ARTICLE
There has always been a love/hate relationship between our local government and our State Capitol. We are eager to let our Governor and state legislators ‘help us’ when we face a disaster, but we shudder to think that Sacramento or Washington DC people understand the real needs back home. Well, we are about to see if the Democratic controlled state government will play nice or punch local government right in the mouth with a dose of reality. During his first budget speech, Gov. Gavin Newsom extended his palms as if balancing a scale, a theatrical gesture meant to underscore a theme. “Transportation is housing,” he said, “and housing is transportation.” Newsom announced an ambitious and controversial plan: He would withdraw gas tax money from cities if they don’t meet Regional Housing Targets that are set by the state but seldom enforced. Some applauded the governor’s bold approach to solve a deepening crisis. Others took his comments as the type of bravado that Newsom was known for as mayor of San Francisco and doubted his commitment to follow-through. Still, others viewed the governor’s demands as heavy-handed and unrealistic, fearing it will require them to deplete their general funds for road repairs. So here is the question for Santa Cruz County and our four cities who face the overwhelming task to create more housing. What do we do to now to change course when we have not kept pace with the state housing requirements for the last forty years? Today, unincorporated Santa Cruz County and our four cities are challenged to meet the growing gap between housing affordability and income disparity. Two years ago, the Chamber lead a community leader’s visit (CLV) to the Bay Area on a tour of seven cities that faced similar housing, transportation and homeless issues like we do here. That visit was an eye opener for the 70 community leaders who traveled with us. The learning tour provided us with ideas and potential directions of how other communities respond to these pressing issues. It is logical that our leaders should be the decision makers about local land use, housing and transportation issues. However, when the problem reaches such a magnitude we need to take bold steps to address our housing and transportation problems. If we don’t react now, we will see ‘big’ government swoop in with their response. Take the case of Senator Scott Wiener’s 2017 legislation (SB 35) signed into law last year. Senator Wiener said in a press release, “When 97 percent of cities are failing to meet their housing goals, it’s clear we need to change.” Last year, Senator Wiener attempted to add more incentives to the housing pie with density zoning near transit corridors. His effort was stopped cold when the senate committee killed the legislation. Now he is taking another bold step by re-introducing that legislation (SB 50). SB 50 will require a city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a developer seeks and agrees to construct a residential development that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project. The issues in our region reflect a larger problem: a dearth of housing statewide, with the number of new homes failing to keep pace with population growth. State housing department data from June 2018 showed 96 percent of California’s 539 local governments are not meeting their housing goals as set by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. That includes Santa Cruz County and its four cities. That data shows that the pace of affordable housing, in particular, has failed to meet expectations locally. The state and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments set goals for the total number of housing units that must be added from 2014-2023 to meet the needs of people at different income levels locally, including a total target of 3,044 units in Santa Cruz County, 747 units in the city of Santa Cruz, 700 in Watsonville, 143 in Capitola and 140 in Scotts Valley. The disparity in the affordability of that housing is clear: While the city of Santa Cruz issued permits to meet 79 percent of its goal for above moderate-income housing, and 141 percent of its goal for moderate-income housing, it only issued permits for 30 percent of its low income housing goal and 14 percent of its very low-income housing goal. Capitola issued permits for 38 percent of above moderate-income housing but only 4 percent of moderate-income housing, and nothing for low and very low-income tiers. Watsonville issued permits for 4.5 percent of its low-income housing goal and 14 percent of its very low-income housing goal. In unincorporated Santa Cruz County, those numbers were 11 percent and 10 percent respectively. Scotts Valley has not submitted any annual progress reports to the state. The numbers collected by the state reflect building permits issued for housing, NOT the actual number of housing built or in construction. That housing may never be built for a variety of reasons, even though it’s counted for now as if it will be. Gov. Newsom and Sen. Wiener are taking on local governments’ role if our county and city leaders don’t step up. By taking away much needed transportation funding from local government via the gas tax (SB 1) and applying the planning tools in SB 50 — suddenly the challenge becomes crystal clear: city and county leaders must work together or face losing ownership of local land use decisions and much needed transportation funds. Yes, housing is transportation and transportation is housing. Let’s see how serious the Governor and the state legislature are in pushing this bold agenda forward. Let’s see how our local government leaders react.
There has always been a love/hate relationship between our local government and our State Capitol. We are eager to let our Governor and state legislators ‘help us’ when we face a disaster, but we shudder to think that Sacramento or Washington DC people understand the real needs back home. Well, we are about to see if the Democratic controlled state government will play nice or punch local government right in the mouth with a dose of reality.
During his first budget speech, Gov. Gavin Newsom extended his palms as if balancing a scale, a theatrical gesture meant to underscore a theme.
“Transportation is housing,” he said, “and housing is transportation.”
Newsom announced an ambitious and controversial plan: He would withdraw gas tax money from cities if they don’t meet Regional Housing Targets that are set by the state but seldom enforced.
Some applauded the governor’s bold approach to solve a deepening crisis. Others took his comments as the type of bravado that Newsom was known for as mayor of San Francisco and doubted his commitment to follow-through. Still, others viewed the governor’s demands as heavy-handed and unrealistic, fearing it will require them to deplete their general funds for road repairs.
So here is the question for Santa Cruz County and our four cities who face the overwhelming task to create more housing. What do we do to now to change course when we have not kept pace with the state housing requirements for the last forty years? Today, unincorporated Santa Cruz County and our four cities are challenged to meet the growing gap between housing affordability and income disparity.
Two years ago, the Chamber lead a community leader’s visit (CLV) to the Bay Area on a tour of seven cities that faced similar housing, transportation and homeless issues like we do here. That visit was an eye opener for the 70 community leaders who traveled with us. The learning tour provided us with ideas and potential directions of how other communities respond to these pressing issues. It is logical that our leaders should be the decision makers about local land use, housing and transportation issues. However, when the problem reaches such a magnitude we need to take bold steps to address our housing and transportation problems. If we don’t react now, we will see ‘big’ government swoop in with their response. Take the case of Senator Scott Wiener’s 2017 legislation (SB 35) signed into law last year. Senator Wiener said in a press release, “When 97 percent of cities are failing to meet their housing goals, it’s clear we need to change.”
Last year, Senator Wiener attempted to add more incentives to the housing pie with density zoning near transit corridors. His effort was stopped cold when the senate committee killed the legislation. Now he is taking another bold step by re-introducing that legislation (SB 50).
SB 50 will require a city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a developer seeks and agrees to construct a residential development that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project.
The issues in our region reflect a larger problem: a dearth of housing statewide, with the number of new homes failing to keep pace with population growth. State housing department data from June 2018 showed 96 percent of California’s 539 local governments are not meeting their housing goals as set by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. That includes Santa Cruz County and its four cities.
That data shows that the pace of affordable housing, in particular, has failed to meet expectations locally. The state and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments set goals for the total number of housing units that must be added from 2014-2023 to meet the needs of people at different income levels locally, including a total target of 3,044 units in Santa Cruz County, 747 units in the city of Santa Cruz, 700 in Watsonville, 143 in Capitola and 140 in Scotts Valley.
The disparity in the affordability of that housing is clear: While the city of Santa Cruz issued permits to meet 79 percent of its goal for above moderate-income housing, and 141 percent of its goal for moderate-income housing, it only issued permits for 30 percent of its low income housing goal and 14 percent of its very low-income housing goal.
Capitola issued permits for 38 percent of above moderate-income housing but only 4 percent of moderate-income housing, and nothing for low and very low-income tiers.
Watsonville issued permits for 4.5 percent of its low-income housing goal and 14 percent of its very low-income housing goal. In unincorporated Santa Cruz County, those numbers were 11 percent and 10 percent respectively.
Scotts Valley has not submitted any annual progress reports to the state.
The numbers collected by the state reflect building permits issued for housing, NOT the actual number of housing built or in construction. That housing may never be built for a variety of reasons, even though it’s counted for now as if it will be.
Gov. Newsom and Sen. Wiener are taking on local governments’ role if our county and city leaders don’t step up. By taking away much needed transportation funding from local government via the gas tax (SB 1) and applying the planning tools in SB 50 — suddenly the challenge becomes crystal clear: city and county leaders must work together or face losing ownership of local land use decisions and much needed transportation funds.
Yes, housing is transportation and transportation is housing. Let’s see how serious the Governor and the state legislature are in pushing this bold agenda forward. Let’s see how our local government leaders react.