Affordable housing not what we hoped

We spoke too soon.

Not long after an editorial written with pride for the great work

on the affordable housing development on Glenneyre Street, its

admirable goal and speedy construction, there has been a switcharoo.

We were happy to say Laguna is an example to cities such as

Newport Beach that have a tough time creating low-income housing for

workers. Newport is into housing for seniors, but the idea of

working-age people moving in doesn’t seem to fly.

So, after years of fighting, as Alice Graves’ wishes seemed to be

coming true, as this classy-looking building nears completion, the

City Council, or three members anyway, voted to change the criteria

of who should get priority for moving in.

Suddenly, it’s not about low-income workers or businesses owners

who would like to keep the good ones and not lose them to jobs closer

to where they can afford to live.

Now only seniors will fit the eligibility requirements.

Those eligibility requirements are based on a point system. The

original criteria included two points for applicants working in the

city, two points for applicants living in the city and one point for

applicants who had lived in the city in the past two years but had

moved out because of high rents.

The City Council voted 3 to 0 on Sept. 2 to add seniors 65 or

older and people displaced by a city-sponsored projects to the

preference list -- giving each of those criterion two points -- and

to ban smokers from the list.

Only applicants 65 or older, who work 25 hours or more in Laguna

Beach, who have lived here since Sept. 2 but were displaced by the

development of Treasure Island, and who meet the low-income

requirement would qualify for the maximum eight preference points.

Seniors were added to the criteria at the insistence of Councilman

Steve Dicterow, who chaired Laguna Beach Seniors Inc.’s drive for

funds to construct a senior center. Councilwoman Elizabeth Pearson,

who also has worked on behalf of the seniors, and Mayor Toni Iseman

supported the addition. Councilman Wayne Baglin and Councilwoman

Cheryl Kinsman recused themselves, citing possible conflicts of

interest because of property they each own within a 500-foot radius

of the project.

Iseman later requested the criteria changes be sent back to the

Affordable Housing and Human Affairs Committee, but Dicterow and

Pearson voted against that at the Sept. 2 meeting. Apparently, they

had made up their minds.

The committee’s not having a chance to tell the council they made

a bad decision doesn’t make the decision less wrong.

Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with senior housing. We have it,

and it’s necessary and admirable and we support it. But this

particular project was about providing housing to low-income workers,

something that doesn’t currently exist.

This was going to be great. This was going to be kind, intelligent

and positive.

Now, this is just disappointing.