More on Habitat for Humanity Tiburon Project

There's been more written in the IJ about the Habitat for Humanity project in Tiburon that I blogged earlier. I found the following revealing quotes in the print edition of the IJ (Jan 25, 2007, pp. B1-2).

// Begin sarcasm //

The first quote that I want to pull from the article shows to the rest of the world how we wealthy, white Marinites now deal with our non-Caucasian residents here in Marin. You see, we like to keep them in specific areas where we can keep an eye on them and as far away from where we Caucasians want to live as possible (i.e., the nice areas). These areas are where we Marinites will allow property values to be weak and where it is ok to build affordable housing. And for you socio-psychologists out there, this is how we can pretend to be "doing our part" and ignore our guilt. It wasn't always so, but it is now.

But Patri [principal planner for the Marin County Community Development Agency] said it has been exceedingly difficult to find any place to squeeze in low-cost housing [in Marin] outside of the predominantly African American enclave of Marin City and the largely Latino neighborhood of San Rafael known as the Canal area.

// End sarcasm //

And then a couple of counter-points were made against some of the claims in the original argument made by the Tiburon residents fighting against the Habitat project:

"The argument that affordable housing lowers property values is a specious argument," Kilbridge [executive director of Habitat for Humanity's San Francisco chapter] said. "It doesn't hold water."

What a surprise. After all, by their own admission many of the residents who are fighting this project obtained their houses in the 50s and 60s and are making $50-60K annual income. In other words, they couldn't afford their own houses if they had to buy them today yet they have no objections being Tiburon residents themselves. If low income folks such as themselves are acceptable residents, then why do they think that other such folk would be bad for the community? Why do they think introducing new residents, who are financially like themselves, would automatically cause property values to fall, crime to increase, etc?

And then...

He [Kilbridge] said it is "a shame" that residents would raise $100,000 in an attempt to keep less fortunate families out of their neighborhood. "Do you know how many nails that could buy?" Kilbridge asked. "To us that's a lot of money that could be of such incredible use to the community."

Not to mention that $100,000 could be used to remedy the traffic and other problems in that neighborhood used by the Tiburon residents to fight against the Habitat project. Or is it that they don't really want to fix the problems; they would rather use them when needed to keep out other people? More of the "if we don't improve our infrastructure, people won't move to Marin" line of reasoning which has been thoroughly discredited by the test of time.

Finally:

"The idea that everybody is entitled to an affordable house wherever they want one is not valid," Duane [one of the Tiburon residents who is fighting against the Habitat project] said. "I would like to live in Cannes."

First off, no one has mentioned or implied a sense of entitlement. Entitlement is not the issue here but I can understand how one would want to make the issue about entitlement as that is an issue that is easier to fight. And secondly, yes, without doubt Duane could not afford a house in Cannes today. Yet nor could he afford his own Tiburon house if he had to buy it today. Another specious argument.

It seems to me that the arguments against this project are more about property values and Marin's systemic white-flight fear than anything else.

Well, don't despair. The following letter-to-the-editor in the IJ gives hope; as long as there are still people like this in Marin, all is not lost:

Neighbors cheer Habitat plans

This letter is in regard to Habitat for Humanity's proposed four small family homes in the Eagle Rock area near where we live. These homes might house people who educate our children, protect our neighborhoods and keep our local economy going.

Residents have voiced their opinion that four small homes are going to cause more traffic and safety issues than 6,000- to 7,000-square-foot houses would.

This NIMBY (not in my back yard) opinion is mistaken.

The probability of lower-income families having more than two cars each is unlikely, based upon Mill Valley demographics in the 2000 census. Building larger homes for higher-income families will likely bring in more than the average two cars, plus those of their landscapers, house cleaners, nannies, etc. This is what will generate more traffic. The $100,000 that neighbors hope to raise to fight Habitat for Humanity would be better utilized in improving the neighborhood by putting in sidewalks and stop signs.

Our family has lived here in the same [Mill Valley] house since it was completed in 1950. Our grown children are all productive members of their communities. Our income is about half of the $56,000 maximum required by Habitat for potential buyers. Does this mean we have to move out because we might lower the home values of the neighborhood?

Let's give three cheers for Habitat for Humanity and bring this area back to the family oriented area it once was.