Supervisors wrestle with affordable housing
The high cost of housing in the Bay Area hasn’t overlooked San
Benito County.
A recent study session by the San Benito County Board of
Supervisors targeting affordable housing produced agreement over at
least one thing: local government has an obligation to see to it
that all segments of the community have access to decent
housing.
Supervisors wrestle with affordable housing
The high cost of housing in the Bay Area hasn’t overlooked San Benito County.
A recent study session by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors targeting affordable housing produced agreement over at least one thing: local government has an obligation to see to it that all segments of the community have access to decent housing.
But how exactly those needs are met remains at issue. Who should be responsible for affordable housing and what has the inclusionary housing ordinance done for San Benito County thus far?
According to Art Henriques, San Benito County planning director, the inclusionary housing ordinance requires developers on unincorporated county land to either sell 30 percent of their units below market rate, or pay a fee that is intended to fund a similar number of affordable units elsewhere in the county.
“The problem is that since the ordinance was enacted few fees have been collected,” Henriques said. “That’s part of the reason that the board wanted the study session.”
Inclusionary housing ordinances are not a new concept, according to Dennis Lalor, executive director for South County Housing.
“Inclusionary ordinances have been in place all across the country for 40 years,” Lalor said. “I think that overall ordinances that are newer reflect what was learned from older ordinances. I’m not sure whether it’s appropriate here or not. There is some serious community interest here. If an inclusionary ordinance can make that happen, fine, but it doesn’t mean it has to be impugnitive.”
There are both positive and negative examples of inclusionary housing in the world, but many people get caught up in the bad examples and don’t respect inclusionary housing, according to Lalor.
“Nobody will disagree that we need more affordable housing, but we need to be sensible about growth,” Lalor said. “We have a goal to achieve a broad range of affordability all within the context of smart growth and that requires flexible solutions. If we find that one size doesn’t fit all, we will have to create more flexible solutions. That calls for creativity.”
Participation in this week’s forum ran the gamut, drawing in people from all avenues to offer their own takes on how San Benito County can effectively offer affordable housing.
“I think there was tremendous support from the community,” County Supervisor Pat Loe said. “There were a lot of different ideas presented. The community has a role in [the topic of affordable housing], so as such the county has a role in this. The role of the county is to form partnerships with the city and developers to create housing solutions.”
Loe is not opposed to an inclusionary ordinance, but wants to make sure that it is suited to this community. Likewise she would have no problem looking at or changing the ordinance, but the underlying issue still needs to be addressed – there needs to be housing for all segments of the community.
One of the ideas Loe liked most that was presented Tuesday was that of combined housing in downtown Hollister.
“I liked the idea of housing above storefronts. I think it’s a really positive idea. We definitely need more rentals and condos.”
