Letter to the Editor - Housing

Rachel,

 I appreciate your efforts in addressing the housing topic in Lovelock through your articles. However, I find it disheartening that the pieces present a rather one-sided, sugar coated, and not fully accurate perspective. Furthermore, it is surprising to see the apartment complex being described in a manner that does not accurately reflect its true nature, utilizing terminology that misrepresents the project and presenting inaccurate information as factual. 

This new terminology used to describe the low-income apartment complex has evolved from "income-based" to "affordable housing" and, in your latest article, "workforce housing." The implication that teachers could reside there is misleading and false. As their income significantly exceeds the income cap, rendering them ineligible, which was clearly stated in the City Council meeting. As I was the one who asked this question. 

As for “Law Enforcement” being able to live there, they also are currently not eligible. Their income is significantly over the allotted cap as well. Nevada Rural Housing indicated that they would consider “possibly” having one or two units available on something like a sliding scale/percentage of income for a new Lovelock police officer seeking housing. But it was NOT a definitive commitment, and even then, it will only be one, possibly two units. Hardly substantial. 

The majority of Lovelock's “workforce” is employed in the mining, corrections, and education sectors. This demographic requires housing. However, none of these individuals will meet the eligibility criteria to reside in the new apartment complex. The average annual salary for a City of Lovelock Nevada employee is approximately $54,448. Again, over the income cap making them not eligible. 

Your article also fails to mention that Nevada Rural Housing can place low-income individuals, specifically those earning under $38,820 per year, from neighboring towns and other states in Lovelock if we don’t have enough low-income people to fill them locally. 

It appears that low-income senior citizens have a significant need for housing. I am unaware of the specific numbers or if any research has been conducted in this area. However, given the approval for construction, I believe that senior citizens should be given priority eligibility to occupy these units. Furthermore, Nevada Rural Housing and/or the City of Lovelock should provide assistance with facilitating the moves, as it can be particularly challenging for senior citizens to relocate. 

I hope that future articles will not perpetuate this trend. The people of Lovelock deserve to be fully informed with accurate facts regarding situations that will impact their lives and their town. 

Thank you, Cathie Bryant

A special thank you to Cathie for her input. Please see response here: