I lost my temper during the meeting of the board of supervisors
last week. I apologize to anyone who saw my outburst, either in
person on TV. My only excuse is that I felt provoked by the
county’s attempt to pawn their affordable housing failures off on
others.
I lost my temper during the meeting of the board of supervisors last week. I apologize to anyone who saw my outburst, either in person on TV. My only excuse is that I felt provoked by the county’s attempt to pawn their affordable housing failures off on others.
The item under discussion was the developer’s offer to provide approximately 100 affordable housing units, 10 percent of the total, at Santana Ranch. Somehow, that discussion morphed into a lecture on homelessness.
The county’s housing element of the General Plan targets 40 percent affordable housing in future developments, but there is not a hint on how to make that work either socially or economically. Why is the number so high? It’s because the county has provided almost no affordable housing for a decade. If they keep going that pace, the plan will eventually require 100 percent affordable housing in each development. That will be tricky.
Except for government purposes, the housing element is a worthless piece of paper. Counties must have a housing element approved by the state to qualify for grants and affordable housing is key part of the plan. However, all you need is a plan – you never have to do anything – and we haven’t. Eventually, you just write another plan, get it approved and everyone is happy.
Naturally, the developer was taken to task for offering “only” 10-percent affordable housing. Their reply was the development had to work economically – a concept obviously lost on those who write the housing elements. Supervisor Pat Loe hit one of my nerves when she told the applicant that there were 575 homeless families in the county and 100 affordable units, 10 percent, was not enough. Obviously, the developer did not know he had to adopt all the homeless families in the county to get permission to build anything.
Instead of burdening the applicants, the county should be paying them to make up for the economic loss they will suffer or pass on to the unsuspecting buyers of non-subsidized units. The current system is nothing but taxation by proxy – a favorite tactic by government. It’s politically and economically untenable for the county to provide affordable housing, so let’s get a developer to do it for us.
A public speaker personalized the issue by describing a woman in her sixties who was living in a car; therefore, the speaker reasoned, the developer should provide more units for low-income seniors and a $300,000 deposit on each to ensure they are built – no, I’m not kidding.
Affordable housing has become the whipping boy and excuse de jour in the perpetual development battles and class warfare. For those opposed to all development, affordable housing is just a red herring; their real objective is to make any proposal impossible economically. For others it’s all about wealth transfer using government mandates as a convenient funnel.
There is no doubt that the county cannot afford an overload of poor people who use a disproportionate amount of public services, but the truth is that we are already there. The families are doubled and tripled up in homes and the politicians surely know it. Providing 100 new affordable units in a well-planned community development would be 100 more units than the county has now or is likely to get any other way.
It’s the county’s responsibility to solve these problems in a workable manner and not just try to unload them, wholesale, on anyone who comes along. Don’t hold your breath – they are moving at the speed of government while the problems are growing at the speed of light.
It’s business as usual in unusual times.Â
Marty Richman is a Hollister resident.
