ARTICLE
A Call To Action Three decades ago, I had the privilege of working with US Congressman Tom Campbell for over a decade (1988-2000). It was one of the most challenging and rewarding jobs of my career. As a director of his office, I learned how the federal government works from the inside. It sometimes is messy, bureaucratic, and in three words —a slow churning machine. However, good government only works when the right people take charge and lead. After the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake destroyed hundreds of homes in Santa Cruz County and throughout the Bay Area, housing became our primary constituent issue. Helping people rebuild their destroyed homes while at the same time assisting in finding temporary housing for many of them. Sound familiar? Exactly, what we face today. In early 1990, Congressman Campbell invited Jack Kemp, the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) to come to his congressional district to discuss federal housing policy and how HUD could help. Kemp toured several communities in the district from East Palo Alto and Los Gatos, to the Summit area of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara Counties, and down into the City of Santa Cruz as well. Kemp listened to each communities’ concern and took those ideas back to Washington DC with a plan. All you need to know about Jack Kemp was that he was a grinder of a professional football player having spent 13 years playing quarterback in the National Football League (NFL) before beginning his political career. Jack Kemp never gives up and never wavers from an issue. To get a perspective on how Kemp operated, take a quick read of this article by Timothy L. Coyle: https://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2020/09/when-it-comes-to-housing-jack-kemp-had-good-ideas/ What does Mr. Coyle know about Jack Kemp and housing? Coyle was a special assistant to Secretary Kemp back in the 1990s and was the point of contact for us during the Secretary’s visit. In Coyle’s own words, “Kemp cared about market-rate, middle-class housing as much as he did about the multifamily kind, as well. While at HUD, he gathered experts from around the country to investigate regulations — federal, state and local — affecting affordable housing production. He then published a guide featuring the barriers found by this group along with their many recommendations for reform. Those findings and life-long remedies can be found in what’s known as The Kemp Commission report.” “If California legislators and local government leaders are truly interested in fixing the our housing problems would be well-advised to read the report [known officially as the report of the federal Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing]," concluded Coyle. The report points out: “For example, one of the most widespread and serious regulatory barriers to housing affordability consists of local zoning codes that exclude almost all moderate or high-density housing developments, including most multifamily housing. The commission’s recognition that such zoning raises housing costs certainly did not mean the commission was opposed to all zoning per se, as some of its critics have inferred. On the contrary, the commission believed that zoning codes can and do serve legitimate purposes and should be part of every local government’s regulations. But such codes sometimes have the effect—whether intentional or accidental—of raising housing costs substantially beyond the levels that the commission believed were morally defensible from the viewpoint of society as a whole.” Having worked in the home building industry myself for several years (2005-2009), we followed a strict timeline to get projects built from entitlement to production and to the market. We developed projects for both market rate and affordable housing rates. Timing is an essential factor that can be beneficial or detrimental to your project. The regulatory process could add anywhere from 25-40% of the overall cost of a project. The Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing lists 17 items where regulatory environment adds to the cost of housing development. You can find the list on page 1102 of the report. Why make all the fuss about a 1990 housing report? Well, in simple terms we haven’t taken the opportunity to dust off the pages of that document to respond to our housing crisis. In 2017, the Chamber led a group of community leaders to seven bay area cities on how each community addressed their housing needs. This sparked action in Santa Cruz. With all good intentions regarding the subject of housing, former Mayor Cynthia Chase led the charge to produce a wonderfully detailed 47-page report and added some 90 recommendations. You can read it here: Santa Cruz Voices on Housing. That listening tour included a large public engagement process. You would have thought the inertia to move on housing would produce the level of housing projects we need using that blueprint document as guide. However, Santa Cruz is wrapped up in obligatory public engagement meetings, debating every detail of every project and insisting on more layers of regulations that slow, delay and at times eliminate a project completely. Now comes the kicker: In 2017, following the Santa Cruz Voices on Housing report, the City Council created a Council subcommittee to assess and prioritize housing recommendations identified by the community. They were based around specific housing policy changes to help address the housing crisis. Specific recommendations prioritized by the subcommittee related to the downtown include the following: > Identify City-owned parcels that could be used for housing development with particular attention to City parking lots > Focus resources and staff to encourage construction or approval of units Downtown with a specific focus on enabling projects in the current development pipeline to break ground > Update the downtown parking resolution to modify parking standards for residential development including in-lieu fee ratios and allowances for off-site parking to increase affordability and efficiency of land Where does this leave the City of Santa Cruz? It requires moving projects through the development pipeline as quickly and efficiently as possible complying with the regulatory process. One such project, the Downtown Mixed-Use Library Project sits on the edge with a ticking timeline to utilize the bond funds that the voters approved in 2016. The project had received approval by city council in December 2018, which seemed ready to move forward the following January. On June 24, 2020, after a two year delay, the Council again re-approved the project. Read more about the action here: https://web.santacruzchamber.org/news/newsarticledisplay.aspx?ArticleID=1863. Here we are three years later; the community has failed to build an affordable housing project and a downtown library. It is not for the lack of trying by the city staff and the housing community. The fundamental flaw lies at feet of the vocal NIMBY minority who shout from their roof tops, at city council meetings and now zoom recorded meetings asking the same questions and pointing to the same issues that have been discussed and addressed by city staff. On October 11, the City Council will once again take up the item related to the Owner’s Representative Contract for the Downtown Mixed-Use Library Project. On September 22 this was the result on the item to Award a Contract for Owner’s Representative Contract to Griffin Structure. Motion carried to: > Continue this item to the first meeting in October, but no later than the second meeting of October, and > Direct staff to provide in the report general broad-based financial information on costs and available funding for both affordable housing and parking components of this project, a copy of the proposed contract, information on potential developers of affordable housing, and links to relevant information on the library project. There will be question upon question that will be asked again on the merits of this contract, and substantial staff and consultant time to respond to those in our community who do not favor some aspect of the project. That is the nature of a messy, bureaucratic and a slow churning machine. Here, we wait for the Downtown Library and an Affordable Housing Project that sits on the edge of father time with bond funds laying in the balance. Let’s hope that good government prevails, and leaders step up.
A Call To Action
Three decades ago, I had the privilege of working with US Congressman Tom Campbell for over a decade (1988-2000). It was one of the most challenging and rewarding jobs of my career. As a director of his office, I learned how the federal government works from the inside. It sometimes is messy, bureaucratic, and in three words —a slow churning machine. However, good government only works when the right people take charge and lead.
After the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake destroyed hundreds of homes in Santa Cruz County and throughout the Bay Area, housing became our primary constituent issue. Helping people rebuild their destroyed homes while at the same time assisting in finding temporary housing for many of them. Sound familiar? Exactly, what we face today.
In early 1990, Congressman Campbell invited Jack Kemp, the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) to come to his congressional district to discuss federal housing policy and how HUD could help. Kemp toured several communities in the district from East Palo Alto and Los Gatos, to the Summit area of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara Counties, and down into the City of Santa Cruz as well. Kemp listened to each communities’ concern and took those ideas back to Washington DC with a plan. All you need to know about Jack Kemp was that he was a grinder of a professional football player having spent 13 years playing quarterback in the National Football League (NFL) before beginning his political career. Jack Kemp never gives up and never wavers from an issue. To get a perspective on how Kemp operated, take a quick read of this article by Timothy L. Coyle: https://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2020/09/when-it-comes-to-housing-jack-kemp-had-good-ideas/
What does Mr. Coyle know about Jack Kemp and housing? Coyle was a special assistant to Secretary Kemp back in the 1990s and was the point of contact for us during the Secretary’s visit. In Coyle’s own words, “Kemp cared about market-rate, middle-class housing as much as he did about the multifamily kind, as well. While at HUD, he gathered experts from around the country to investigate regulations — federal, state and local — affecting affordable housing production. He then published a guide featuring the barriers found by this group along with their many recommendations for reform. Those findings and life-long remedies can be found in what’s known as The Kemp Commission report.”
“If California legislators and local government leaders are truly interested in fixing the our housing problems would be well-advised to read the report [known officially as the report of the federal Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing]," concluded Coyle.
The report points out: “For example, one of the most widespread and serious regulatory barriers to housing affordability consists of local zoning codes that exclude almost all moderate or high-density housing developments, including most multifamily housing. The commission’s recognition that such zoning raises housing costs certainly did not mean the commission was opposed to all zoning per se, as some of its critics have inferred. On the contrary, the commission believed that zoning codes can and do serve legitimate purposes and should be part of every local government’s regulations. But such codes sometimes have the effect—whether intentional or accidental—of raising housing costs substantially beyond the levels that the commission believed were morally defensible from the viewpoint of society as a whole.”
Having worked in the home building industry myself for several years (2005-2009), we followed a strict timeline to get projects built from entitlement to production and to the market. We developed projects for both market rate and affordable housing rates. Timing is an essential factor that can be beneficial or detrimental to your project. The regulatory process could add anywhere from 25-40% of the overall cost of a project.
The Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing lists 17 items where regulatory environment adds to the cost of housing development. You can find the list on page 1102 of the report.
Why make all the fuss about a 1990 housing report? Well, in simple terms we haven’t taken the opportunity to dust off the pages of that document to respond to our housing crisis. In 2017, the Chamber led a group of community leaders to seven bay area cities on how each community addressed their housing needs. This sparked action in Santa Cruz. With all good intentions regarding the subject of housing, former Mayor Cynthia Chase led the charge to produce a wonderfully detailed 47-page report and added some 90 recommendations. You can read it here: Santa Cruz Voices on Housing. That listening tour included a large public engagement process. You would have thought the inertia to move on housing would produce the level of housing projects we need using that blueprint document as guide. However, Santa Cruz is wrapped up in obligatory public engagement meetings, debating every detail of every project and insisting on more layers of regulations that slow, delay and at times eliminate a project completely.
Now comes the kicker: In 2017, following the Santa Cruz Voices on Housing report, the City Council created a Council subcommittee to assess and prioritize housing recommendations identified by the community. They were based around specific housing policy changes to help address the housing crisis. Specific recommendations prioritized by the subcommittee related to the downtown include the following:
> Identify City-owned parcels that could be used for housing development with particular attention to City parking lots > Focus resources and staff to encourage construction or approval of units Downtown with a specific focus on enabling projects in the current development pipeline to break ground > Update the downtown parking resolution to modify parking standards for residential development including in-lieu fee ratios and allowances for off-site parking to increase affordability and efficiency of land
Where does this leave the City of Santa Cruz? It requires moving projects through the development pipeline as quickly and efficiently as possible complying with the regulatory process. One such project, the Downtown Mixed-Use Library Project sits on the edge with a ticking timeline to utilize the bond funds that the voters approved in 2016. The project had received approval by city council in December 2018, which seemed ready to move forward the following January. On June 24, 2020, after a two year delay, the Council again re-approved the project. Read more about the action here: https://web.santacruzchamber.org/news/newsarticledisplay.aspx?ArticleID=1863.
Here we are three years later; the community has failed to build an affordable housing project and a downtown library. It is not for the lack of trying by the city staff and the housing community. The fundamental flaw lies at feet of the vocal NIMBY minority who shout from their roof tops, at city council meetings and now zoom recorded meetings asking the same questions and pointing to the same issues that have been discussed and addressed by city staff.
On October 11, the City Council will once again take up the item related to the Owner’s Representative Contract for the Downtown Mixed-Use Library Project. On September 22 this was the result on the item to Award a Contract for Owner’s Representative Contract to Griffin Structure. Motion carried to: > Continue this item to the first meeting in October, but no later than the second meeting of October, and > Direct staff to provide in the report general broad-based financial information on costs and available funding for both affordable housing and parking components of this project, a copy of the proposed contract, information on potential developers of affordable housing, and links to relevant information on the library project.
There will be question upon question that will be asked again on the merits of this contract, and substantial staff and consultant time to respond to those in our community who do not favor some aspect of the project. That is the nature of a messy, bureaucratic and a slow churning machine. Here, we wait for the Downtown Library and an Affordable Housing Project that sits on the edge of father time with bond funds laying in the balance. Let’s hope that good government prevails, and leaders step up.