Real Estate Tax Proposal in Santa Fe

[st.cronin]

I would like to get some serious feedback from the fofc crowd on this proposal: Santa Fe is considering levying a 1% tax on home sales in excess of 750,000, and then using this money to fund affordable housing (I'm a little unclear on how this will work). The example the newspaper uses is, a house sold for 800K would owe $500.

So, what are your thoughts?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I would like to get some serious feedback from the fofc crowd on this proposal: Santa Fe is considering levying a 1% tax on home sales in excess of 750,000, and then using this money to fund affordable housing (I'm a little unclear on how this will work). The example the newspaper uses is, a house sold for 800K would owe $500.

So, what are your thoughts?

I'll offer some serious feedback...if you could provide a link to the proposal? I'm too lazy to go find it.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I would like to get some serious feedback from the fofc crowd on this proposal: Santa Fe is considering levying a 1% tax on home sales in excess of 750,000, and then using this money to fund affordable housing (I'm a little unclear on how this will work). The example the newspaper uses is, a house sold for 800K would owe $500.

So, what are your thoughts?

Wouldn't 1% of 800K be 8K? Great newspaper if they can't even get basic math.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Wouldn't 1% of 800K be 8K? Great newspaper if they can't even get basic math.

I presume it's 1% on the consideration in excess of $750K, which some basic math confirms.

[QuikSand]

Property transfer taxes are much more common in the east, and that's what this basically amounts to. Many states that impose transfer taxes try to mitigate the impact on lower-income residents or first time buyers -- this seems to essentially take the same concept, but extend the tax-free range all the way through most blue-collar homes.

Not everyone is in favor of so-called progressive taxation, but I'm not sure there's anything fundamentally appalling about this idea.

[st.cronin]

Hm, I looked for one yesterday with no luck. Here's the newspaper article:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Loc...eads-to-ballot

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Property transfer taxes are much more common in the east, and that's what this basically amounts to. Many states that impose transfer taxes try to mitigate the impact on lower-income residents or first time buyers -- this seems to essentially take the same concept, but extend the tax-free range all the way through most blue-collar homes.

Not everyone is in favor of so-called progressive taxation, but I'm not sure there's anything fundamentally appalling about this idea.

This would not be a state tax, but a city tax. In this particular case, I think that's important to keep in mind.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Not everyone is in favor of so-called progressive taxation, but I'm not sure there's anything fundamentally appalling about this idea.

Cook County, Illinois (Chicago & some suburbs) just implemented a transfer tax. In their situation they did it because the Cook County Board absolutely, positively can't balance their budget.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I presume it's 1% on the consideration in excess of $750K, which some basic math confirms.

Correct, the 1% is based on 750K or higher, but, the example was: 800K came out to 500 dollars. Which is nowhere near correct or 1% of 800K. However, I will give the benefit of the doubt and say it may be a typo on the newspapers end of things. I think a lot of people would be happy if the sales tax on their house was only 500 dollars though.

[st.cronin]

JK: 750K is exempt. So if you sell your house for a million dollars, 250K gets taxed. If you sell your house for 800K, 50K gets taxed. 1% of 50K = $500

[JediKooter]

Ah, now that makes sense when it's put that way, if that article had said that, then the numbers would have made more sense to me.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Ah, now that makes sense when it's put that way, if that article had said that, then the numbers would have made more sense to me.

If it makes you feel better, I initially thought the same thing, but luckily realized the truth before Quik's post. It was a head-slapping, get-more-sleep moment.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Correct, the 1% is based on 750K or higher, but, the example was: 800K came out to 500 dollars. Which is nowhere near correct or 1% of 800K. However, I will give the benefit of the doubt and say it may be a typo on the newspapers end of things. I think a lot of people would be happy if the sales tax on their house was only 500 dollars though.

The example was prefaced with the statement "on sales in excess of $750K", so no typo. This is along the same lines as the capital gains tax exemption on house sales. The exposure is the amount above the limit, not the total price.

There were a bunch of places in the Bay Area that were doing this during the height of the dot-com boom, so it is not unprecedented to have this happen at the city level.

[JediKooter]

Ok, am I the only one that thinks when you hear or read something that says "in excess of", you think it means, "more than"? If someone tells me that you will be taxed on something that costs more than X amount of dollars, that's what it means. If I buy something less than that amount, it won't be taxed at that rate.

I don't see anything that says, "If this item is more than X amount, then the amount that is above Y is what is taxed". X being the total price and Y being the point at which the tax is applied. Or something like that. I'm sorry, not trying to be argumentive here, I just took what was said in that article at face value (no pun intended).

[st.cronin]

I understand that, in theory, this isn't anything new - its simply a progressive tax. That's not what interests me. What interests me is the claim that the income derived from this tax will be used to help fund affordable housing - I am curious if anybody has any comment on that.

[Logan]

I'd like to see the numbers that would make it work. Let's say they throw $5 million from these funds into some sort of affordable housing apartment development that costs $10 million to make, which effectively reduces the amount people need to pay by 50%, which then allows them to afford it. To come up with $5 million, you would need 2,500 $1 million homes (average) sold. Is that feasible in the area?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I understand that, in theory, this isn't anything new - its simply a progressive tax. That's not what interests me. What interests me is the claim that the income derived from this tax will be used to help fund affordable housing - I am curious if anybody has any comment on that.

Ok, now that I'm passed the tax thing...The sarcastic in me says, no, it won't be used to help fund affordable housing because it's a government entity handling it. The non-sarcastic in me says, is there a large enough number of 750K plus homes being sold in Santa Fe to really help?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I understand that, in theory, this isn't anything new - its simply a progressive tax. That's not what interests me. What interests me is the claim that the income derived from this tax will be used to help fund affordable housing - I am curious if anybody has any comment on that.

You mean the fact that the government is going to be taking money away from hard working people and giving it to people who are already taking advantage of the system and not working hard? Nope, no comment on that.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I understand that, in theory, this isn't anything new - its simply a progressive tax. That's not what interests me. What interests me is the claim that the income derived from this tax will be used to help fund affordable housing - I am curious if anybody has any comment on that.

They are doing something similar in Austin, except with a different approach. The charge is put on the developers at build time. So if a guy wants to build a $50 million condo project, he is given a couple of options. One is to set aside a block of units that will be rented out to low income families. Another option is to pay the city a percentage of the project cost that goes into a housing fund. They have started to use some of that money to build a neighborhood on the site of the old Austin airport.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by cartman

They are doing something similar in Austin, except with a different approach. The charge is put on the developers at build time. So if a guy wants to build a $50 million condo project, he is given a couple of options. One is to set aside a block of units that will be rented out to low income families. Another option is to pay the city a percentage of the project cost that goes into a housing fund. They have started to use some of that money to build a neighborhood on the site of the old Austin airport.

I'm pretty sure that same idea was recently shot down here.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by BrianD

You mean the fact that the government is going to be taking money away from hard working people and giving it to people who are already taking advantage of the system and not working hard? Nope, no comment on that.

Income level does not have the 1-1 correlation to work ethic that you seem to think that it does. Otherwise, we would have to say that Paris Hilton works harder than my dad, which I know to be untrue.

Also, I challenge the idea that income level should coorelate in any very direct way to hard work. If I invent a product/service that provides lots of value to lots of people, I might very well make lots more money than the janitor who empties my trash. But he might work a lot harder than I do. Why would you restrict my income in that situation? Why isn't value provided a reasonable metric for determining income?

Also, if I acquire lots of money, why should I not be allowed to leave it to my children? Or to use it to provide them with a 5* education? They have not worked any harder than anyone else. But I also think/feel that I should have the right to pass my wealth on and/or to put my children in the best position to succeed.

The idea that hard work = income seems, at base, naive. It does not account for how the world actually works, as opposed to how we may want it to work.

[ISiddiqui]

And I was just about to say that Paris Hilton sure does seem like she works hard for her money .

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Income level does not have the 1-1 correlation to work ethic that you seem to think that it does. Otherwise, we would have to say that Paris Hilton works harder than my dad, which I know to be untrue.

Also, I challenge the idea that income level should coorelate in any very direct way to hard work. If I invent a product/service that provides lots of value to lots of people, I might very well make lots more money than the janitor who empties my trash. But he might work a lot harder than I do. Why would you restrict my income in that situation? Why isn't value provided a reasonable metric for determining income?

Also, if I acquire lots of money, why should I not be allowed to leave it to my children? Or to use it to provide them with a 5* education? They have not worked any harder than anyone else. But I also think/feel that I should have the right to pass my wealth on and/or to put my children in the best position to succeed.

The idea that hard work = income seems, at base, naive. It does not account for how the world actually works, as opposed to how we may want it to work.

I didn't really want to list all of the different ways one can legitimately come by money. Most of the time it is acquired by someone working hard even if it was parents or grandparents (lotteries and other forms of dumb-luck aside). Your other point matches mine though. You should be able to do whatever you want with your money. I don't like the idea of government deciding that you have too much and should be made to give it to someone else.

[Galaxy]

It's like the Bill Gates thread and this one merged.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Property transfer taxes are much more common in the east, and that's what this basically amounts to. Many states that impose transfer taxes try to mitigate the impact on lower-income residents or first time buyers -- this seems to essentially take the same concept, but extend the tax-free range all the way through most blue-collar homes.

Not everyone is in favor of so-called progressive taxation, but I'm not sure there's anything fundamentally appalling about this idea.

Blue-Collar home? What is that a house that someone in the blue-collar sector can't afford?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'd like to see the numbers that would make it work. Let's say they throw $5 million from these funds into some sort of affordable housing apartment development that costs $10 million to make, which effectively reduces the amount people need to pay by 50%, which then allows them to afford it. To come up with $5 million, you would need 2,500 $1 million homes (average) sold. Is that feasible in the area?

When I do the math I get 2,000 $1 million dollar homes to get $5 million in revenue, but either way - I don't think there are that many million dollar homes sold in Santa Fe in a year. I don't think the number is close to that.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I didn't really want to list all of the different ways one can legitimately come by money. Most of the time it is acquired by someone working hard even if it was parents or grandparents (lotteries and other forms of dumb-luck aside). Your other point matches mine though. You should be able to do whatever you want with your money. I don't like the idea of government deciding that you have too much and should be made to give it to someone else.

I'd still tweak things to say that wealth has at least as much to do with working smart (marketing yourself well; going into a field like investment banking as opposed to bricklaying) as it does with working hard. But I think that you would probably agree with that. And if you don't, it is really just a matter of degree.

And, I am sure that you and I would disagree on progressive taxation in theory. But that is an agree to disagree point. Nothing anyone says on a message board will change any minds on that score.

[Autumn]

I don't think "affordable housing" needs to be construed as welfare. Affordable housing is just that, housing that is built and priced to be within the reach of lower income people. It seems exactly the sort of thing that those who want to encourage hard working Americans should support. When those in the lower economic range don't have anything they can reach up for is when we start having trouble (see pregnant teen thread).

If the city feels there is a disparity between the housing available and the economic demographics of the city, it makes sense for them to step in and try to provide an incentive or push, I think. I'm not sure this is the best way, but I can't see someone really complaining about losing $500 on an $800,000 purchase. Then again, as others have pointed out, is that enough to make any real difference?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'd still tweak things to say that wealth has at least as much to do with working smart (marketing yourself well; going into a field like investment banking as opposed to bricklaying) as it does with working hard. But I think that you would probably agree with that. And if you don't, it is really just a matter of degree.

I guess I don't really differentiate between working hard and working smart. Working the muscles hard or working the brain hard both qualify as hard work as far as I'm concerned.

And, I am sure that you and I would disagree on progressive taxation in theory. But that is an agree to disagree point. Nothing anyone says on a message board will change any minds on that score.

I'm not sure exactly where I am on progressive tax rates, but I know I don't like the thought of adding an extra tax for these expensive houses. One would assume that a purchase of an expensive house would already incur higher taxes than purchasing a cheaper house. Why add a penalty on top of that?

[DanGarion]

Oh and FYI.

STATISTICS
Santa Fe Association of Realtors
2008 Second Quarter Santa Fe Area

Existing and new single family detached home sales:

City of Santa Fe (MLS codes)

Northeast, 01
15 sold, median price $710,000
Northwest, 02
4 sold, median price $288,875
Southeast, 03
34 sold, median price $588,054
Southwest, 04, 04N, 04S, 13
85 sold, median price $264,000
Total City of Santa Fe
138 sold, median price $301,500

Santa Fe County

North, 15, 16
4 sold, median price $1,997,174
Northwest, 24, 25
27 sold, median price $839,000
Southeast, 05, 07, 08, 10, 14, 26
37 sold, median price $490,000
Southwest, 06, 11,12, 27
35 sold, median price $305,515
Eldorado, 14
21 sold, median price $349,000
Total Santa Fe County
241 sold, median price $353,900

Condo/Townhome City and County
61 sold, median price $230,000
Duplex, Xplex City and County
0 sold, median price $702,500

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Autumn

If the city feels there is a disparity between the housing available and the economic demographics of the city, it makes sense for them to step in and try to provide an incentive or push, I think. I'm not sure this is the best way, but I can't see someone really complaining about losing $500 on an $800,000 purchase. Then again, as others have pointed out, is that enough to make any real difference?

This is about where I am. I think 1% is completely absurd, 5% or 10% would make much more sense to me.

[st.cronin]

Somebody can correct me if I've done this wrong, but if the tax were 5%, a 1 million dollar sale would essentially be taxed at a 1.25 rate. Maybe that's a little high; maybe 3% would be better. But 1% strikes me as a complete joke.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

When I do the math I get 2,000 $1 million dollar homes to get $5 million in revenue, but either way - I don't think there are that many million dollar homes sold in Santa Fe in a year. I don't think the number is close to that.

Yeah, horrible math, which I blame on myself changing the millions I was going for as I realized the original amount was too low .

Originally Posted by Autumn

I don't think "affordable housing" needs to be construed as welfare. Affordable housing is just that, housing that is built and priced to be within the reach of lower income people. It seems exactly the sort of thing that those who want to encourage hard working Americans should support.

A lot of banks and programs are now calling it "workforce housing" as "affordable" tends to be thought of as welfare recipients, like you say. Basically, in many areas, the people who end up priced out are those you need for all of your essential services that makes a place worth living in and drives the value up: teachers, police, nurses, etc.

[QuikSand]

The insistence on focusing on a $1 million home as the repeated illustration is misleading. If you are exempting the first $800k, then your real revenue isn't coming from $1 million homes, it's coming from $4 million homes, if you get my drift.

And I'm not sure there is a practical difference between applying a tax at the time of first sale of such a property, and extracting some sort of set-aside payment by the builder, which presumably then just gets passed on to the initial buyer.

Other than the widespread trouble with math, I'm not sure what there is to discuss here. A government is contemplating a tax, for a fairly related public purpose. And...?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Logan

A lot of banks and programs are now calling it "workforce housing" as "affordable" tends to be thought of as welfare recipients, like you say. Basically, in many areas, the people who end up priced out are those you need for all of your essential services that makes a place worth living in and drives the value up: teachers, police, nurses, etc.

Yes, exactly. I think city planners have to think ahead to try to avoid this sort of thing. I lived for a short while in a town that was basically built upon its artist community, which attracted a lot of tourists. But pretty soon the housing had priced all the artists out and they had to move elsewhere. Affordable housing is maybe a good way to do some long-term planning.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The insistence on focusing on a $1 million home as the repeated illustration is misleading. If you are exempting the first $800k, then your real revenue isn't coming from $1 million homes, it's coming from $4 million homes, if you get my drift.

And I'm not sure there is a practical difference between applying a tax at the time of first sale of such a property, and extracting some sort of set-aside payment by the builder, which presumably then just gets passed on to the initial buyer.

Other than the widespread trouble with math, I'm not sure what there is to discuss here. A government is contemplating a tax, for a fairly related public purpose. And...?

What I was interested in was the connection made between the tax and affordable housing, not the tax by itself.

[st.cronin]

Santa Fe has a population of 60K-75K depending on the estimate. There are many homes, and many expensive homes, owned by non-residents or part-time residents. Most of the surrounding towns are essentially deserted, although there has been robust growth along the I-25 corridor towards Albuquerque.

I don't understand why Santa Fe thinks they need affordable housing, I don't believe this will achieve anything meaningful, basically I think they're full of crap.

[Desnudo]

Seattle provides property tax exemptions for developers who build affordable housing units in their developments. That incentive may be a bit more correlated.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'd still tweak things to say that wealth has at least as much to do with working smart (marketing yourself well; going into a field like investment banking as opposed to bricklaying) as it does with working hard. But I think that you would probably agree with that. And if you don't, it is really just a matter of degree.

And, I am sure that you and I would disagree on progressive taxation in theory. But that is an agree to disagree point. Nothing anyone says on a message board will change any minds on that score.

To simplify things, in a free society wealth is earned by pretty much satisfying your fellow members of society. You can say Paris Hilton is unfairly compensated, but you are basically disagreeing with millions of people who choose to watch her on television and pay to see her movies, etc. This allows her to charge large fees to appear on tv and in those movies. You and I can act on tv, etc., but our fellow members of society are not willing to watch us on tv or pay to see our movies. We cannot charge the large fees that she can charge.

Now if Ms. Hilton purchases a home in Santa Fe, it is absurd and arrogant for the city officials to take her money and give it to someone else. They are saying they know better than her and members of society who should receive those dollars.

Another part of the explaination for some people making more money is supply and demand. Let's stick with the Hilton example. There are not many people that have the pertinent background and social appeal of Paris Hilton. If there were millions of people that did, then she would not make the cash from reality tv and movies that she does.

If you don't like the Hilton example, then exchange Paris Hilton and tv appeal with Tom Brady and football skill. Basically anyone earning a lot of wealth is pleasing their fellow man more so than the person earning less wealth.

Look at dollars as being a certificate of performance. The better you are at pleaseing fellow members of society, the higher value the members place on the service and they give you more dollars.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

To simplify things, in a free society wealth is earned by pretty much satisfying your fellow members of society. You can say Paris Hilton is unfairly compensated, but you are basically disagreeing with millions of people who choose to watch her on television and pay to see her movies, etc. This allows her to charge large fees to appear on tv and in those movies. You and I can act on tv, etc., but our fellow members of society are not willing to watch us on tv or pay to see our movies. We cannot charge the large fees that she can charge.

Millions haven't watched her movies. Unless you are talking about her home movie.

[Shkspr]

I can recall being offered a job in Santa Fe for $20/hr just out of college. I remember deciding at the time that it was cheaper to keep living in my rented apartment in Albuquerque and commute an hour each way every day. That was in the days of $1 gas; now that gas is up to $4, even the use of Bernalillo or northern Albuquerque as a bedroom community is off the table. Whatever the method, Santa Fe has been in critical need for more decent first time housing for ages.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Millions haven't watched her movies.

And yet she's still paid nicely just to put in an appearance at whatever bar, club, whatever because of the perceived benefits of even a brief association with her.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

To simplify things, in a free society wealth is earned by pretty much satisfying your fellow members of society. You can say Paris Hilton is unfairly compensated, but you are basically disagreeing with millions of people who choose to watch her on television and pay to see her movies, etc. This allows her to charge large fees to appear on tv and in those movies. You and I can act on tv, etc., but our fellow members of society are not willing to watch us on tv or pay to see our movies. We cannot charge the large fees that she can charge.

Now if Ms. Hilton purchases a home in Santa Fe, it is absurd and arrogant for the city officials to take her money and give it to someone else. They are saying they know better than her and members of society who should receive those dollars.

Another part of the explaination for some people making more money is supply and demand. Let's stick with the Hilton example. There are not many people that have the pertinent background and social appeal of Paris Hilton. If there were millions of people that did, then she would not make the cash from reality tv and movies that she does.

If you don't like the Hilton example, then exchange Paris Hilton and tv appeal with Tom Brady and football skill. Basically anyone earning a lot of wealth is pleasing their fellow man more so than the person earning less wealth.

Look at dollars as being a certificate of performance. The better you are at pleaseing fellow members of society, the higher value the members place on the service and they give you more dollars.

As much as I can't stand Hilton and the people who love her, I agree with you here. She makes millions hosting parties (Vegas, LA, ect.) alone, along with her television/movie stuff. She's no longer going to be a heir to the Hilton fortune, since Barron (her grandfather) willed his billions to charity.

[Autumn]

In general I agree with you, but it is more complex than that. Yes, Paris Hilton and Tom Brady are somehow pleasing members of our society in order to receive the renumeration they do. But that is largely a result of luck, chance and initial opportunities. It is not an even playing field. Some other heiress could have just as easily been in Paris's place but for a few lucky strokes (pun intended) and the right response from the media and public. Just as there may be an athlete out there with all the skills and abilities of Tom Brady who just never happened to get the right breaks, or got the wrong ones.

So, while wealth is certainly in some ways a measure of society's "approval" to make a shorthand, that "approval" isn't a very good measure of much. We can be fairly sure that Tom Brady is much better at what he does than most Americans, based on his wealth, but you can't get much finer-grained than that without considering luck and initial opportunities.

As for Paris, there's not a heck lot more than luck involved there I don't think.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The insistence on focusing on a $1 million home as the repeated illustration is misleading. If you are exempting the first $800k, then your real revenue isn't coming from $1 million homes, it's coming from $4 million homes, if you get my drift.

And I'm not sure there is a practical difference between applying a tax at the time of first sale of such a property, and extracting some sort of set-aside payment by the builder, which presumably then just gets passed on to the initial buyer.

Other than the widespread trouble with math, I'm not sure what there is to discuss here. A government is contemplating a tax, for a fairly related public purpose. And...?

sounds like quik needs to find a smarter messageboard to hang out at

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

I can recall being offered a job in Santa Fe for $20/hr just out of college. I remember deciding at the time that it was cheaper to keep living in my rented apartment in Albuquerque and commute an hour each way every day. That was in the days of $1 gas; now that gas is up to $4, even the use of Bernalillo or northern Albuquerque as a bedroom community is off the table. Whatever the method, Santa Fe has been in critical need for more decent first time housing for ages.

It is cheaper to live in Albuquerque than Santa Fe, but there is ample affordable housing in Santa Fe. When I moved here we lived in a 2 bedroom apartment in a perfectly safe neighborhood for I think 800 a month. That complex is currently under 50% occupied and is either in foreclosure or about to be in foreclosure (I know the manager there). The same apartment may cost 600 or even less in Albuquerque - but it is certainly affordable on a teacher's or fireman's salary.

It is true that its not easy to find a decent house to buy in Santa Fe that's less than 500K - but in fact it is pretty easy to find good value outside the city limits, as I have. But maybe the real issue I have is how to define affordable housing. If its housing for the illegal immigrant community making perhaps 50 dollars a day off the books, thats one thing... if we're talking about housing for teachers, firefighters, and the 25-30k/year folks, that's another.

[Logan]

By definition, affordable housing is meant for low- and moderate-income families, which are those that earn less than 80% (which is where the cutoff for moderate is) of the median family income in that particular Metropolitan Statistical Area. So it's not hard at all to qualify.

edit: Here's the demographic info for Santa Fe county. The median family in the MSA is $57,000, so any household earning less than $45,600 would qualify. Here's a report that shows how many units are owner-occupied vs. rented.

[flounder]

I would be very skeptical that the money would actually end up helping people on the low end of the income spectrum. You don't even have to leave the state to see how it will probably end up being abused.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
November 20, 2006
ALBUQUERQUE (AP) - A judge and a top aide to House Speaker Ben Lujan have been living rent-free in homes owned by a government affordable housing agency that has been rocked by financial and operating troubles in recent months.

Those who allowed Bernalillo County Metro Judge Theresa Gomez and Lisa Ortiz to live rent-free in the homes may have done so in hopes of future favors, said Lawrence Rael, who has headed the Albuquerque-based Region III Housing Authority since late summer.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flounder

I would be very skeptical that the money would actually end up helping people on the low end of the income spectrum. You don't even have to leave the state to see how it will probably end up being abused.

That's pretty much exactly what I expect to happen.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

sounds like quik needs to find a smarter messageboard to hang out at

He has, but he insists on visiting here anyway.