George Lucas Building Low-Income Housing Next Door To Millionaires 540
BarbaraHudson writes His neighbors wouldn't let him build a film studio on his land, so George Lucas is retaliating in a way that only the cream of Hollywood could — by building the largest affordable housing development in the area — and footing the entire $200 million bill, no government subsidies or grants. The complex of affordable housing, funded and designed by Lucas, would sit on 52 acres of land and provide homes to 224 low-income families, and there's very little his fellow Bay Area residents can do about it, because the land is zoned residential.
Well done! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well done George! if you have the money, and you can help other people, specially poor people, just do it!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
very little his fellow Bay Area residents can do about it
It is also a massive FU to that group. He spent 20+ YEARS trying to make that same land a movie studio. They stonewalled him on every turn because they didnt 'want the noise'.
He can also turn it into straight income. At 224 units at a *very* low rate of 500 a month that is 1.4 million a year. Not a bad ROI. I am sure he can charge much more for it. Or when he grows bored of it sell it off.
This is him spending some of that starwars money to piss o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> At 224 units at a *very* low rate of 500 a month that is 1.4 million a year. Not a bad ROI.
You're right. It's not bad... It's HORRIBLE. He's putting 200$ million into it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
yes and that 200 million is not being burned, it remains in the building which will likely appreciate over time, the whole while making a substantial dividend off it
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the typical rule of thumb when buying/building a house (bubble aside) is that it's worth ten years rent - more than that and your money is better spent elsewhere. At 1.4 million/year this thing won't be able to pay for itself in a century. So lets just be happy that some rich guy is throwing his money away in a way that benefits the little guys, even if he is doing it for all the wrong reasons.
I've got to wonder though - how exactly do you go about spending almost $1M/unit to build affordable housing?
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Insightful)
The rule of thumb is lower - 100 months rent maximum (and lower in times of high interest rates). Anything above that is land price speculation, not investment. Rental stuff gets built in Cali precisely as speculation on rising house prices, not as a sound rental investment.
That 100-month rule is based on cost of money, property taxes, maintenance, property management, etc. You're doing well to keep your long-term-average ongoing costs down around 1% a month. At 100 months you can expect to break even for some years, so if you think conditions will improve it's a way to "get in early" without losing money every month to do so. In sensible markets you can usually do better, however.
Lucas is just using his "fuck you money" as such, not to make a profit here.
Re: (Score:2)
At 224 units at a *very* low rate of 500 a month that is 1.4 million a year. Not a bad ROI.
For a 200 million dollar developement that's a terrible ROI. 0.7% and that is before expenses. A more reasonable 5% per annum yeild (before expenses) woudl require charging $3720 per month.
Is a $3720 per month rental considered "affordable" in that area?
Sounds like upper middle class housing development (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Believe me, sub-million houses in the bay area are low income houses.
Re:Sounds like upper middle class housing developm (Score:5, Informative)
In Marin, the rest of the world's upper middle class is low income.
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Funny)
<sarcasticly>But what about all those wealthy people, having low income houses will lower their property values and they will be less rich!</sarcasticly>
Part of the problem that we have is the physical separation of the Rich and Poor.
Poor people can learn a lot from rich people. As well rich people can learn some sympathy with the poor people and realize how much of their success was actually given to them, or by blind luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
if you have the money, and you can help other people, specially poor people, just do it!
Not to be cynical, but it sounds more like a bargaining ploy to me. I suspect he's more interested in having the city back down in fear and let him build a studio than actually helping the poor.
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Interesting)
Meh... everywhere I have seen low income apartments built they start out nice but vandalism, crime and tennants who just generally are very rough on things have brought the places down in quality very quickly.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some very deserving good people who need that housing. It just only takes a few bad apples... Unfortunately I don't think you can really help people very well that way.
On the other hand.. Nice! If they thought they didn't want a studio in their neighborhood let's see how they deal with this! If only there was a George Lucas for every HOA!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that's the problem. Once it starts it tends to build on itself. That is why it is better to spread it out more. Not 200+ units in one development.
200 units on 54 acres is a breeze, really. 1/4 acre per unit is a TON of room, you won't have any problem telling who the good neighbors are and who the shitheads are. 800 units on 54 acres? Then you are into some downward spiral trouble unless you pour a lot of money into managing it.
That's not really the problem (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you have the money and can use it to piss off other rich people who pissed you off, just do it!
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Insightful)
Poorer people have to live everywhere, because the jobs they fill are everywhere.
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a nice idea, but the reality is usually that the rich people just move away when the poor people come in (especially the ones with families). No way are rich daddy and trophy wife letting their little girl go to school with that rabble!
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a nice idea, but the reality is usually that the rich people just move away when the poor people come in (especially the ones with families). No way are rich daddy and trophy wife letting their little girl go to school with that rabble!
They do not move away instead they have the Politicians and Police departments enact laws and policies that turn the Poor areas into virtual prison colonies. This is what happens in NYC with policies like "Stop and Frisk" which lets cops effectivly harrass poor people that step outside of their zones and "Broken Windows" which allows them to haoul them in for minor infractions. For schooling the solution is of course private schools and voucher programs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right about what happens, of course, but vastly over simplifying.
I live in Raleigh, NC. My wife and I have two kids, one of whom will be starting kindergarten next year.
The public school we were zoned for is ~75% African American and Hispanic. I'm ok with this, I grew up in the area and went to a "majority minority" school (though there were not many Hispanics in the area back then) as well. This school also has over 50% of the students who score lowly on the English proficiency charts. 60% of the students are on free lunch. The end of grade test scores are...abysmal. When visiting the school, the teachers were just overwhelmed with having to deal with so many non-English and other remedial students.
I want my kids to be happy at school and get something positive out of it. I just could not see sending my kids to that school. This was a very hard decision, but we moved from our 150k house to a 250k house 8 miles north. The new school is still very diverse--about 35% African American and Hispanic, but has much better test scores, an actual PTA with engaged parents, etc.
It's easy to criticize those 1%%er fat cats and their slutty wives, but really, everybody wants the best for their kid. You can't blame parents for doing whatever they can--moving, paying an arm and a leg for private school, etc--to help their children out. It's really just human nature.
Re:Well done! (Score:4, Insightful)
They are a pleasant family, don't complain about stuff people do on their own property, are good to have a beer with, and the father shares a hobby with me even if I don't care for Fords. They are here legally and the father and mother goes to work, and their kids don't throw wild parties that result in my mailbox being run over with a mess of trash in my yard.
Suppose that everything was true, except that they were there illegally (because there is no way for them to immigrate legally, which is the case for most Mexicans). Would your opinion of them change?
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I am an H1B as well, so I can relate. But ...
Let me make this clear: you are being abused (the terms of H1 visas are effectively abusive for would-be immigrants due to the way they tie you to a specific employer with a very complicated switching process, and reset your green card application if you switch while it's still ongoing), and so you don't like it when other people - who don't get even the abusive option that you do - dodge that?
(And of course being in US as an illegal immigrant is still a very sub
Re: (Score:3)
because there is no way for them to immigrate legally
There is always a legal way, it just isn't as quick as the illegal kind. Which seems to be the real problem with illegal immigrants, they don't want to wait like everyone else.
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well done! (Score:4)
The rich kids go to private school.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty much (Score:3)
FTFY.
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Informative)
You understand that there is essentially no correlation between school spending and student achievement?
https://www.americanprogress.o... [americanprogress.org] or try some googling.
The inflation-adjusted cost of schooling has tripled since 1970, with no discernible improvement in education outcome.
Re:Well done! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well done! (Score:4, Insightful)
In the study you linked it's pretty clear that school districts with higher levels of poverty have a lower return on investment. In other words, they spend more per kid but get poorer results. However, it is not an apples to apples comparison. Neither is comparing 1970 to today. The early 1970's represented an historic low in the number of people in poverty.
You have to look at what the schools are spending money on now vs 1970 and what poor districts spend money on vs affluent ones. In my school back in the 1970s there were no ESL students (English as a 2nd language). There was very little attempt to mainstream kids with significant disabilities. There weren't the onerous testing requirements created by "No Child Left Behind" and other well intentioned but flawed ideas. There weren't the outlandish health care costs that are crippling many of our public institutions. There weren't nearly as many kids getting "free and reduced price lunch" if there were any at all.
That's not to say that all money given to school districts is spent wisely and that giving them more money will automatically lead to better results.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially in maths, it would appear.
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Interesting)
In California, schools get equal public funding, it's not derived from local property taxes. On the other hand, rich school districts can expect to earn more in private fundraising, and can more realistically require students to pay for "outside resources" like money for field trips, a computer, etc...
97% of the difference between good schools and bad schools is family background (education, income levels, parent availability). If the student bodies of a poor school and a rich school exchanged campuses/teachers, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the educational results of the students would remain basically unchanged.
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty sure that's what happened at Columbine.
Nope, that had nothing to do with Columbine. That entire high school zone is pretty much middle/upper-middle class, and neither Harris nor Klebold were from particularly poor families. What they were is high IQ kids (with less than average common sense) in a school system (Jeffco) not known for dealing well with gifted/talented students, the prevailing attitude being "we'll help out the less-capable kids, the smart ones can deal on their own". (There was also a significant pro-jock, anti-nerd bias.)
I lived in and had a kid going to school (not high school) in the area when Columbine happened. There's a fair bit that never made it to the national media, because it upset various applecarts or was "too complicated" for the nightly news.
Re:Well done! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come on, there were about 500 scapegoats for Columbine, and a "pro-jock, anti-nerd bias" was definitely one of them. Simplifying it to that is just more of the same old shit.
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Insightful)
The real irony is that his neighbors would probably be the first ones to support a tax and confiscating someone's land for low income housing ...as long as it wasn't their land or built close to them.
Should be rezoned agricultural (Score:2)
Re:Should be rezoned agricultural (Score:5, Funny)
Bah, just screen every scene involving Jar Jar Binks on a continuous loop on a 50' tall screen.
That'll really piss them off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Low Income Housing... You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
Re: (Score:3)
He may have done it for the wrong reasons, but in the end he still did a good thing with that money.
Good for you, George Lucas.
Re: Should be rezoned agricultural (Score:5, Interesting)
He didn't do it for the wrong reasons. For YEARS he tried to put a studio there, but they wouldn't budge, and insisted on the residential tag on his land. Finally, he said, ok, fine.
So he could have capitulated- which would frankly be ludicrous- or find a way to actually be smart with it, which is what he did.
This, by the way, is like the third coolest thing he's done, with Star Wars at 2 and 2+ billion to charity at 1.
1 million dollars per family? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:1 million dollars per family? (Score:5, Informative)
It is the Bay Area, so $892,000 per house isn't too far off...
Re: (Score:3)
I was under the impression that the housing prices are mostly due to the cost of land there. Since he already owns the land and is just having to pay construction costs I am surprised by this.
Re:1 million dollars per family? (Score:5, Funny)
Every house is a fancy underground complex, and each above-ground entrance will look like a trailer, and each one will come with a muscle car body on blocks and a patchy lawn with tacky lawn ornaments on it and an assortment of kids' toys strewn about. Also there will be a hair salon that gives free mullet cuts to residents XD
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a small town, about a hour and a half from ANY major population. I have a .2 acre lot, 2 bedroom house, full basement, 2.5 car garage 20 foot spacing between the homes. I paid $30k for the house.
My mother lives 30 minutes from Milwaukee. 1/4 the lot, 3 bedroom. Full Basement, Compact car garage, and the house sits 15 feet from a BUSY street (so not a prime location) 5 foot spacing between homes. $200k.
Location, Location, LOCATION.
Re: (Score:3)
That same lot and house 10 miles from Boston $500k. 25 miles from Boston $300k
yet we expect people in such cities to survive on minimum wage so we can get our morning Starbucks.
Utilities (Score:4, Insightful)
Low income is relative ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cost? What about the density? (Score:3)
That works out to 10,000 square feet per home.
Obviously there are roads and common areas to take into consideration, but that seems really huge. My entire lot size is 6500 square feet with about a 1100 sq ft. foundation house (2000 sq ft finished) sitting on it. That 6500 sq ft. includes driveway, garage, yard, basically everything I have title to.
These properties don't sound like "affordable" houses at all, it sounds like solidly middle class for most areas and probably luxurious for that area. I would
Re: (Score:2)
$200M for 224 homes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nearly $1M per home sounds like a lot even by Marin standards, assuming that the cost of land is not included in that $200M figure.
Re:$200M for 224 homes? (Score:5, Insightful)
living well (Score:2)
As an old mentor once told me: They say living well is the best revenge. But there's a lot to be said for the old Screwbowski
Define "affordable" (Score:5, Insightful)
$200 million bill
proveide homes to 224 low-income families
I'd like to see the low-income families that can buy $0.9M homes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Who says he'll sell them? Maybe he'll just collect a modest rent?
Re:Define "affordable" (Score:5, Funny)
In the Bay area anyone making under $350,000 is considered low income.
It's so bad they have bread lines at Panera Bread stores.
Re: (Score:2)
If he's going to
Re:Define "affordable" (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Nobody says the tenants are buying the homes.
2) Nobody says Lucas is trying to recoup the costs of construction.
3) The total cost per unit is probably much higher if you factor in the value of the land.
FYI, low income housing is usually rentals. Many low income people have trouble saving for a down payment, much less get a loan from a bank, no matter how small the amount borrowed is.
The main problem with cheap rentals is the building's maintenance costs. Government subsidies are used to help with that usually. If Lucas isn't willing to bleed in the long term, at best, he's going to have to price the rentals for middle income, working class people. Which may still constitute "low income" in that part of California.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, he probably made more than $200 Million on Jar Jar Binks licensing.
pretty funny (Score:5, Insightful)
As "fuck you"s go, that's about as morally commendable as it gets.
Missing one detail ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about retaliation
Clinical naivety.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
proposes to fund and design affordable housing (Score:2)
The key word is "proposes". We shall see if this housing is built or if the movie studio project decision is reversed and that built instead.
At his age, he probably doesn't give a hoot and may just build the housing anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm reasonably confident that after he sold Lucasfilm to Disney, his interest in making a movie studio dropped greatly.
IMarv
Don't divide 200m by 224 (Score:5, Funny)
Don't forget the houses need support infrastructure - roads, sewerage, utilities, but also 224 homes will need a community hall, a couple of shops, a decent pub, a medical centre and/or dentist and (given this is America) at least seven churches.
Only a portion of the spend will go on houses.
Awesome! (Score:2, Funny)
Now rich fuckers get to enjoy meth labs in their neighborhood like the rest of us!
Not a revenge plot (Score:2)
Lucas claims this is not a revenge plot.
Lucas's representatives said this is not revenge for the blocked film studio, reports The Daily Mail.
Re:Not a revenge plot (Score:5, Funny)
Look, we know it can't be a plot.
Lucas has demonstrated with the prequels that he doesn't understand 'plot'. ;-)
Nobody notice it's the daily mail writes... (Score:2, Informative)
In the UK this newspaper is infamous and synonymous with made up far fetched fiction,,
File next to Soviets have a base on the dark side of the moon and the queens an alien
$892,000 houses for the poors (Score:2)
Re:$892,000 houses for the poors (Score:4, Insightful)
In that are, 892k IS low-income.
hehehehe (Score:2)
Good! (Score:2)
Now his servants, gardeners, dog walkers, etc., won't have to commute!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, don't forget "Sold It To Disney, Bitches" Lane.
Assuming.... (Score:5, Insightful)
These new residents are all voters; he might get permission to build his studio shortly after they move into their new homes....needs of the many indeed.
Old Folks Homes (Score:4, Informative)
From what I read over at http://www.marincounty.org/mai... [marincounty.org]
It looks more like:
120 two- and three-bedroom residences in one four-story cluster
Two other two-story clusters
104 one- and two- bedroom residences for seniors in a four-story cluster
Community center
Pool
Terraced gardens
Orchard
Small farm
Barn
Interior roadways with two bridges
Golden Gate Transit District bus stop
Re:Old Folks Homes (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the first building he builds will be pretty good, with hype to boot.
The second building will be the best one he ever builds.
The third building will have Ewoks.
I'd really hate to be the poor baster that ends up in a building after the third.
doesn't sound very low income (Score:3)
224 houses on 52 acres sounds like sprawling suburbs. Housing density is way too low and the amount of homes won't even make a ding, he should plunk down like 2,500 houses or condos or townhomes so that they price out closer to what a family can afford. What will soon happen is that the house will be sold at closer to their market value of $1 million dollars each and George Lucas will net a tidy profit and decide to become a real estate tycoon.
Some insider insight (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not saying he's a saint or anything, but for a billionaire who has changed the shape of our culture, he's actually pretty down to earth. Don't get me wrong, we don't hang out or anything, but in my experience he's consistently gracious, well reasoned, and well intentioned. Mock him all you want for Star Wars decisions, but never question his integrity. He deserves better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy....everything he touches turns to shit.
No, while his is sticking it up to his peers, the outcome is that 224 low income families will have affordable housing.
Sometimes you do the right thing for the wrong reason. Kudos to Mr Lucas.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's costing him almost $1 million each. Even if he sells them at cost, it's hard to see how it would be "affordable". Maybe he's not planning on breaking even, but that's pretty crazy to spend that much on a low income home.
Assuming he's selling them. 104 of them are apartments for pensioners.
Re: Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure there will be massive tax breaks for him.
Re: Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In CA, wood is the preferred material for buildings under 5 stories.