CORRESPONDENCE - #37 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orozco, Norma From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 5:35 PM To: eComment Cc: Hernandez, Johnathan; Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Mendoza, Nelida; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil Subject: Public Comment - Public Hearing Item 37 Dear City Council, I am Nathaniel Greensides, Ward 5 Resident, and ETAC Commissioner for Ward 5, in addition to being a volunteer with Tenants United Santa Ana. I write solely herein as an individual resident of the city, but aimed to establish my background in making the comments regarding the draft Housing Element being considered tonight. I am unable to attend in person nor virtually, alas, my written comments are displayed here. With all of the community input that was considered in creating this draft, it would be nice to have some time for the community to read through the draft in its entirety and the city should seek to hold at least one workshop or preferably two regarding this draft seeing as it will be the guiding document for the short term future. Generally speaking, the housing plan does not seem to prioritize discussion of the disparities of housing density throughout various neighborhoods of Santa Ana nor the huge disparity in property values sometimes within less than a half mile radius. There needs to be a closing of the gap to ensure that all residents in the city understand that housing is a human right and that there is something very wrong in the economic distribution system that allows for 5 multigenerational renter households in Willard to live on the same amount of land as some front yards in Floral Park which house environmentally unfriendly and unnecessary green grass. Yet somehow that green grass in the front yard of a Floral Park property has more protection under historical property entitlements than low income renters of the Willard neighborhood who may never get the chance to build property equity themselves despite working hard and contributing to the local economy and tax base for at least 40-50 years of their lives. Additionally, while the Draft does make mention of public transit and parking, it seems befitting that there should be more discussion of housing projects inclusion of aspects which seek alternatives separate from the notion of individual car ownership - yet there is not. Very little consideration is seemingly given to housing projects increasing the use of alternative energy sources such as solar panels or providing increased infrastructure for electric vehicles. Lastly, coordination amongst Orange County cities to increase the quality and quantity of the supply of housing in Orange County overall should be included in the plan so that Santa Ana is not continually bearing the brunt of increasing the housing quantity and quality to hopefully eventually stabilize the housing market across all income levels and housing types. Specific points are addressed below. Thank you kindly. -Nathaniel Page 20, Item 1: Housing Rehabilitation grants up to $25,000 is a good step to assist low income seniors in fixing up their homes. Only ask is to ensure that qualification for such programs shall not require that any family members who reside in such properties be considered in the application and qualifications - should the property title holders choose to include other occupants, they should be allowed to opt for such, but not be required.