre-fab stacked housing sold as single units is a better use of a housing footprint. Mobile tiny homes? that's called a trailer and should only be allowed in trailer parks, another subject that the city should pursue.
0 replies

Deborah Condon Oct 29 2023 at 11:37AM on page 1

Building Heights
I disagree with the restriction on demolishing occupied units. If you can build a more modern, efficient and more housing in place of older shoddy ad hoc buildings, that is a plus. Sometimes it is easier, cheaper and the result better to tear down junky building to build more sustainable efficient designs for more units. Some of the dinky units built over garages would be best replaced with taller, more livable units.
0 replies

Bill Motmans Oct 28 2023 at 1:12PM on page 1

So many of the statements staff make in this report are unsupported by facts or evidence. Facts are not a thesis proposed by a graduate student, or consultants paid to come up with a conclusion consistent with what the City Council has already decided. What home will be affordable to someone who has trouble paying their rent each month? How to prevent someone from falling prey to a predatory lender? I don't think that is relevant to this report, and has to do more with decisions made by renters/homeowners. Should the City take that right away from them? Further, due to Prop 13, taxes are not likely to go up in amounts that will end up "displacing" anyone. This entire report is based on assumptions and premises extracted from "studies" of other cities, as well as the pre-conceived notions of folks with a certain ideological philosophy as to how others should live, what neighborhoods and homes should "look" like, how much space we need to live, how many cars and/or bus stops we should have, etc. They are "experts" and opinions not shared by them are denigrated and dismissed. MMH is catchy little phase which means whatever the interpreters want it to mean.
3 replies

Francesca Reitano Oct 27 2023 at 8:26PM on page 1

Other
Affordability must be baked into this proposal. Simply building a lot of market-rate housing will be a supply-and-demand situation only for people who can afford market rate housing. If the existing housing is unaffordable to some Sacramentans, it will remain unaffordable - another housing product type will not change this equation. Filtering is a slow process and will not help residents who need affordable housing now. Salaries are not going up commensurable with the rise in rents. As a community, we need to crack this open.
0 replies

Miguel Barraza Oct 27 2023 at 11:15AM on page 1

Other
A workshop in district#5 ,near formally Sacramento school park .
0 replies

Douglas Brown Oct 26 2023 at 3:43PM on page 1

This seems like a disincentive to building more affordable units. Need to be careful when applying restrictions on multi-unit projects that may scare away small-scale mom-and-pop builders.
0 replies

Douglas Brown Oct 26 2023 at 3:42PM on page 1

Other
This seems like a disincentive to building more affordable units. Need to be careful when applying restrictions on multi-unit projects that may scare away small-scale mom-and-pop builders.
0 replies

Rick Henry Oct 26 2023 at 12:18PM on page 1

Other
Used to live in SF, high density housing did not make housing more affordable. San Francisco is one of the least affordable cities despite high density housing. Halfplexes in Greenhaven/ Pocket neighborhood are more affordable than a single family home. They blend in well with existing single family homes. They do give working people a chance to purchase a home but are not priced for low or very low income individuals. Duplexes are expensive to purchase and then the owner has to rent out the other half at higher rent to be able to make monthly mortgage payments. Our neighbor is building an ADU but the high cost of materials (lumber,wiring,plumbing etc. ) will lead him to charge higher rent, not affordable rental.
1 reply

Teresa Ortega Oct 24 2023 at 1:50PM on page 1

Yes! We need to create more affordable for-sale housing in our city, and condo liability laws are an obstruction. I would also encourage the council to consider legalizing point-access construction to help us build more homes for more Sacramentans!
0 replies

Teresa Ortega Oct 24 2023 at 1:43PM on page 1

Yes, we need tenant protections like these so that MMH will be affordable. We need the city to bolster its rental registry so that these recommendations can actually work.
0 replies

Teresa Ortega Oct 24 2023 at 1:42PM on page 1

Great idea!
0 replies

Brandon Mettler Oct 24 2023 at 1:05PM on page 1

This is a great idea. We need to create more affordable for-sale housing options in sacramento and condo liability laws are partly to blame for the lack of these housing types. Additionally, legalizing point-access construction in the building code (as Seattle did) would provide a safe way to better utilize small lots for multifamily housing.
0 replies

Brandon Mettler Oct 24 2023 at 1:04PM on page 1

Tenant protections like these are critical to keeping MMH affordable. For these recommendations to work, the city needs to bolster its rental registry.
0 replies

Brandon Mettler Oct 24 2023 at 1:04PM on page 1

I support shrinking or eliminating minimum lot sizes!
1 reply

Sean L'Estrange Oct 24 2023 at 10:16AM on page 1

Other
I like this idea
0 replies

Shaun Oct 22 2023 at 4:04PM on page 1

Other
Affordable housing tends to ignore the middle income workers this plan is intending to help. Often programs in Sacramento only focus on low income workers. Even as the cost of living limits the middle income workers options. Be sure to expand the definition of afforable to include middle income yearly salaries.
0 replies

Michael Turgeon Oct 13 2023 at 7:10PM on page 1

Other
Polling data shows that, all else equal, most people prefer to own rather than rent their home. However, I caution the continued framing of homeownership as "wealth building." Real estate only performs well as an investment if house prices go up. House prices in the US have only historically continued their unceasing rise because local governments artificially restricted supply through single-family zoning. You don't see the same trend in other countries that have had more permissive building standards. If we want to achieve the goal of widespread affordable housing, homeownership may no longer be the key to generational wealth that it has been. Most consumer products (cars, electronics, etc) lose value with age! Housing is different because we have so vastly warped the market.
1 reply

Ansel Lundberg Oct 11 2023 at 9:47PM on page 1

YES!
0 replies

Ansel Lundberg Oct 11 2023 at 9:45PM on page 1

This is a great idea. We need to create more affordable for-sale options and condo liability laws are partly to blame. Legalizing single-stair construction would provide a safe way to better utilize small lots for multifamily housing.
0 replies

Dave Oct 5 2023 at 7:28PM on page 1

Other
Homeownership is not always about creating "spendable"wealth. Moving from a leased duplex into a single family home myself, even WITHOUT mortgage payments, owning the home is much more expensive monthly than renting the duplex. In the duplex, I had more spendable income to invest each month, which was liquid (could be spent easily, vs. having assets tied up in real estate).
0 replies

Devin Lavelle Oct 5 2023 at 12:59PM on page 1

Note that this figure overstates the situation. A significant portion of these households are occupied by folks who are not in a place in their lives where the commitments and responsibilities that come with home ownership make sense. The true portion of the population we should be focusing on is probably about half this. (This doesn't mean to understate the importance of protecting and expanding access to home ownership, but it's critical to narrow the focus so we aren't patting ourselves on the back when educated, middle & upper-middle folks decide they are ready to settle down, pick a city/neighborhood, etc and buy a house.)
0 replies

Antero Rivasplata Oct 5 2023 at 12:14PM on page 1

Other
How about reinstating the City's inclusionary zoning requirements whereby developers are required to set aside a portion of their projects for affordable housing? Density bonuses are fine, but reinstating inclusionary zoning would help with those projects that don't choose to go higher density.
0 replies

Antero Rivasplata Oct 5 2023 at 12:13PM on page 1

Other
This liability law protects condo owners from having to live with building flaws without a means of having them rectified. I don't support messing with this important consumer protection law.
0 replies

Antero Rivasplata Oct 5 2023 at 12:11PM on page 1

Other
What changes? The CBC is largely health and safety based, with additional requirements for energy conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. I don't support changes to the CBC that compromise any of these code requirements.
0 replies
View all