|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Out of the 109 jurisdictions that make up the Bay Area’s nine counties, only 15 have passed compliant housing elements. Mountain View is now one step closer to getting on that exclusive list.
At an April 11 meeting, the Mountain View City Council approved the city’s draft housing element, a document that all cities in California must update every eight years. But this housing element cycle has been more intense than ever before – in part because there are now some serious consequences for cities that don’t get it done.
“This is much more challenging than it ever has been,” Council member Lucas Ramirez said of the housing element update process. “This cycle is just orders of magnitude more difficult.”
The state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) assigns each jurisdiction a number of housing units that must be built in the next eight years – also called the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). Jurisdictions must prove in their housing elements how they’ll get that development off the ground.
Mountain View’s RHNA number for this housing element cycle was higher than ever before, as was the case across the state. The city had to identify enough potential sites to accommodate more than 11,000 new housing units in the next eight years. In the final draft that council approved Tuesday night, the city asserts that it could reasonably build 16,000 units in the next eight years, giving Mountain View a healthy buffer above its RHNA requirement.
The deadline for cities to submit their housing elements to HCD was Jan. 31 this year, but as Ramirez pointed out, the vast majority of cities throughout the Bay Area’s nine counties have yet to do so.
“So every jurisdiction is struggling with this,” he said during the April 11 meeting. “And I’m optimistic that we’ll be among the first to actually have a compliant document within the (Bay Area) jurisdictions.”
As soon as the Jan. 31 deadline passed, the door for potential consequences opened. Cities without compliant housing elements face penalties like ineligibility for state grant funding. They must also contend with builder’s remedy, a stipulation of state law that allows developers to bypass a city’s zoning laws if that city is not in compliance with California’s housing development goals. In other words, developers can pursue projects with virtually no local oversight.
As of April 11, the city had received five potential builder’s remedy applications, city officials said. Those include:
• 2,200 apartment units proposed at 1500 N. Shoreline Blvd., which is currently home to the Century Cinema 16 movie theater. The project also includes a 100,000-square-foot fitness center, a hotel, and 13,300 square feet of ground-floor commercial space.
• 200 condo units proposed at 1920 Gamel Way.
• 85 condo units proposed at 294-296 Tyrella Ave.
• 385-unit, 12-story residential building proposed at 901 Rengstorff Ave. The proposal includes a lot line adjustment to retain the historic buildings on the site.
• 77 units of multi-family housing at 2645 Fayette Dr. that would replace a 6,900 square foot commercial building and six existing dwelling units.
Getting the council’s stamp of approval is only half the battle: Now, Mountain View’s housing element will head to Sacramento to see if HCD deems it in adherence with state housing law.
Until the city gains that certification, which is expected to take about two months, developers can still submit applications for builder’s remedy projects. If the state certifies the housing element draft, then any builder’s remedy projects submitted going forward would not have to be approved by the city. Only the proposals submitted before the April 11 council approval date would be locked in as builder’s remedy projects.
However, if the state rejects the city’s housing element, then the builder’s remedy door swings back open.
Mountain View’s housing element has already gone through multiple rounds of back-and-forth review with HCD, so city staff said they’re confident that the state will certify the latest draft.
The Environmental Planning Commission was the last city body to review the draft. Both staff and commissioners suggested a few revisions, and the housing element received enthusiastic support from the commission at the March 15 meeting. Some of those revisions included reducing park land fees, streamlining the approval process for affordable housing projects and eliminating minimum parking requirements for certain developments – all changes that aim to reduce housing development barriers, and thereby increase the likelihood of Mountain View’s housing element getting certified by the state.
The Mountain View City Council generally supported these changes at the April 11 meeting, and most council members were eager to pass the final draft. However, Council member Lisa Matichak expressed some qualms and said she was struggling to support the motion.
“I’ve certainly heard from a lot of residents, had conversations with them, and they are concerned about the RHNA number that we’ve been given. They wanted to protest it,” Matichak said. “They are not supportive of a lot of the programs that are in this housing element. And I guess I can’t disagree with them – it feels like this (the housing element) is more reflective of a group of incredibly organized, funded advocacy groups.”
But Matichak was the only council member in dissent: The council voted 6-1 to approve the housing element at the April 11 meeting.
“We are a housing-supportive community,” said Vice Mayor Pat Showalter before casting her vote. “And I think that this housing element reflects it.”
And the beat goes on … and the beat goes on … La-di-da-di-di … La-di-da-di-da …
ONCE AGAIN, the Voice fails to mention 6,000 of the 11,000 new housing units are supposed to be created for low income and average income workers.
History shows that we FAILED to meet ANY of the affordable housing targets for the last RHNA cycle. And NOTHING has changed to guarantee that we will meet the 6000 target going forward.
As long as we continue building 9 market rate units for every 1 affordable unit, a ratio that disproportionately benefits HIGH WAGE WORKERS, the housing crisis will continue for teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code. Isn’t that great? And now we will have less $$$ for parkland as the population expands. Yay! And strip the option of driving from low income people (because they won’t be able to own a car if they don’t have a parking spot in their “affordable” housing). Awesome!
Thanks to councilwoman Lisa Matichak for at least voicing objections to the unexplainable mandate of 11K that was handed down to MV by the State. And then our fine City Council raised that number to 16K, WITHOUT HAVING A PLAN ON THE TABLE to build even 6000 affordable units. Google must be thrilled.
“I’ve certainly heard from a lot of residents, had conversations with them, and they are concerned about the RHNA number that we’ve been given. They wanted to protest it,” Matichak said. “They are not supportive of a lot of the programs that are in this housing element. And I guess I can’t disagree with them – it feels like this (the housing element) is more reflective of a group of incredibly organized, funded advocacy groups.”
Another win for the YIMBYs. Now they can fight for 15 minute bubble, oops, I mean 15 minute city.
How did the state come up with a requirement for 11,000 new housing units in Mountain View. Did the state even consider the additional requirements for water, power, sewage treatment, and traffic management, and additional mass transit? Mountain View only indirectly influences the placement and type of electric power plants and other regional facilities. It appears the HCD plan did not make any sort of environmental impact assessment. Where is the water coming from for the new housing? Where is the additional electrical power coming from? Where is the new traffic going? I really don’t want Mountain View looking like Manhattan Island in New York City or even like Champs-Elysées in Paris.
I can understand your concerns about the affordability of new housing units in Mountain View. However, I would like to point out that the housing element plan, which aims to create 6,000 new housing units for low and average-income workers, is a step in the right direction.
I also understand your concerns about the city’s infrastructure, including water, power, sewage treatment, and traffic management, and additional mass transit. It is essential to consider the impact of new development on the city’s infrastructure, and I believe that the city and state are taking steps to address these concerns. Additionally, increasing access to affordable housing can help reduce traffic congestion by allowing people to live closer to their workplaces.
It is also important to note that the state’s requirement for 11,000 new housing units is based on population growth projections and the need to address the housing crisis in California. While it may seem like a daunting number, it is necessary to ensure that all residents have access to safe and affordable housing.
Finally, I would like to emphasize the importance of creating affordable housing for all members of the community, including teachers, service workers, and families. Access to affordable housing is a basic human right, and we must work together to ensure that everyone in our city has a place to call home.
Just an Observation
This all depends on whether it gets approved.
I feel there is about a 50/50 chance it will be rejected.
I wonder what will happen if it is rejected.
It would be great if future coverage of builder’s remedy projects mentioned the subsidized, affordable homes that will be built for low income families as part of the projects. The builder’s remedy projects, if approved by the city, would create nearly 3x more low income housing than the city built the entire last RHNA cycle. This is transformative
The Century Theater replacement project is for 2,019 units of housing up near Google and the 101 Freeway. It’s got over 400 affordable units but the real win is that the other units will probably be less expensive than most of the new apartment units built in the last few years.
This project should be welcomed even if the city manages to squirm out of the other smaller builder’s remedy projects some of which look highly questionable as to their desirability as a living unit.
I completely agree that the Century Theater replacement project is a welcome addition to the city’s efforts to increase access to affordable housing. However, I must disagree with the assertion that smaller builder’s remedy projects are questionable in terms of their desirability as a living unit.
Developers do not build homes that they do not expect people to live in. While some projects may have design flaws or may not be to everyone’s liking, it is important to remember that housing is a fundamental human need. Even smaller projects can make a difference in increasing the availability of affordable housing in the city.
Furthermore, the city has a responsibility to ensure that all new housing projects meet basic health and safety standards, regardless of their size. It is important to work with developers to address any concerns about the quality or design of new housing units, but it is not accurate to dismiss smaller projects as being questionable.
In conclusion, while the Century Theater replacement project is a significant step towards increasing access to affordable housing in the city, it is important to recognize that all new housing projects can make a positive impact. We should work together to support efforts to increase the availability of safe, affordable housing for all members of our community, regardless of the size or scope of the project.
Two millennia ago, the Romans were building sewers.
Six decades ago, America amazed the world by safely transporting humans to the surface of the moon and back.
I don’t accept the position that we simply aren’t capable of building sewer lines and other infrastructure necessary to sustain our cities for our children.
Keep in mind, multi-family homes use such a small proportion of California’s water. They have a much lower environmental impact than detached single family homes, which up until now is the only type of housing that was legal to build in much of our cities.
Let’s keep growing smartly and growing well into the future.
It always amuses me how the idyllic vision “wouldn’t it be nice if you, your elderly relatives, and your children could get to many of the places you need to go in 15 minutes or less, without always driving?” went through the reactionary fear-mongering media industrial complex and turned into “the New World Order is going to force you to remain inside your 15 minute bubble at all times.”
@Glen, I’ve asked for YEARS for an equation that would explain why MV is being asked to build such a ridiculous amount of housing. Result=crickets. Per Voice https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2021/08/16/mountain-view-seeks-to-update-housing-plans-following-new-requirement-to-allow-11k-new-homes
– “Despite being a smaller suburban city, [MV] is expected to build nearly the same amount of housing as Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, while other North County cities are being asked to build much less.”
– A letter sent by MV to ABAG “notes that [MV] is being asked to build the most housing, as a percentage of existing households, in the region among cities with more than 5,000 residents, and that it’s unclear how ABAG arrived at some of its numbers.”
Overlords in Sacramento have simply mandated these numbers. Democracy! I think Newsom is schmoozing with Google, he doesn’t mind throwing MV residents under the bus in order to gain such patronage. Other cities protested, our City Council is doing its utmost to comply. In fact, they even RAISED our target from 11K to 16K voluntarily, WITHOUT consulting residents! Fun fact: A scathing report about deficiencies in the RHNA process was issued by acting state auditor Michael S. Tilden. “Overall, our audit determined that HCD does not ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and adequately supported.” https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html
A story to explain our housing policy:
10 guys are invited to a conference. The 4 highest wage earners sit on the right of a room. The six lowest wage earners sit on the left. Dinner is a pizza sliced into 10 pieces. The 4 guys on the right are given 9 slices, the 6 guys on the left are given 1 single slice to share. YIMBYs don’t seem to notice or care that the guys on the right are getting TOO MUCH, the guys on the left are practically starving.
TRUTH: the new housing element will NOT solve the housing crisis for low and average income workers. Too bad, so sad. Nothing to see here folks, move along. And certainly don’t ask why the new housing element was mandated in the first place. That was then, this is now.
I understand that you are frustrated with the amount of housing being mandated for Mountain View, and that you believe the process for determining these numbers is flawed. However, I would like to address your statement that the new housing element will not solve the housing crisis for low and average income workers.
While it may not solve the housing crisis entirely, it is a step in the right direction. The fact that the Century Theater replacement project includes over 400 affordable units is a positive development, and the goal of the housing element is to increase access to housing for all people in Mountain View, including low and average income workers.
Furthermore, it’s important to remember that people don’t build homes they don’t expect people to live in, even for the smaller projects. The smaller builder’s remedy projects may not look desirable to some, but that doesn’t mean they won’t be livable for those who need them.
Finally, I understand your analogy of the pizza dinner and the wage earners, but I would argue that it oversimplifies the complex issue of housing affordability. The goal of the housing element is not to give everything to one group and nothing to another, but rather to increase access to housing for all people in Mountain View. The fact that there are more market rate units being built than affordable units is a reflection of the current housing market and the demand for housing in Mountain View. However, the housing element includes programs that aim to increase the supply of affordable housing, and it’s important to continue pushing for more affordable housing in the future.
If the trend so far can be trusted, the best way to meet the requirement of roughly 6000 affordable units is to extend the builders’ remedy. Almost 600 units proposed in just ten weeks!
So much effort has been put forward to ensure that we meet the RHNA target of 11K total units. We must comply with this demand from the State!
So LITTLE EFFORT has been put forward to ensure that we meet the RHNA target of 6000 affordable units. Why is it that we don’t need to comply with this demand too? Over half of the 11K units are supposed to be AFFORDABLE units, because over half the population of MV qualifies for and NEEDS affordable units. I think it’s called the “housing crisis”? Friends, the vast majority of households in MV are getting the short end of the stick with this “solution” to address the housing crisis.
“The builder’s remedy projects, if approved by the city, would create nearly 3x more low income housing than the city built the entire last RHNA cycle. This is transformative.”
Under builder’s remedy, the 4 guys on the right are given 8 slices of pizza, the 6 guys on the left are given 2 slices to share. Transformative? Really?
Make no mistake, the housing crisis will continue for low-income and average workers, for the simple reason that we have no plans to build enough affordable housing FOR THEM. You know, people like “teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code”. The folks that YIMBYs were supposedly fighting for. It was a pretty story, anyway, while it lasted.
It’s understandable to be concerned about the lack of affordable housing being built to address the housing crisis in Mountain View. While it’s commendable that efforts are being made to meet the RHNA target of 11K total units, it’s equally important to ensure that 6K are affordable for low and average-income workers. Extending the builders’ remedy to create nearly 3x more low-income housing than the city built in the entire last RHNA cycle is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough.
It’s true that the housing crisis will continue for low-income and average workers if there are no plans to build enough affordable housing for them. However, it’s important to acknowledge that the builders’ remedy projects can provide a significant boost to the affordable housing stock in the city. While it may not solve the problem entirely, it can make a substantial difference in the lives of those who are struggling to find affordable housing.
The analogy of the pizza may oversimplify the issue at hand. The builders’ remedy may provide more slices of pizza to those on the right, but it can also provide a few more slices to those on the left who are currently struggling to get even one slice. The ultimate goal should be to ensure that everyone has access to affordable housing, and the builders’ remedy can be a part of the solution.
Beyond the Century Theater replacement project, the reason I think the other projects are questionable due to undesirability is because I think the developer won’t easily get financing to invest in such undesirable projcts. SyWest has a good track record and this project for them is a $2 Billion order of magnitude. They have a better shot of financing that than some of the other proposals. Just because it can force approve doesn’t mean it gets built, in re the other locations with their ouotlandish characteristics. One for example claims to be “near downtown” when it is actually up past Middlefield close to 85. I don’t think viewing that as close to downtown makes any sense. Is that trailer park there considered close to downtown? I mean it could be further, but it’s not logically in a downtown type of neighborhood. They want no parking for the project and it’s not near any good transit either, not even that poorly delivering light rail line. So the moneybags will look a askance at that as an investment especially when so much else is underway in Mountain View including East Whisman AND the SyWest Century Theater project.
Just an Observation.
When we had record low interest rates developers still complained about not getting enough financing.
And now they are complaining it costs tooo much because if the interest rates.
This is a JOKE. The fact is that no one wants to build the diverse market needs of housing, they just want to build LARGE and LUXURY housing elements to try to make the biggest profit per unit.
And now the area is seeing population declines, new construction nearing completion. And these are likely going to wind up vacant.
I find it amazing that if the market provided the proper diverse housing proportions, which is 25% very low income, 25% low income%, 25% market rate for moderate quality, and 25% for luxury, the housing affordability “crisis” would not be here.
The current AMI statistic is misleading because it reports a $140K AMI per household but that was with a population of $1.8M and only 695K housing units, household average of 2.5 people. That means you need to divide the AMI by people to establish the REAL AMI per capita which is only $54k a year per person.
So developers need to build with a target income of 30% of that annually which is only $16k a year, to make sure they will have stable housing without the extra costs of people constantly moving in and out.
So if you want to prevent housing bubbles, you need to target that price regarding a mortgage too.
This areas market is tanking big time in rentals and home values. Redfin indicates a 11.9% price drop YOY. and that is PRIOR to the big price increase during 2022. This numbers are going to fall off a cliff. Rents are down 5.1% from Aug 2022.
And imagine inflation is still at at least 5% YOY. which means rental businesses have seen a 10% loss of income in the last 8 months.
The market is FORCING a major adjustment, but developers, real estate agents, and landlords are fighting it because they don’t have the knowledge to adjust BEFORE the worst part is kicking in.
Here is an example of rhetoric from a volunteer lead for MV YIMBY back in 2021:
“In most parts of the country, a couple consisting of a teacher and a police officer is middle class. Here, they’re hard-pressed to put a roof over their heads, let alone start a family. The plight of manual laborers is even worse: Society declared it “essential” that they come to work, but has never declared it essential that they have places to live. Despite building more homes in recent years, Mountain View now has 2 1/2 times as many jobs as households.” – https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2021/08/15/guest-opinion-in-support-of-sb-9
Notice how the plight of teachers, police officers, and manual laborers was put front and center, in this case to generate support for a bill to create more expensive, high end housing by allowing single family homes to be split into multiple lots.
Today, YIMBY concern for low-income and average workers has apparently evaporated. Why did they fight so hard for passage of a housing element that does not contain a PLAN to build 6000 affordable units? This question must be asked.
For at least two years, YIMBYs have cast themselves as “goodies”, and SFH owners as “baddies”. But the truth is that most YIMBYs are high wage earners who primarily want to help themselves by maximizing production of expensive, market rate housing. That is exactly what our new housing element will do: maximize the production of expensive, market rate housing. Winners include developers, Google, and high wage earners who naively think such production will drive high-end prices down.
Sorry, but those who feign concern for others in order to obtain benefits for themselves are not “goodies”.
Anyone who turns a blind eye to building housing at a rate of 9 market rate units for every 1 affordable unit is also turning a blind eye to the ONGOING CRISIS faced by low-income and average workers. Teachers, police officers, and manual laborers: take note at how YOUR PAIN has been exploited.
The YIMBY’s are going to see their weird hopes dashed though, because with these interest rates and locally declining job prospects for high earners, no matter what is in the housing element, there is going to be a failure to meet all this luxury market rate housing quota. It won’t result in cheaper market rate housing either, i.e. non luxury. The system has gotten dependent on the extra juice from making luxury housing and charging high rates. Having extra cost for interest rate is just going to make it even less likely that non subsidized housing will be built luxury or not.
On the other hand, we can hope that the subsidized affordable units will still happen. There’s a recognition on the need to pony up money to fund it and that has been happening recently more than ever before. It should slow some of the demolition on existing cheaper old market rate housing which will be good too.
It’s important to recognize that the issue of affordable housing is complex and multifaceted, and there are differing opinions on the best solutions to address the problem. While it’s true that some YIMBY advocates may be high wage earners who prioritize the production of market rate housing, it’s not fair to generalize and assume that all YIMBYs have abandoned concern for low-income and average workers.
Additionally, it’s worth noting that the production of market rate housing can have positive effects on the housing market as a whole, such as creating a greater supply of housing and reducing pressure on existing affordable housing units. However, it’s clear that a greater emphasis needs to be placed on the production of affordable housing units in order to truly address the ongoing crisis faced by low-income and average workers.
Finally, it’s encouraging to see increased recognition and funding for subsidized affordable units, and efforts to preserve existing affordable housing. These are important steps in the right direction, and it’s important that we continue to work towards finding solutions that address the needs of all members of the community.
“There’s a recognition on the need to pony up money to fund it and that has been happening recently more than ever before.”
From your lips to God’s ears! That is what I am fighting for. The problem is not zoning, the problem is FUNDING.
I still remember Li Zhang advocating for additional funding for affordable housing in last year’s City Council race, and YIMBYs condemning her for it, calling her a “residentialist” and her goal “vaporware”.
Then I remember council member Lucas Ramirez, a YIMBY darling, working magic to ensure that the opening created by Sally Lieber’s departure was not filled by a special election. https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/01/06/mountain-view-city-council-to-appoint-a-new-council-member-rather-than-conduct-a-special-election He was more worried about cost, supposedly $2 million, than preserving the DEMOCRATIC RIGHT of VOTERS to choose who governs. Lo and behold, Zhang was not the candidate chosen by CC to fill the empty seat. What a surprise.
On MV YIMBY site https://mvyimby.com/ they claim to present “a positive vision for housing in Mountain View.” Amazing. Casting anyone who disagrees with them as “NIMBYs” is a “positive” approach, eh? “We drive policy change to increase the supply of housing at all levels and bring down the cost of living in our thriving city.” These are nothing but carefully chosen, pretty words.
YIMBY advocacy disproportionately benefits high wage earners. The implementation of our new housing policy will disproportionately benefit high wage earners. I hate that. I want AFFORDABLE HOUSING in my backyard, not the stuff that YIMBYs are content to chase after. For two years I have heard them claim to advocate on behalf of “teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code.” It was all snake oil.
TRUTH: Anyone who turns a blind eye to building housing at a rate of 9 market rate units for every 1 affordable unit is also turning a blind eye to the ONGOING CRISIS faced by low-income and average workers.
It’s the wealthy YIMBY’s that are the force of the YIMBY cavalcade of support for developers and other profiteers off of housing construction. They give political donations to support the YIMBY advocacy and it’s the money that talks.
This trickle down theory of luxury apartments leading to more availability of abandoned units that were previously occupied by those newly ensconced in the deluxe new housing is quite flawed. A big reason for the flaw is that the apartment the movers previously occupied is likely to be located in a different city, perhaps quite far away from the one where they choose luxury and a shorter(?) commute. It makes more sense to argue that more subsidized BMR housing will reduce demand for the lower end of the market rate housing and fuel a drop in rents for that. The best way is to fund the mandates for BMR, which aren’t going to be built without funding. Try some trickle up. YIMBY would argue for that if they thought about it.
It is important to acknowledge that affordable housing is a critical issue facing many communities, and it is understandable to be frustrated with any policies or advocacy efforts that seem to disproportionately benefit high wage earners. However, it is worth noting that the housing element plan in question does include a plan to build 6000 homes affordable to low- and middle-income households. While it is true that the ratio of market rate units to affordable units in new developments can be concerning, it is also important to note that the builder’s remedy has already achieved an enormous number of homes affordable to low- and middle-income households.
Additionally, while there may be wealthy individuals who support YIMBY advocacy, it is important to recognize that YIMBY groups are comprised of a diverse array of individuals and organizations, many of whom are not wealthy and are genuinely committed to increasing housing affordability and accessibility for all.
Finally, it is also important to recognize the potential benefits of increasing overall housing supply. More subsidized affordable housing can certainly help reduce demand for lower-end market rate housing, but increasing overall housing supply can also help alleviate upward pressure on rents and housing prices more broadly. Ultimately, a multifaceted approach that includes increased funding for affordable housing mandates, increased housing supply, and other policy solutions is likely necessary to truly address the ongoing crisis faced by low-income and average workers.
“It’s the wealthy YIMBY’s that are the force of the YIMBY cavalcade of support for developers and other profiteers off of housing construction. They give political donations to support the YIMBY advocacy and it’s the money that talks.”
Agreed. You reminded me of an essay that I wrote back in 2021: “Guest opinion: Housing affordability bills’ math doesn’t add up” – https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2021/09/25/guest-opinion-housing-affordability-bills-math-doesnt-add-up
“Most everyone agrees there is a housing crisis in [MV] and nearby communities. Many are discouraged by having to pay enormous rents. Naomi Klein wrote “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism” to explain how, during times of crisis, questionable policies are often put forward to exploit the public. People in pain are distracted and willing to embrace “solutions” that are deeply flawed; their pain essentially hinders their ability to think clearly. I submit to you that under a banner of “affordable housing,” proposals are being put forward that will do little to lower rents for most people; these schemes will instead generate massive profits for developers and “Big Tech.””
I went on to explain the MATH that shows building large amounts of market-rate (expensive) housing will not bring down most rents in MV. “The true cause of unaffordable housing in the Bay Area is not a lack of supply, it is excessive demand. Most everyone who talks about a jobs/housing imbalance acknowledges this, perhaps unwittingly.”
I didn’t mention the other bit: for-profit developers don’t build AFFORDABLE housing because they don’t see a profit in it. They PREFER to build market-rate housing.
SFH owners have not been “blocking supply”, that’s a lie. The problem is that for-profit builders don’t build AFFORDABLE housing, because capitalism. Our shiny new Housing Element does not address that. A mandate from the State that will result in 11K new, mostly market-rate units is a DREAM COME TRUE for developers. Ka-ching!
Thank you for sharing your perspective and the essay you wrote on the issue of affordable housing in the Bay Area. I agree that the housing crisis in many communities is a complex issue, and building large amounts of market-rate housing alone may not address the problem of unaffordability for many people. While it is true that excessive demand is a significant contributor to high rents, I would argue that the lack of affordable housing options also exacerbates the problem. It is essential to build a mix of market-rate and affordable housing to address the needs of a diverse population.
Regarding for-profit developers, it is true that they are primarily focused on maximizing profits, and building affordable housing may not be as lucrative for them. That’s where government policies and incentives come in, such as the housing element’s plan for 6000 homes affordable to low- and middle-income households. Mandates and funding for affordable housing can help ensure that developers include affordable units in their projects and make them more accessible to those who need them.
While it is understandable to be skeptical of policies that may benefit developers, it is crucial to recognize that building more housing, both market-rate and affordable, is a necessary step towards addressing the housing crisis in many communities. The key is to ensure that affordable housing options are also included and made accessible to those who need them, so that everyone can have a safe and stable place to call home.
“I agree that … building large amounts of market-rate housing alone may not address the problem of unaffordability for many people.”
Thank you, this is at least a step in the right direction. For two years we have heard claims that building more housing “of any kind” is all we need. YIMBYs didn’t say “of EVERY kind”, they said “of ANY kind”. They argued that expensive market-rate construction was a good thing that would help everyone. People need to see that their words are carefully designed to inspire visions of puppies and rainbows. It is a clever political trick to say things in a way so that people “hear” things that are “not actually said”. YIMBY leaders are very good at it, and have gained much power as a result.
YIMBYS have delivered to us a Housing Element that will create lots and lots of expensive, market-rate units. They kept their promise! Too bad so sad at those who thought YIMBYs were sincere in their desire to help teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code. We all just “misunderstood”, you see? Another valuable term is “manufactured consent”.
Building tons of market-rate units does NOT help “everyone”, it certainly does not help homeless people who are forced to live in cars because we do not have enough AFFORDABLE housing, or homeless women who are forced to leave shelters because of sexual harrassment.
“I would argue that the lack of affordable housing options also exacerbates the problem.”
My essay was written to expose the truth that building more housing “of any kind” was (and is) a flawed strategy. I agree that “lack of affordable housing is a problem”, I have never argued otherwise. 6,000 of our 11,000 new housing units are supposed to be created for low income and average income workers. I hope you join me to keep this issue front and center before the City Council.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns about the Housing Element. I agree that it is important to focus on ensuring that all 11,000 homes in the plan are built, and if possible, even more. Access to affordable housing is crucial for present and future members of our community, and we must work together to ensure that these homes are accessible to everyone. It’s unfortunate that there has been a misunderstanding about the intentions of the YIMBY movement, but what’s important now is to focus on building affordable housing for those who need it most. I fully support your efforts to keep this issue front and center before the City Council, and I encourage the city to prioritize the construction of all the homes identified in the Housing Element.
Just an Observation,
Google just put a stop to San Jose, and is going to do the same here.
Well, I was warning people for years here.
Forget the Google housing elements, they are not going to happen.
If the Google plan was included in the report, it just got what is necessary for the state to reject it.