ARTICLE
The “Where” & "For Whom” of Development As the cost of housing continues to escalate the recycling of election-season plans and pledges to create more “affordable” housing in Santa Cruz County stir some to action and many to cynicism. The center of this problem lies in two questions: Are we as a community willing to permit greater density? For whom will this housing be built? We are not without options. But virtually all of the larger scale residential developers in Santa Cruz County are regional businesses with many opportunities to invest their money; to attract their projects we must offer a competitive environment. Moreover, to affect average rents requires the thousands if not tens-of-thousands of new units. And to have a significant impact on the availability of below-market units requires many hundreds if not thousands of new units. (There are currently 10,124 families on the Waiting List for Section 8 vouchers). It is, frankly, not clear that the residents of Santa County and its cities want more housing. For virtually every project there is neighborhood resistance to increased housing density. Another measure is that even the candidates dedicated to developing more housing don’t talk much about creating zoning that guarantees increased density as a matter of right. The closest the City of Santa Cruz has come to such a policy is the proposal to revise downtown zoning – a particularly good if only partial solution to housing needs. Even the relatively modest density increases suggested by the corridor plan are, perhaps wisely, not the center of political campaigns for any candidate. While not picking a fight with neighbors during an election may be a sound strategy, astoundingly, some City Council candidates propose to fight the development of student housing on campus – believing this would stop university growth (it has not done so in the past) notwithstanding the possibility of reducing demand for housing elsewhere in the City. But, even assuming we could overcome the density constraints of current development process, the challenge of “for whom” continues to haunt Santa Cruz. Our housing prices are, to say the obvious, a reflection of the Bay Area / Silicon Valley market – out-commuters, retirees, second home owners, vacationers all of which place demand on our housing stock. In the absence of means to allocate housing to local workforce, not only are we unable to address price issues, but housing for those who are locally employed will continue to be difficult to find. One limited solution is being explored by local governments and large businesses – the creation of dedicated workforce housing for their employees. But this solves only a small part of the problem. There may be other creative options that could either directly or indirectly increase the availability of housing to local workers. But there are also legal constraints regarding fair rental practices that guarantee access without discriminatory conditions. These questions deserve some creative thought. Finally, it is important to note much of the existing subsidized / affordable housing in Santa Cruz County has been built with public subsidies that are no longer available. The days of multi-billion-dollar state and federal housing funds that provided millions to local projects like Nearly Lagoon, Arbor Cove, and El Centro are no longer available and unlikely to be re-enacted. The rest benefitted from funding generated by the Redevelopment Agencies, now dissolved by state action. In short, we are largely on our own. To solve the problem we must confront the underlying questions regarding housing – “where” and “for whom?”
The “Where” & "For Whom” of Development
As the cost of housing continues to escalate the recycling of election-season plans and pledges to create more “affordable” housing in Santa Cruz County stir some to action and many to cynicism. The center of this problem lies in two questions: Are we as a community willing to permit greater density? For whom will this housing be built?
We are not without options. But virtually all of the larger scale residential developers in Santa Cruz County are regional businesses with many opportunities to invest their money; to attract their projects we must offer a competitive environment. Moreover, to affect average rents requires the thousands if not tens-of-thousands of new units. And to have a significant impact on the availability of below-market units requires many hundreds if not thousands of new units. (There are currently 10,124 families on the Waiting List for Section 8 vouchers).
It is, frankly, not clear that the residents of Santa County and its cities want more housing. For virtually every project there is neighborhood resistance to increased housing density. Another measure is that even the candidates dedicated to developing more housing don’t talk much about creating zoning that guarantees increased density as a matter of right. The closest the City of Santa Cruz has come to such a policy is the proposal to revise downtown zoning – a particularly good if only partial solution to housing needs.
Even the relatively modest density increases suggested by the corridor plan are, perhaps wisely, not the center of political campaigns for any candidate. While not picking a fight with neighbors during an election may be a sound strategy, astoundingly, some City Council candidates propose to fight the development of student housing on campus – believing this would stop university growth (it has not done so in the past) notwithstanding the possibility of reducing demand for housing elsewhere in the City.
But, even assuming we could overcome the density constraints of current development process, the challenge of “for whom” continues to haunt Santa Cruz. Our housing prices are, to say the obvious, a reflection of the Bay Area / Silicon Valley market – out-commuters, retirees, second home owners, vacationers all of which place demand on our housing stock.
In the absence of means to allocate housing to local workforce, not only are we unable to address price issues, but housing for those who are locally employed will continue to be difficult to find.
One limited solution is being explored by local governments and large businesses – the creation of dedicated workforce housing for their employees. But this solves only a small part of the problem.
There may be other creative options that could either directly or indirectly increase the availability of housing to local workers. But there are also legal constraints regarding fair rental practices that guarantee access without discriminatory conditions. These questions deserve some creative thought.
Finally, it is important to note much of the existing subsidized / affordable housing in Santa Cruz County has been built with public subsidies that are no longer available. The days of multi-billion-dollar state and federal housing funds that provided millions to local projects like Nearly Lagoon, Arbor Cove, and El Centro are no longer available and unlikely to be re-enacted. The rest benefitted from funding generated by the Redevelopment Agencies, now dissolved by state action.
In short, we are largely on our own. To solve the problem we must confront the underlying questions regarding housing – “where” and “for whom?”