Anyone who’s ever searched for a rental on Craigslist has seen the parenthetical message next to a listing: No Section 8.
It’s a barrier to many who can’t afford Sebastopol’s median rent of approximately $2,000.
The Section 8 housing voucher choice program assists low-income individuals and families with their rental payments. In Sonoma County, the program is administered by the county’s Community Development Commission (CDC), spearheaded by executive director Margaret Van Vliet.
According to Van Vliet, individuals who use vouchers pay 30 percent of their income toward rent; the rest is covered by federal funding provided to and administered by the CDC.
“Section 8 is like a three-way contract between a landlord, tenant and us,” Van Vliet said. “If you get a voucher, your housing is stable.”
Van Vliet explained that Section 8 vouchers make up the difference if an individual’s income changes.
“If someone has fewer hours or their shifts change and they make less money,” she said the CDC will work with the renter to make sure their rent is paid on time.
According to Van Vliet, the CDC manages roughly 3,000 vouchers throughout Sonoma County, excluding Santa Rosa.
“These people are on disability or are seniors. They are on fixed incomes or low incomes,” Van Vliet said.
A Section 8 voucher is a prized possession in the county; Van Vliet said there are anywhere between 7,000 and 20,000 people on the waiting list, “depending on which numbers you use.”
Van Vliet acknowledged the discrepancy and blamed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the governmental organization responsible for funding Section 8, for moving too slowly.
“HUD isn’t keeping pace with the reality of Sonoma County,” she said.
Additionally, according to the annual Housing Needs Assessment report issued this month by the California Housing Partnership, the federal and state governments have reduced investment in affordable housing by more than $41 million annually since 2008. For the 2015-16 year, HUD provided just over $5 million to Sonoma County, a 13 percent reduction from 2008-09.
“That’s an 87 percent reduction,” said Larry Florin, chief executive officer of Burbank Housing.
The report also states the county needs 17,144 more affordable rental homes to meet the needs of its lowest-income renters.
“The biggest single problem is the sheer lack of available rental units,” Van Vliet said.
Van Vliet told a gathering of about 20 landlords, renters, developers and community members in Sebastopol during the fourth installment of the city’s housing committee meetings that the lack of rental units is a major community issue.
The housing committee was created by Mayor Una Glass after the city began discussing rent control and voted to place a moratorium on rent increases throughout the city at the end of last year. The committee is focused on exploring creative solutions to providing more affordable housing in Sebastopol.
Sebastopol has about 1,800 rental units. According to data from Affordable Housing Online, the city maintains a stock of roughly 275 Section 8 units. Additionally, Burbank Heights, Petaluma Avenue Homes, Bodega Hills Apartments and Gravenstein North Apartments provide housing options for low-income individuals and families.
It’s not enough, Florin said.
“There’s a shrinking pot of resources to meet the needs,” he added.
Statewide assistance could be on the way, Florin added. Currently two state Senate bills are making their way through the legislature that could establish a permanent housing fund that would help cities establish more affordable housing.
“But,” Florin warned, “It’s only about $1.5 million statewide. So that’s not that much when you think of how big California is.”
On a more local level, Sonoma County struggles to qualify for regional funding assistance, as it competes with Alameda and other Bay Area counties.
“I wish I had good news,” Florin said.
05-12-2017, 07:48 PM
rossmen
Re: Section 8 stock fails to meet housing need- Sonoma West Times and News
As landowner who rents homes to people on section 8, I understand why it is hard to find this kind of rental anymore. All the reasons listed in the article and more. With me, if you are not in, forget it. Word is that the program will end in a year or two anyway. The comments to this article are informative.
Re: Section 8 stock fails to meet housing need- Sonoma West Times and News
Bob2, I've gotta say the tone of your post is pretty angry...
It is not true to say that "HUD comes through annually to check the property, even it isn't rented." HUD does not have the staff to do this. Why would they? I've been a Sec 8 landlord for 25 years, on multiple rental properties. They have never inspected a unit that was not occupied by a Sec 8 tenant.
It's misleading to say "there are NO tax breaks because of HUD". There are significant tax breaks to landlords: depreciation, mortgage interest, RE taxes, all the repairs. While there are no special tax breaks from HUD income, owners of rental properties receive huge tax breaks. With all the prior deductions, they often operate at a loss or break even, and pay no income tax... even tho they may have high income and able to afford goodies like big homes in expensive neighborhoods, fancy cars, foreign vacations, etc. Just ask our President!
Our Federal tax system works to the advantage of the wealthy, including those who own property and rentals, and to the disadvantage of those renting, and working for a paycheck. Those working for a paycheck are the ones paying all the taxes - not their landlords!
Another misleading comment is "how much property tax did you pay this year to help pay for roads, schools, hospitals and other services. I paid $6500!!!" Obviously, renters do not pay RE taxes, the owner does. Part of the income from rents is to cover expenses such as RE taxes, mortgage, repairs. However, as rents have doubled in Sonoma County in the last 10-15 years, RE taxes are almost always covered by the increase in income.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Bob2:
I want to clarify some things about section 8 and landlords....
06-10-2017, 09:06 AM
tommy
Re: Section 8 stock fails to meet housing need- Sonoma West Times and News
The Santa Rosa Rent Control Ordinance was the result of the collaboration of political organizations in Santa Rosa, with Santa Rosa Council people, and Rent Control advocates and tenants rights groups in other parts of the Bay Area, & the East Bay. Their efforts for Rent Control led to votes in 11/16 in Alameda, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Oakland, Richmond & San Mateo. They were approved in E Palo Alto, Mountain View, Oakland, & Richmond... defeated elsewhere.
Local organizations, led by the North Bay Organizing Project, succeeded in gaining support for Measure C in last week's election, by a number of local groups, including the Santa Rosa Democratic Party.
Rent Control measures have historically been popular in areas with a majority of renters - such as San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, & Santa Monica... and not as popular in areas with a majority of owners, such as Santa Rosa.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Bob2:
Here's a great article on rent control https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...t-11203882.php
and how the problem is not just Landlords but a lack of a Living wage that creates inequality.
And then there are the people who buy up homes not to rent but to use as a 2nd home.
“We have people with a considerable amount of money buying up second homes,” he said. That is driving up not just housing prices but also rents, because “our largest group of tenants are in single-family homes.”
06-11-2017, 05:25 PM
rossmen
Re: Section 8 stock fails to meet housing need- Sonoma West Times and News
Interesting tommy, the US has many encouragements for home ownership, and historical rates close to 2/3. In comparable countries with higher home rental rates, like western europe, is rent control operative? This is the kind of analysis so hard to find, lots of variables and no money to be made.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tommy:
...Rent Control measures have historically been popular in areas with a majority of renters - such as San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, & Santa Monica... and not as popular in areas with a majority of owners, such as Santa Rosa.
06-11-2017, 08:33 PM
gaiasophia
Re: Section 8 stock fails to meet housing need- Sonoma West Times and News
"...Local organizations, led by the North Bay Organizing Project, succeeded in gaining support for Measure C in last week's election, by a number of local groups, including the Santa Rosa Democratic Party..."
The above quote , extracted from Tommy's post from Sonoma West Times and News (as Tommy's post subject states), seems to indicate that Measure C "succeeded", ie., passed in Santa Rosa.
This is a subject near and dear to my heart, as my rent was raised $325.
I'm not criticizing you Tommy, I'm just wanting to set the record straight.
The No on Measure C people outspent our side's grassroots efforts by huge amounts--
Santa Rosa City Councilwoman Julie Combs said on the radio that much of the money came from outside of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County and even outside of California--she said Chicago alone sent in $300,000 to defeat C. Now they can continue to evict people without just-cause, and raise rents whenever and however much they want. And much of the No on C info was misleading and/or outright lies.
I vote for making it illegal to lie in political matters.
06-12-2017, 06:47 PM
tommy
Re: Section 8 stock fails to meet housing need- Sonoma West Times and News
Gaiasophia,
Rent Control aka Measure C was a very contentious issue and campaign.
Regarding your situation, "near & dear to your heart"... your rent going up $325: to understand your situation better, it'd be helpful to know if your home would have been covered by Measure C (is it in Santa Rosa, was it multi family built prior to 2/95)? Was your rent "below market"? What size home, what was the old & new rent, or what % of the old rent is the $325? If you lived in Podunk, Kansas, it's likely your rent would not have gone up by that amt. If it had, you could probably easily find another place to live at a cheaper rent. The point here is that Sonoma Co is a very desirable place to live, there's more demand than supply, thus rents go up. Also, you have to face the fact that in our economic system, as a renter, you don't have the security that an owner has. Another piece is that there are places such as those managed by Burbank Housing, and affordable units run by the county, that would not have raises like you had.
The "No on C" spent around $850k, while the "Yes on C" spend $130k, so you are correct the "Yes on C" was vastly outspent. It was large property owners, the CA Apt Assn, a company from Chicago, and others who contributed. One reason they spent alot is they don't want rent control spreading to other places in CA. Another reason is that had Measure C passed, it would have depressed the apartment real estate market in Santa Rosa.
If there were misleading parts of the "No on C" campaign, there were also misleading parts of the "Yes on C" campaign... for instance, the "Yes on C" campaign indicated that out of town investors were buying up apartment properties in Santa Rosa, evicting people, remodeling them, & raising the rent. While this has happened in a few cases, I believe they over stated this. Just Cause Eviction was part of Measure C, which would allow eviction only for non pmt of rent, & repeated late pmt. The problem with Just Cause Eviction is that it protects criminals, drug dealers, & people who harm the well being of others, by poor behavior, traffic, noise, etc. A year ago I rented a house on Sec 8 to a woman & 2 kids (kids never moved in), & within 10 hours got complaints from 3 neighbors about "traffic" meaning drug dealing. Just cause eviction would have protected her, as long as she paid rent. She later was arrested for possession, it was later dismissed, so again, I'd have been unable to get rid of her. The "No on C" campaign emphasized the problems with Just Cause Evictions, that it didn't help homelessness, and the gov't cost of administering the program. In focus groups of likely voters, these were found to be compelling arguments against Measure C.
I don't think it's accurate to say "landlords can raise rents as much as they want". At some point, is the raise is too high, the tenant will find a better deal, & move out.
Rent Control / Measure C had many pros & cons, there were good arguments on each side. Rent control preserves housing for those lucky enough to find a rent controlled place. It lets them live there as long as they want. It takes power away from the landlord, and gives it to the tenant, especially with just cause eviction. Rent Control advocates often point to San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, & Santa Monica, where rent control has promoted diversity, and allowed long term tenants to stay in their housing, as new people move in with higher incomes, and displace those with lower incomes (gentrification). Studies have shown that since rent controlled tenants stay in their homes for a long time, it removed them from normal vacancy patterns, and therefore creates a shortage of places for rent, which raises the rent of the remaining units. So the majority pay with higher rents, for a few lucky enough to get lower rents. It could well have had the effect of Airbnd, which has changed alot of rentals to tourist places, thereby creating a shortage, decreasing supply, thus raising rents. This is part of the economic supply & demand curve: if you decrease supply, demand will rise.
Everyone agrees we need more affordable housing. There is hope that Bond measures by the state of CA, and locally in the Alameda, Berkeley, Oakland, Santa Clara County & San Mateo County, will fund new housing. It was short sighted of the Santa Rosa City Council to propose the divisive measure of Rent Control (by a slim majority), rather than putting that money & energy into creating new housing (which they are already doing). Issues underlying the rental housing situation is the way the economy works in the US. Landlords get rich over tenants. The economy benefits landlords, with all the write offs, & low taxes, it's poor people working for a paycheck who pay the taxes. These are dynamics of class and power. It's hard to change the system.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gaiasophia:
"...Local organizations, led by the North Bay Organizing Project, succeeded in gaining support for Measure C in last week's election, by a number of local groups, including the Santa Rosa Democratic Party..."
The above quote , extracted from Tommy's post from Sonoma West Times and News (as Tommy's post subject states), seems to indicate that Measure C "succeeded", ie., passed in Santa Rosa.
This is a subject near and dear to my heart, as my rent was raised $325.
I'm not criticizing you Tommy, I'm just wanting to set the record straight.
The No on Measure C people outspent our side's grassroots efforts by huge amounts--
Santa Rosa City Councilwoman Julie Combs said on the radio that much of the money came from outside of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County and even outside of California--she said Chicago alone sent in $300,000 to defeat C. Now they can continue to evict people without just-cause, and raise rents whenever and however much they want. And much of the No on C info was misleading and/or outright lies.
I vote for making it illegal to lie in political matters.
