Perhaps I spoke too soon. Last summer I wrote an essay stating environmental activists in Sonoma County had not stopped a local housing development project in some time (June 2002, "The Realities of the Sonoma County Housing Crisis"). Now I must write environmentalists have succeeded in derailing a proposed housing project known as Laguna Vista in Sebastopol.
Construction Co. has been stalled since the Sebastopol City Council did not approve it in the face of fierce opposition by some local environmentalists.
The Schellinger team has vowed to press forward, though with a revised development plan. They were kind enough to speak with me about the frustrations they have encountered while attempting to build much-needed housing in one of the most expensive places to live in the nation. Keep in mind their project is within the city limits and would provide some affordable housing although the amount is debated.
They told me they did everything they had been asked to do by the city to secure the necessary approval for their project. Yet when environmentalists showed up in force to fight the project the city council politicians got cold feet and denied the project. The builders feel betrayed while housing advocates are puzzled by the prejudices of the so-called progressive environmentalists.
Homebuilders may see this as an unholy alliance because builders claim there are many governmental constraints already existing to hamper efforts to provide much-needed housing. Now with the "emergency listing" of the California Tiger Salamander as an endangered species, putting many housing development projects on ÒholdÓ in Sonoma County for the time being, many housing developers are fuming at environmentalists.
My previous piece pointed out how some Sonoma County housing advocates have made collaborative agreements with local chapters of large environmental groups in order to advocate for affordable housing. These groups all realize there is a serious need for more housing now and into the future. They are continuing to look for methods to get the housing built sooner than later
They want sufficient amounts of affordable housing to be produced for a number of reasons. Homebuilders and business people would probably agree with those reasons. The California Building Industry Association stated this month, "State policymakers need to do more to encourage housing production and to remove the obstacles that make new homes far more expensive than they have to be." They cite statistics from the California Department of Finance stating, "Nearly 230,000 new housing units have been needed each year during the past 12 years due to population growth, job creation and household formation." Yet last year only 164,000 homes and apartments were built, and this was the largest number since 1990 according to CBIA.
There is undoubtedly a housing shortage in Sonoma County, yet many of the various actors in this public policy drama cannot get their act together for the betterment of the community at large. Now is the time for reasonable, cooperative efforts to be undertaken to allow affordable housing to be built throughout Sonoma County. There needs to be a mechanism to help the builders find sufficient amounts of "buildable land" where housing can be built by right. This includes higher density, lower cost, housing units that can be built in spite of opposition from Not In My Back Yard critics, be they environmentalists or neighbors worried about property values.
The recent Local Economic Report for Winter 2003 by the Sonoma County Economic Development Board points out, "Housing affordability is at great risk. The housing affordability index is already at a nearly 10-year low due to rapid price appreciation and moderating income growth." The report emphasizes, "It would be even worse were it not for near record-low mortgage rates. When rates begin to rise, as they should later next year, this will cause affordability to deteriorate even further, generating some increased friction for the region’s economy."
Anyone concerned about the region’s economy realizes a housing shortage is counterproductive. Critics of affordable housing production with higher-density capacities have to understand the best way to save the environment may be to produce more higher-density housing within existing city limits. With that in mind I was surprised to see Sonoma County environmentalists did not show up in force to protest the proposed annexation of 350 acres of land in Healdsburg to build 60 homes for millionaires. Although, they may show up to protest the three acres to be used for high-density affordable housing to be built within the project because it will be built near an "environmentally sensitive area."
Builders rightly complain of the expensive fees placed on each unit of housing by the local governments. In some jurisdictions it may rise as high as $50,000 per unit. For a home for a millionaire such a fee may not have a negative impact, but for a simple home for a family of modest means it can mean all the difference in the world. That once affordable $150,000 home is out of reach at $200,000. While governments will continue to advocate for high fees because of the state budget crisis, there needs to be compromise between politicians, builders and residents of the community to get the housing built.
The only way to end a housing shortage is to increase the supply immediately and continuously into the future. In order to do that government has to make the land available by zoning for higher-density housing and allowing it to be built. Further, politicians need to freeze fees, if not cut them, and waive them for affordable housing projects so the marketplace will provide the product in a manner that realizes a fair rate of return on the builders’ investment.
Last, but not least, there will need to be cooperation between disparate groups such as "environmentalists" and builders so the needed housing gets built. Sometimes it will have to be built near areas that are environmentally sensitive. But if done in a thoughtful and concerned manner with community collaboration in the early stages of the planning process, plus supportive oversight of the finished product, we as a community will all come out ahead. Otherwise we are all in a losing environment in one way or another.
