Low-Cost Housing Project Rejected

In a county scrambling to house its low-income residents, an affordable housing project would seem an easy sell. But not the one proposed by Huntington Beach officials.

After seeing the overall price tag of $4 million, members of the county’s Housing and Community Development Commission said Thursday that they want no part of the 20-apartment community and voted unanimously not to release $400,000 in grant money to help fund the project.

“Are they trying to build the Taj Mahal?” asked Jim Righeimer, commission vice chairman.

The 585-square-foot apartments for seniors living on pensions were going to cost about $200,000 each to build. Righeimer contends that the city is spending the kind of money that would normally be reserved for luxury units.

City officials were indignant. They say the project’s cost is the reality of trying to develop affordable housing in a pricey county.

David Biggs, the city’s director of economic development, said neighbors protested at council meetings that the age-restricted community would become a magnet for aging biker thugs and ex-convicts. He said the only way to get beyond opposition is to build a community that blends into the neighborhood--in this case, a neighborhood of half-million-dollar homes.

Like most other cities in Orange County, Huntington Beach has fallen way behind in meeting its state-mandated quotas for affordable housing.

Now that county funding has been denied, ground may never be broken for the apartments.

And everyone is frustrated.

Huntington Beach senior activist Dick White implored commission members to approve the funding, telling them of a four-year wait list to get into such communities.

But others call the project a boondoggle.

Especially Orin Berge.

Since the mid-1990s, Berge has been trying to get the city to build studio apartments for low-income renters on 3.6 acres he has across from Golden West College. He said it would cost the city only $5 million to build 250 small apartments and that the plans are drafted and ready to go.

How does he feel about the city instead moving to spend $4 million on 20 apartments? “That is . . . unbelievable,” he said. “To say it is affordable is a joke.

Righeimer has similar concerns. He said that even though the proposed project is nice, it shouldn’t be costing $291 per square foot before land costs are even factored in.

He pointed to several impact fees, hook-up charges and other add-ons that he said he had either never seen on other projects or, if he had, they were for much less. “Something is screwy here,” he said after the hearing.