The fun never ends in Santa Ana. “At a time when affordable housing is one of the most pressing needs of residents in our county, the city of Santa Ana is considering creating a park on a parcel of land that had been designated for an affordable housing complex for people with disabilities,” according to O.C. Register columnist Yvette Cabrera.
Cabrera goes on to reveal that the County had misgivings about giving the land in question to the City of Santa Ana. There is a reason for that. As a former Housing and Redevelopment Commissioner I too became aware that the City of Santa Ana plays a lot of games with money that is intended for redevelopment.
Pulido promised the County that the parcel would be used to house people with disabilities, however, “the project came to a halt in February when Pulido announced during a city development committee meeting that he wanted to explore the possibility of leaving the parcel as open space. The city then encouraged Willard to look at other city-owned sites.”
There you go. The patented Santa Ana bait and switch. I hope the County sues the City of Santa Ana before this is over…
Good lord Art, in the obesity post you decry the lack of parks. Then in this one you criticize the city for adding one. A very, very, very much needed one, I might add. This city has close to the lowest acreage of parks per capita in the entire state.
This is the sort of thing that leads people to believe your stance on issues is really quite fluid and that all you’re generally out to do is criticize the city by any means necessary.
The truth is that Santa Ana has its fair share of affordable housing already. The REAL problem in the OC is our more well-healed neighbors to the South (like Mission Viejo) who refuse to meet their state-mandated quota for affordable housing.
For now, I’ll take the park. Let’s get our neighbors to pony up with the affordable housing.
Yvette Cabrera quotes the mayor as saying that the affordable housing would be replaced if the parcel in question was converted to a much needed park.
This parcel is a gateway to the city and would be a practical addition to the bike and trail system along the Santa Ana River that as well as being a huge asset to the public as a park.
As usual, Art misrepresents the facts. The article doesn’t say that the affordable housing won’t be built. It will in fact be built, but in a location that makes more sense.
If it’s housing for handicapped people we’re talking about, it makes sense to put it near a city center that has stores, and other support businesses in close proximity to ease the transit issue, not isolated near the edge of the city with no services nearby.
This is no bait and switch. It is a logical arrangement to use this land in the best possible way that benefits the public, as well as making sure that needed affordable and handicapped housing is provided for.
“As a former Housing and Redevelopment Commissioner I too became aware that the City of Santa Ana plays a lot of games with money that is intended for redevelopment.”
Maybe if you had stayed on the commission, rather than act like a petulant child and quitting, you could have voiced your concerns there and then informed the public of these activities.
But you’d rather be a loud mouth and criticize everything on your “blog”.
This is exactly why you will never get anything accomplished. You’d rather yell and kick and scream instead of being part of the solution. It’s easier.
I used to be the same way. After seeing how you act, God I am ashamed of how I acted.
Senor Art,
Sadly, competing interests are always at work. Let us give you a
few fine examples: Trailer Parks,
Low Income Areas ripe for Redevelopment or Emminent Domain
takeovers, Richy Rich Developers
wanting to take the property for
Commercial Endeavors and lobby
heartily for Zoning Changes and
finally…retired, low income people and new people to the community that can’t afford either
high rents or those that shouldn’t
even consider buying anything!
There is little doubt that the good
Mayor has his warts and rashes…
but the truth told: How tough is
it to say to Mike Harrah or any so-
called big time developer: “No,
we can’t have lunch…it would be
a conflict of interest!” Or any
member of the City Council for that
matter!
Smart move on this one, Let hope a park ends up staying there and this is not a bait and switch.
I hope the council will add this much needed park space. We have the cheapest housing in Orange County, bar none. Don’t feel to sorry for the County, they got the cash they wanted and if they feel they want to build affordable housing in the un-incorperated areas of O.C. then God bless them! Chuck Smith dumped on S.A. so many times when he was a Sup in the first district that I’m stoke we pulled on over on him! Great work Council..now get that park built ASAP!
Link to Cabrera’s column will not work for me – I get an error message. So, must ask – just where is this parcel of land? Follow up question – is “keeping it as open space” code talk for doing nothing becasue people who live next to it do not want a park or anything else – they want it left totally undeveloped?
Dear readers,
All this talk about a park is a red herring. This land was acquired with funds that must be used for affordable housing. There was a promise on the part of Pulido to the County to build affordable housing for people with disabilities. For him to go back on his word now is, well, illegal.
BTW, I am told that this development is being opposed by people in Floral Park who don’t want any affordable housing anywhere near them. I don’t know if this development is near Floral Park. Perhaps some of our readers can let us know.
“For him to go back on his word now is, well, illegal.”
May be not!
That is why he is exploring the issue!
Floral Park?…it’s no where near Floral Park. It’s west of the Santa Ana river and impacts a small neighborhood west of the river but mostly Orange and Garden Grove.
#10,
Thanks for clarifying. I wonder if this has something to do with the proposed street car line?
Also, for those who want more parks, I think the parcel that Mike Harrah wants to build his unneeded One Broadway Plaza tower on would make a terrific central park.
If this is the parcel that fronts on Garden Grove Blvd. and along the West Bank of the River (1)it years ago was the site of the maintenance yard for the Orange County Flood Control District, (2) when that yard was relocated in the early 1970’s to just south of Katella Avenue along the river in Anaheim the site was cleared and local residents have successfully stopped the county from using it for anything, (3) at one point in the 1970’s the county designated the site as Forest Paul Park (Paul was popular leader in equestrian circles in Orange County), to be developed as a staging area for horsemen and bicyclists to ride the river trails, but the adjacent residents succeeded in getting that killed (I think Garden Grove Council members supported those residents, pressuring the county to do nothing).
So, if this is that parcel of land, it looks like the county gave up on it and gave it away to get rid of the problem of what to do with it, and the City of Santa Ana has run head long into that same residential (and perhaps City of Garden Grove) opposition. The solution Santa Ana appears to be embracing is to let the Garden Grove residents next door have what they want – “open space” which means the land will not be used for anything (except the occasional teen beer and drug party.) This is, of course, the same straegy used successfully by South County communities to kill El Toro as an airport – a park to open space alternative that is more politically acceptable than a more high intensity public use. Go for the park initially because it is more acceptable than most any other proposed use, then try and get the park concept killed too because of traffic and other concerns. We all seem to like “open space” as long as we don’t have to pay for it.
If that is not the parcel of land in question, then the above bit of history is irrelevant, but hopefully still interesting to a few readers.
#8. If in fact this parcel of land was purchased by the City of Santa Ana with money designated for affordable housing, and if this money came from the FEDS, the City better build that housing on that land. When the FEDS find out their money was misspent, they will want their money back and will be reluctant to give Santa Ana any funds in the future.
Does anyone know how many housing units would need to be built to satisfy the need for affordable house as represented by Mexicans living below the poverty line in the U.S. and Mexico? I think we should determine what this number is and then make that our housing goal.
Apparently the money used to buy this parcal initially was not misspent, or we would be talking about federal charges.
There is nothing illegal about the mayor’s proposal, and apparently the idea of putting in a park does not violate the deed resrictions on the property.
A public park is a higher and better use of this property than any low income housing project.
#15. You obviously don’t know how the Feds (HUD, CDBG, HOME programs) fund housing programs and the intricacies of such. They don’t file charges against city workers or elected officials, they simple ask for their money back and then blackball that agency for quite some time. If the agency doesn’t comply than investigations are inititated. Typically agencies pay the money back.
#16-
Please give us the details on how/when the City of Santa Ana was asked to pay back any HUD/CDBG/HOME monies for this parcel.
If they don’t have to pay it back, then the transaction was not improper.
I hope someone reports this to the EEOC and Fair Housing. That parcel is meant for DISABLED PEOPLE. Nowhere in this discussion do I see anyone who even mentions that accessible and affordable housing are the number one and two issues that people with disabilities face, after medical issues.
SAUSD is extremely disrespectful in dealing with disabilities and accessiblity issues. Apparently it is at the level of city hall as well.
This is completely disgusting. Making this an issue between a park that families in SA deserve and affordable/accessible housing for the disabled. Both are needed. How dispicable and cruel.