This past week, many QAC citizens and business groups debated whether their involvement in the Riverside Estates issue was warranted.
Our QAC commissioners felt they were let down and aired out their feelings to a few outspoken business people to spread the word. It worked… with the help of watching many protesters speak of the ill-findings at the housing project. Fear tactics, tear-jerking and personal stories always make for a good show.
The residue that is left on the table follows:
- The underlying theme of supporting affordable housing is an overwhelming “YES” says representatives from the QAC Chamber of Commerce, Business Queen Anne’s and the Bay Area Association of Realtors.
- Have we been duped? Given the guilt association and the responsibility assumed by the commissioners.
- Did our commissioners confuse affordable/workforce housing with subsidized housing?
- Did we lean so hard on the commissioners during the last election that any support of housing was justified by the commissioners? (I can vividly remember all groups jumping up and down about people making $30,000 and less unable to find housing and demanding our commissioner candidates find solutions!)
- Is it justified to only support affordable housing for those workers who would be assets, not "takers"?
- Lack of advertise the meetings by the commissioners was cited. (If you don’t know where to look to keep up with the issues; you will probably miss the notices.)
- Do business groups lack the “trigger pull”? Where's the strong voice in enhancing the quality of life for its residents (or does that mean just taxpaying) and the fostering the ultimate American dream of home ownership (even if it takes some temporary assistance from the government)?
- As business people do we really have political clout? There comes a time when you must decide if you are going to participate in a system that cannot supply the solutions you seek, or whether you will risk the slings and arrows that come with bucking the system. (sorry, to be so blunt).
- Should we be concerned how government subsidizes people with very low incomes? (Where were the non-profits, the NAACP?)
- Do we look at subsidized housing as an asset, an investment in our future, (yet we maybe squandering that asset, and with it, people's lives).
- Are we heading to tent cities for the hired help?
- Does QAC Sheriff’s office need to perform nightly routine “sweeps” of the area?
Who are the stewards?
Is it our responsibility to help raise someone’s standard of living (QAC has some 4-5 hundred on the waiting list), give them some pride by providing a decent place to live and hope they achieve self-sustainability one day? Do we profit from the lower wage workers? Some may say, “Tell them to get a job,” others will argue, “They don’t have the tools.” Perhaps, keeping a vigil eye on our growth management policies to ensure affordability is long overdue.
There will be risks. . .but that is where reward lies.
