Think tank explained CA’s affordable housing debacles long ago

Think tank explained CA’s affordable housing debacles long ago

affhousingA weekend story about the gross failure of affordable housing policies in San Francisco contained plenty of public frustration and official consternation. But it also is one more example of the very shallow way this issue is almost always covered by California journalists, which means they are part of the problem. Here are the story’s key details:

When real estate developer Forest City began construction on a new apartment complex at 2175 Market St., it announced that it would build more affordable units than required by the city — 20 percent instead of 12.

The response was overwhelming. Forest City put a booth in the lobby of the building — chosen because it is centrally located, near public transit and well-recognized — and handed out more than 6,800 applications.

For 18 apartments.

Despite the odds, 2,595 individuals and families completed and returned the eight-page application. Their names were put in a lottery to draw 400 finalists.

Four hundred names for 18 apartments, 11 of them one-bedrooms.

CA’s piecemeal approach to affordable housing can’t work

This article bridles with barely disguised journalistic anger over the failure of local and state government to deal with affordable housing concerns.

Doug Shoemaker, president of the California branch of Mercy Housing, an affordable housing nonprofit, says this is the worst market he’s ever seen. Mercy just opened a 100-until affordable housing building for families at Fourth and Channel Streets. There were 2,995 applications.

“The demand is just intense,” he said. “It was a horrifying reminder of just how hard it is. I’ve been in this field for 20 years and for people looking for apartments this is the most depressing market I have ever seen. It is painful to watch any of it, but what horrifies us most is the homeless families.”

Sara Osaba, a single parent, can’t get over the irony. A former UC Berkeley student, she moved back to San Francisco from Vermont, where she was working for nonprofits, helping low-income immigrants.

“I’ve worked 30 years helping immigrant families find housing,” she said. “Now I’m one of those families. I’ve gone from being a contributing member of society to being essentially homeless.”

State emphasizes process, not results

But any anger should extend to California’s government beat reporters for the complete absence of context in their coverage of this issue. The starting point for understanding why the state is so bad on this big issue is a 2003 Public Policy Institute of California report. I wrote about it last year when analyzing a San Diego affordable housing policy fight with the same dumb dynamics as San Francisco’s:

The study cited profound flaws in the state’s primary affordable-housing law. It forces cities to plan for needs that are much more appropriately addressed on a regional level. It emphasizes process — laborious long-term planning — over results — more housing units.

The PPIC analysis identified high-cost states with similarities to California that had significantly more success with affordable housing. In New Jersey, the “builder’s remedy approach” gives developers concessions in return for helping a community meet its affordable-housing obligations. Giving developers a profit motive has yielded “far more housing units” than previous policies. California’s version of this approach is much more constrained.

In Massachusetts, the state radically simplified the approval process for residential projects in which at least one-quarter of the units had “long-term affordability restrictions.” To limit NIMBYism, developers can appeal permits rejected at the local level to a state board.

We say heed the PPIC instead of embracing a failed status quo. It’s foolish for the city to try to address a problem that needs a regional approach and a much smarter conceptual framework. Instead of a massive increase in the “linkage fee,” the City Council should pass a resolution imploring the governor and the Legislature to fix state law — one so flawed that it gets in the way of fixing the problem it is supposed to resolve.

Wouldn’t it be nice if sabermetrics of a sort came to public policy reporting, complete with analytics examining what the effects of well-meaning laws actually were? If this did happen, the idiocy of state affordable housing policies would be obvious and maybe then they would be changed.

Instead, in California, we have affordable housing dealt with in the worst possible way — by individual local governments that obsess with process, instead of with a coordinated, sophisticated state-run program, as seen in New Jersey and Massachusetts, that emphasize results.

Do reporters ever mention this? Nope. They’d rather be indignant than get to the bottom of why they’re indignant.

13 comments

Write a comment
  1. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 10 November, 2014, 10:41

    Ah come on. Let’s use some common sense here. If you’ve chosen a career as a fry basket shaker at Burger King you have no business living in San Francisco where the cost of living has always been super high. Move to Eureka, Indio, San Berdoo, Temecula, etc.. if you want to live on the cheap and stretch your dollar. Besides, if it was really so unaffordable to live in SF all the fast food joints would have to close their doors due to a lack of willing workers. If they can’t pay the rent you know what happens…. government pays it for them with Section 8, etc…. I don’t eat at 5 star restaurants because I can’t afford it. Should we make new laws that force 5 star restaurants to serve the underclass at heavily discounted rates? Is that what you want our society to become? Why not write a blog complaining that a guy like me can’t afford to eat at 5 star restaurants and call for government intervention??? 😀

    Reply this comment
  2. Donkey
    Donkey 10 November, 2014, 14:30

    The government will never be able to build and maintain affordable housing as long as the RAGWUS exists. And why would the RAGWUS feeders care if housing was affordable? They don’t. All the feeders want out of housing is property taxes, higher and higher at that, and affordable housing doesn’t do that for them.

    If we did away with the “professional FF” dog and pony show and used the money saved from that specific welfare program we could build over 100,000 homes a year with the money saved, but the FF RAGWUS had too much of a hold on the politicians they own. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  3. Ted E Mind of your Godhead Ted
    Ted E Mind of your Godhead Ted 10 November, 2014, 18:23

    Duncey!

    Keep paying those taxes little buddy! or

    well

    you know—- JAIL!! lmao!

    Reply this comment
    • Donkey
      Donkey 10 November, 2014, 20:17

      Jail? You my little parrot will be lucky to avoid a lynching when the cards fold! 🙂

      Reply this comment
  4. Ted E Mind of your Godhead Ted
    Ted E Mind of your Godhead Ted 10 November, 2014, 18:24

    What if they sent me to hook ol Duncey up?

    Hmmmmmm

    Reply this comment
  5. Ted E Mind of your Godhead Ted
    Ted E Mind of your Godhead Ted 10 November, 2014, 21:13

    Bwahahahaha

    let me catch my breath! LMAO

    Reply this comment
  6. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 10 November, 2014, 21:54

    Had a old sound home on a big lot near Old Town Orange, California.

    Had prelims submitted for four more affordable housing units on the property. Adequate parking, landscaping, garages, a true upgrade for the street. Planning department approved it subject to the “Design Review Committee” approval….all caring local zealots.

    Well…..rejected.

    But if 60 k more was expended for some cute brick planters and 1920’s style driveway pavers and the obligatory expensive trees and shrubs …. ticket for final approval.

    I just laughed at them and walked out of the meeting. Threw away the plans.

    Years later. The property is a community eyesore among many in the immediate area. Actually, rather nasty by all measurements.

    Reply this comment
    • LetitCollapse
      LetitCollapse 11 November, 2014, 08:24

      Old Town Orange is a beautiful neighborhood. The properties I’ve seen there are impeccable. It’s like going back in a time machine and walking through neighborhoods in the 1940’s. The last thing Old Town Orange needs is ‘affordable housing’. That’s what causes neighborhood blight and deterioration faster than anything. There is all the ‘affordable housing’ you need right next door in Santa Ana. If you want to rent ‘affordable housing’ go there. Do you want to turn Old Town Orange into Santa Ana??? 🙂

      Reply this comment
      • Ted E Mind of your Godhead Ted
        Ted E Mind of your Godhead Ted 11 November, 2014, 09:11

        Collapso-Constipado–

        Mr. U said “NEAR” Old Towne Orange not “in” OTO—- Come on little buddy, wake up before posting!

        Hurry now !!

        Reply this comment
        • LetitCollapse
          LetitCollapse 11 November, 2014, 12:52

          Why make us guess? If somebody asked you ‘Where were you born?’ would you say ‘near San Diego’ if you were born in Oceanside? You liberals have a strange way of thinking. Obviously U-Haul wasn’t referring to Santa Ana. There you could dig a hole in the ground and cover it with a plastic tarp and call it ‘affordable housing’. lol. 😀

          Reply this comment
          • T
            T 13 November, 2014, 12:38

            LOL yet ANOTHER Collapso backpeddle ™ !

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Time to break up Los Angeles

March 8, 2013 By John Seiler Los Angeles obviously doesn’t work. The election of a new mayor, the first phase

It’s official: California now a Third World republic

Nov. 18, 2012 By John Seiler Dan Walters writes: “About a quarter-century ago, I wrote a book about California’s social,

Dallas editorial chortles over Toyota departing CA for Texas

Monday’s announcement that Toyota is moving its North American headquarters from Torrance to the suburbs of Dallas prompted the usual