Housing policy: Some thoughtful ideas

We have some thoughtful council members here in Ole B'game.  I don't always agree with their priorities or their approaches, but in the case of Mayor Brownrigg and Vice Mayor Colson, there is recent evidence of thoughtful housing proposals.  For the moment, let's put aside whether or not there is a "housing crisis", whether or not the local population will return to positive growth, whether or not the RHNA numbers driving policy (and the Big Stick from Rob Bonta) are reasonable and just look at the Brownrigg/Colson proposals as shown in a recent Guest Perspective in the Daily Journal.  I will boil them down a bit or you can click through for all of it:

1.  Sacramento could waive capital gains taxes for property owners who sell land to affordable housing developers.

2.  The state could streamline eminent domain for housing on underutilized parcels and then subsidize a city’s acquisitions.

3.  The state should help market-rate builders include more affordable housing units with tax rebates or direct cash subsidies.

4.  Faster than cities can create affordable units, we are losing even more “naturally affordable” units in older buildings when they get sold.  Indeed, the state does not even count a deed-restricted preserved affordable unit toward a city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements. That has to change.

5. The state’s housing targets seek a 15% increase in Bay Area housing. Punitive and prescriptive state housing mandates should be waived for cities issuing building permits exceeding a 10% increase in units.

6.  Water allowances should be prioritized for cities that undergo a 10% increase in actual occupied housing units. (see the post directly below)

7.  Infrastructure spending should be directed to communities that are getting housing built.

8.  And for social mobility, let’s reward cities that create more affordable family units (two bedrooms or more). 

Number 2, easier eminent domain, is the only one that raises a "Hell no" from me.  That is just replacing one big authoritarian stick with another.  Missing is my number 9:  introduce a pause in commercial development to give the housing market time to catch up.  That is really the only feasible way to bring back some balance without demolishing single-family zoning and quality of life while overstressing our infrastructure.  All of the others "just take money" that the state doesn't have.

Comments

[Phinancier]

In a normal state the carrots described here would be applied much more than the stick. But we are not in a normal state. I applaud these two for trying. I suppose hope springs eternal.

[Joe]

Right on cue some whiny mouthpiece for the Burlingame Socialist Party (total membership = 5 people) has a letter in the Daily Journal because you and your neighbors should pay for their housing. Check this nonsense out:

Much has been written about local cities’ obstructionism in addressing our housing crisis, so we are thrilled the state is getting involved. For example, in Burlingame, SB35’s streamlining has jump-started the redo of a privately-owned abandoned car wash lot — roughly one year from start to groundbreaking — into 69 very-low-income units. This compares to another similar project that went through the usual city approval process; it started in 2014 and is still not completed. ((There's probably some very good reasons for that, but she doesn't want to elaborate))

We owe the state for the needed increase in RHNA targets, ((the targets the state's own staff admit are wrong? Those targets?)) along with real consequences should cities not identify sites that could help them meet their allocations. Hopefully, going forward, available public land will no longer be taken for granted.

Again, in Burlingame, without such accountability, during a severe housing crisis, the city prioritized using public land and funds to build an $80 million+ Recreation Center (to replace the earthquake-susceptible ancient one--had this whiner ever been in the old Rec Center?), rejecting constituents’ calls to build housing on top (Hey, I'd love a top floor unit looking over Washington Park with amenities on the ground floor--where do I sign up??). They also approved a market rate assisted living facility (at a taxpayer cost of $80 million) and are on track to approve even more market rate housing — all on public land. (Whoops, I guess this clown missed the giant new subsidized housing project downtown)

AB1482, which caps rent increases at 10%, while far from perfect, is better than the nothing Burlingame City Council unanimously endorsed when faced with a citizen initiated rent control measure (Every sane economist in the world states rent control is a lose-lose-lose proposition. Get real)). The law also provides some additional renter protections, all of which the council refused to even agendize, despite more than 50% of its residents being renters. ((I always like the use of "protections". Who's getting protected Laura?)

There’s more, including SB9 and SB10, and more to come, fingers crossed.

Laura Hinz
Burlingame
Letter writer is a member of Housing for All Burlingame.
----------------------

Even their little 5 person organization's name is stupid. If you are here in Burlingame, you are already here. Who exactly is she looking to "house" that isn't part of the current "All Burlingame".

As noted in the original post, some of our council members actually have a clue unless Ms. Clueless here.

Actionable suggestion: Nobody who has ever been associated with Housing for All Burlingame should get a taxpayer subsidized unit. Period!

[Joe]

I forgot the DJ link in case you thought I was making this nonsense up for clicks:

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/bravo-sacramento/article_f7d28d76-f065-11ed-abe0-83d8b094fcac.html

[Lemmings R Us]

These people need the government to be their mommy and daddy. Very sad.