Many folks recently attended county planning and supervisor
meetings arguing against arbitrary growth control; a recent victory
was achieved when the county planning commissioners recommended to
remove the 30 percent inclusionary ordinance.
BY STEVE LOOS
Many folks recently attended county planning and supervisor meetings arguing against arbitrary growth control; a recent victory was achieved when the county planning commissioners recommended to remove the 30 percent inclusionary ordinance. Many thanks to those who took time to speak, and thanks to the commissioners for listening!
Growth control ordinances shrink the supply of homes; as supply goes down, prices go up. Why did housing prices keep going up through the dot-com bust and 9-11? The reason was the short supply of housing caused by growth control, made even worse by the Hollister sewer building moratorium. At the peak of the market fewer than three families in 20 could afford a home; this is not a sustainable market, and the crash was inevitable even without the sub-prime mortgage mess.
Growth control was created to stop sprawl and save open space; great ideas that were widely supported. The problem is we also stopped supplying enough homes. High prices keep the average family from being able to afford a home, and also shrink the supply of low income affordable housing. When the average price of a house is $600,000, few communities can afford to subsidize housing for low-income families.
Inclusionary ordinances were an attempt to provide affordable homes; every new large development was required to provide 30 percent (or some arbitrary percentage) of the homes as affordable housing. The problem is that a 1,000-unit development provides only 30 affordable homes per year, not nearly enough to do any good. The idea worked so poorly that most communities have abandoned the idea.
The best way to provide affordable homes is to control high housing prices, and the best way to control high housing prices is to provide an adequate supply of homes. But what about sprawl? We can’t go back to building like we did before, right?
Exactly right. But what regional planners have learned is that we can supply a lot of homes without sprawl. The typical low-density housing tract found in most cities provides only five homes per acre. But, build a mix of low-, medium- and high-density homes and you have 10 to 15 homes on that same acre of land.
Newly planed subdivisions are using this idea. The higher-density condos, townhomes and patio homes will be far more affordable than the detached homes on large lots. These mix density developments provide “affordable” homes without arbitrary government intervention.
This idea is working all across the country. Mixed density tracts are being built around historical farms, preserving historical treasures. Downtown districts are building apartments over storefronts, bringing residents into commercial districts. Large mixed density subdivisions are building parks, walking and biking trails, all the while providing affordable homes.
Let’s support our local planners, council members and supervisors, and ask them to get rid of growth control and land use plans that do not work. We don’t need sprawl, and we don’t need arbitrary growth control. What we do need is to reasonably priced housing for our community.
Steve Loos is a state-certified general appraiser from Hollister.
