Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

George Lucas Building Low-Income Housing Next Door To Millionaires

Posted by samzenpus on from the rich-and-poor dept.

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.

29 of 540 comments (clear)

  1. Well done! by Frivas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well done George! if you have the money, and you can help other people, specially poor people, just do it!

    --
    -- Francisco Rivas C.
    1. Re:Well done! by Anonymous Coward · · 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 off the people who got in the middle of his real dream of making a movie studio on his land.

    2. Re:Well done! by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Poorer people have to live everywhere, because the jobs they fill are everywhere.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:Well done! by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not really just about annoying the neighbours. If you stick all the poor people in the same neighbourhood, then all the poor kids will go to schools with poor kids, and all the rich kids will go to school with rich kids. Since schools are funded by property taxes, the poor kid schools always end up having less money. If you mix poor and rich kids in the same areas, and they attend the same schools, and benefit from the same property taxes, then things end up much more even. Instead of one school having everything, and another having nothing, you'd have all the schools with similar amounts of resources.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Well done! by NotDrWho · · 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!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    5. Re:Well done! by sycodon · · 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.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:Well done! by Dorianny · · Score: 4, 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.

    7. Re:Well done! by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But spending more is easy. Addressing the root cause is hard, particularly in a accountability averse culture.

    8. Re:Well done! by Moridineas · · 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.

    9. Re:Well done! by lgw · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Well done! by unimacs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a definite correlation between money and academic achievement. You're looking in the wrong place. Kids in more affluent areas do better in school.

      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.

    11. Re:Well done! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, 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?

    12. Re:Well done! by I4ko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, as a legal H1 Expat from EU who came here on request of my company, and having heavily invested my in education, and basically spending and paying more in taxes than my American neighbors, and having to through thousands of hoops to get a green card and be able to live like a normal person I fully object against (especially low qualified) illegals given a parole. I'm sorry, but I can live in uncertainty, refrain from establishing long term relationships and such, because I may have to pack up and leave, but these guys can come and stay disregarding all the laws of this country? I think I can't agree with that. Same goes to most of the legal H1 Indians who after spending 30 minutes with them leave me completely confused on how they can possible have all the qualification that they claim. So, even I as being a legal foreigner, am for a much tighter control on the border. No one should be allowed to illegally pass the border and get away with it, and leave in complete disregard with the law and the "native" inhabitants of the land. At least they can learn English. And I'm sorry - but if you can't afford to raise a child, simple don't make it. It's not like they happen on their own.

    13. Re:Well done! by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  2. 1 million dollars per family? by ffoiii · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $200 million dollars for 224 low income family homes. I get that there are lots of construction costs other than just the houses, but that still seems like a pretty steep price per home.

  3. $200M for 224 homes? by hawguy · · Score: 3, 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.

    1. Re:$200M for 224 homes? by KeithJM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a decent chance the cost of the land is included, since he's providing it to this project as well. If you're putting together a press release proclaiming your good work (and I don't mean that as a criticism -- he definitely deserves the right to take credit for his work) you might as well make the numbers as complete as you can.

  4. Define "affordable" by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Define "affordable" by steelfood · · 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.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  5. pretty funny by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As "fuck you"s go, that's about as morally commendable as it gets.

    --
    -Styopa
  6. Missing one detail ... by techstar25 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The linked article leaves out one important detail. This isn't about retaliation... Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey told the station: 'George Lucas said, "if I’m not going to do what I wanted to do there, what can I do that would be really beneficial to this community?"

  7. Utilities by wikthemighty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That cost probably includes adding water/electrical/phone/sewer/roads/etc. which all cost quite a bit.

    --
    "There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
  8. Sounds like upper middle class housing development by drnb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At $200M for 224 homes it sounds like he is building an upper middle class housing development. This does not sound like habitat for humanity-like helping the poor.

  9. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  10. Translation by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "What can I do that would suck more than a studio and that you can't block?"

  11. Assuming.... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  12. Re: Wow by g0bshiTe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you had his money it'd probably be worth it to stick it to the neighbors and do low income housing.

    I'm sure there will be massive tax breaks for him.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  13. Re:$892,000 houses for the poors by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In that are, 892k IS low-income.

  14. Re: Wow by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's playing a game of brinkmanship. And he can afford the consequences if he loses. But he won't lose. Either the neighbors will cave in on the film studio or they'll find a way to stop him. Those are the only two outcomes. The housing will never happen.