Wouldn't it be nice to see this kind of reception everywhere...

Welcome committee welcomes homeless to their neighborhood
Monday, June 12, 2006DEBORAH FELDMAN / KING 5 News

SEATTLE - Pramila Jayapal says she'd rather have a building on an undeveloped corner south of the Columbia City neighborhood than an overgrown lot.

KING

The facility would ultimately host people with histories of living in emergency shelters.

So when she learned of a proposal to turn the spot into a facility to house 60 mentally ill and chronically homeless people, she says she was thrilled.

"Columbia City really has a history of welcoming diversity of all sorts into our neighborhood and I think that for that reason I think, I hope that we as a neighborhood will be really welcoming to people who need homes," she said.

So Jayapal and about two dozen of her neighbors formed a group called "Rainier Home" to help smooth the way for the construction of a sister facility to this one, created by the nonprofit group Downtown Emergency Service Center or DESC.

The group plans to volunteer with the buildings' residents after they move in, teaching art classes and gardening.

"If they have enough people to help to watch it and take care of it and people volunteer to help it will be helpful. I hate to see people living on the street," said Carol Phillips.

The facility proposed for this location would ultimately host people with histories of living in emergency shelters. The agency says it will screen out people who have been convicted of violent felonies or sex offenses.

But not everyone is thrilled. Some residents worry it will damage the progress this community has made in recent years.

"This will be nothing but an attraction to bring the drugs, the violence, the gangs and whatever else into the neighborhood," said Jon Daykin.

Despite detractors, the executive director of DESC says a welcoming group for the homeless is new, and humbling experience.

"If we're going to end homelessness, it requires the development of housing and when we develop housing they have to be in some neighborhood. and its really heartening to see more and more people in Columbia City open up and very pridefully accept this project," said Bill Hobson.

There are still numerous hurdles to be jumped, but groundbreaking for the facility is scheduled to take place next fall.

[ For another article about this amazing neighborhood, Click here: The Seattle Times: Local News: Neighbors welcome housing project for mentally ill homeless people ]

Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Plan

Santa Rosa is developing a "Station Area Plan" for the downtown area. It will include 3,200+ units of new housing, along with 300,000 sq.ft. of commercial and retail space and 200,000 sq.ft. of "civic" space. But the plan has some serious shortcomings. There's no mention of affordable housing. There's no mention of "green design" or other environmental concerns. While the plan's purpose is supposedly to encourage a walkable downtown, they want to take out the sidewalk on the south side of 3rd Street under the mall.
The plan has lots of nice drawings of "streetscapes" and "pocket parks," but main goal seems to be to tear down the existing City Hall and build a large "Performing Arts Center" in its place. Then they want to build a new, bigger City Hall nearby... all with public money. As with most of the "plans" coming out of City Hall these days, the people of Santa Rosa don't get much benefit. HAG has submitted a letter to the City Design Review Board expressing concerns about the new plan. Please take a look at the draft plan on the City of Santa Rosa Website -- and let the City Council know that downtown should be for everyone to enjoy, and the 3,000 units of new housing shouldn't be just for the wealthy. We'd like to see at least 20% of these new units be affordable to moderate income households, and 20% be affordable to lower income households.

REAL mixed use development

Here's a new Albertson's supermarket (along with a bank and other stores) with housing above and parking below in a mixed income neighborhood ( Fulton and Masonic ) in San Francisco... this should be the norm not the exception for commercial development in urban areas. Click on the photo to see a larger view...

Here's a new Albertson's supermarket with housing above and parking below at Fulton and Masonic in San Francisco... this should be the norm not the exception for commercial development in urban areas...

Mobilehome (frm 2/07 Wired)

Affordable housing good for the planet, group says

Rob Rogers IJ reporter Marin Independent Journal
02/01/2007
Affordable housing advocates are urging environmentalists to support the housing cause as a way to fight global warming.
"Almost everything we're doing with global warming goes back to land use," said Stuart Cohen, co-founder of the Transportation and Land Use Coalition, at a luncheon Thursday sponsored by the Ecumenical Association for Housing, now known as EAH Housing.
"Affordable housing residents have the highest use of public transportation, statistically, in the area," Cohen said. "All of you who are working for affordable housing will be able to look your children and grandchildren in the eye and say you did the most important thing possible to fight global warming."
Cohen and other speakers took aim at environmentalists and others who have blocked affordable housing developments in Marin County, such as a proposed Habitat for Humanity project in unincorporated Strawberry.
"What we have to do is change public opinion," said EAH chief executive Mary Murtagh. "We all know that what's cloaked in an environmental theme is really an antipathy to 'those people.' We hear it all the time. We're hearing it now in Tiburon. And it's a shame."
EAH Housing is one of the nation's largest nonprofit housing organizations, with offices in San Rafael, Fresno, San Jose and Honolulu. The group met at the Aldersgate United Methodist Church in Terra Linda.
Environmentalists should support mixed-use affordable housing developments - which combine residential and retail units - because people who live there tend to drive less and use public transportation more, Cohen argued.
"A recent study by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District says that transportation is responsible for 50 percent of the Bay Area's greenhouse gas emissions," said Cohen, whose organization campaigns on behalf of public transportation. "A lot of that is because of land use. It's difficult to get into or out of this area without using the auto. We have to do what we can to grow around public transit. Those who live less than half a mile from public transportation are four times or more less likely to own a car."
According to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, low-income residents take half as many car trips per day as high-income residents, and own an average of 1.35 vehicles, in contrast to high-income residents' 2.45.
Cohen urged Marin leaders to push for a reduction in the parking requirements for affordable housing developments, encouraging residents to use public transportation.
"Our current planning codes present the biggest obstacle to placing a lot of affordable housing near transportation," Cohen said.
Another obstacle to affordable housing comes from neighbors who claim the developments will lower their property values - a contention disputed by speaker Lynn Sedway.
"There is no measurable difference between property value escalations whether the property is close to affordable housing or not," said Sedway, a market analyst for the Sedway Group, a consulting firm with offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Sedway authored Marin's zoning ordinance that requires a certain percentage of homes be affordable.
"What we talk about as low- or moderate-income housing in Marin is really workforce housing for the journalists, scientists, firefighters and police who live here. Those owners tend to take an active role in their homeowners associations, and there's never been a problem in terms of integration with other home-owners."
Sedway based her statements on a host of recent academic studies, including a 2003 study by Virginia Tech University and a 2002 study by the University of Wisconsin that suggest properties near low-income developments may actually increase in value.
The need for affordable housingguz is acute, Sedway said, because the median housing price in the county has grown from $499,000 in 2000 to nearly $1 million last year. While 39 percent of Marin's population could be classified as "low" or "very low" income, only 7 percent of the homes built between 1999 and 2005 are available to them, she said - the lowest affordable housing percentage in the Bay Area.
"I'm shocked at what's going on in Tiburon," Sedway said. "People talk about the traffic impact (of affordable homes), but there's actually less of a traffic impact with affordable homes because there are fewer cars. People should be ashamed of themselves."
Sedway's words resonated with Strawberry resident Susan Crosier, even though she objected to having her neighborhood described as being part of Tiburon.
"I live on Eagle Rock Road (the site of the proposed Habitat for Humanity project), and it has nothing to do with Tiburon or its government," Crosier said. "There are definitely people who don't want the development, but there are also those of us who support it."
Crosier said she'll try to convince her neighbors to support the project.
"There are four widows at the end of the street who have been worried about their property values," Crosier said. "They'll find this information helpful."

Marin Nimbies Target Habitat Homes

MARIN COUNTY
Habitat for Humanity faces fight in wealthy community
- Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, January 25, 2007

A group of residents in the pricey Marin County community of Strawberry are mobilizing against an affordable housing plan by the renowned charity Habitat for Humanity, saying it would blight their neighborhood.

The group is convinced that the plan to build four three-bedroom units of low-income housing in their neighborhood would result in increased traffic and parking congestion and lower property values.

About three dozen residents who live near the proposed construction site -- 16.5 acres just west of the Tiburon city limits -- are attempting to raise $100,000 for legal fees to challenge the project, which still must be approved by the county Planning Commission.

"Habitat for Humanity goes into blighted neighborhoods and fixes them up. Here they are going into an enhanced neighborhood and blighting it," said Bill Duane, a 58-year-old resident of Bay Vista Drive, near the proposed site. "I'm not against low-cost housing, but this is social engineering. The county does not have the right to choose my neighbors."

Such a ruckus is not unusual in Marin, where homeowners have been notoriously hostile to development, especially the kind that threatens to lower the value of their property. But the charity made famous by former President Jimmy Carter would seem an unconventional target.

About 100 Strawberry residents packed a recent Strawberry Design Review Board meeting. They said they support, and in some cases have participated in, the charity's work, but do not believe the development will fit into their neighborhood, where most homes are worth between $1 million and $2 million.

"The homes are of a certain type and would not fit in. The placement of these homes would really stand out," said Alan Krepack, 54, a management consultant who has lived on Bay Vista Drive for 18 years. "There are other places in the county where low-cost housing would be more appropriate."

Habitat officials said they were surprised by the vehemence of the opposition.

"I think NIMBYism is a convenient term and it may well fit in this case, but it is also fear of the unknown," said Phillip Kilbridge, executive director of Habitat's San Francisco chapter.

The project, at the intersection of Eagle Rock and Knoll roads and Bay Vista Drive, originally did not include any low-cost housing. The San Francisco developer, Pan Pacific Ocean Inc., wanted to divide the property into seven parcels and build three large homes to be sold on the open market. But the county requires developers that create two or more market-rate residences to also include some affordable housing.

After learning about the affordable housing requirement, the developer contacted Habitat for Humanity, a nondenominational Christian charity that has built homes for the poor in 88 countries and in more than 1,600 U.S. cities.

The plan now is to build four additional units, each a little over 1,400 square feet, with single-car garages. The buildings would be designed to look like two separate Craftsman-style homes, and each unit would be affordable to a family of four with an annual income of $56,000 or less. Each future homeowner would be required to put in 500 hours of "sweat equity" helping build their home.

"We believe that our model for developing homeownership with sweat equity is perfect for Marin County," Kilbridge said. "I would hope we would be able to partner with the neighbors so we can build a development that all parties would appreciate."

No development would be the best alternative, said several neighbors, but if it must be done, then it should at least comply with county guidelines, which require only one unit of affordable housing, not four.

"I'm perfectly willing to go along if the proposal complies with the guidelines, but it doesn't," said Dan Veto, 41, who lives on Bay Vista Drive. "I would be concerned if they were proposing to build four market-rate homes at that intersection. It's a very, very busy intersection."

Veto and others said the development would exacerbate traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood and destroy a valuable stretch of open space.

"They are getting rid of the last connection to open space that we have here," Duane said. "There are 50 different species of wildlife in this property."

It has long been the goal of county administrators and politicians to increase the amount of affordable housing in Marin, where the median price of a home is about $850,000. The high cost of housing, say housing officials, has left teachers, firefighters, police officers and other relatively low-wage workers with no place to live in the county.

"The need for workforce housing in Marin is very great," said Johanna Patri, principal planner for the Marin County Community Development Agency. "We support affordable housing."

But Patri said it has been exceedingly difficult to find any place to squeeze in low-cost housing outside of the predominantly African American enclave of Marin City and the largely Latino neighborhood of San Rafael known as the Canal area.

The reception in Marin has been so hostile that a county chapter of Habitat for Humanity disbanded in the late 1990s because the volunteers could not get any low-income housing projects off the ground, Kilbridge said.

"The argument that affordable housing lowers property values is a specious argument," Kilbridge said. "It doesn't hold water."

He said it is "a shame" that residents would raise $100,000 in an attempt to keep less fortunate families out of their neighborhood.

"Do you know how many nails that could buy?" Kilbridge asked. "To us that's a lot of money that could be of such incredible use to the community."

Residents say the Strawberry area already has enough affordable housing. Seven affordable housing units have been developed there in the past 10 years, including five rental units for employees in the nearby Strawberry shopping center.

"The idea that everybody is entitled to an affordable house wherever they want one is not valid," Duane said. "I would like to live in Cannes. I would like to live in Palm Beach. Everybody's got wishes, but that's not the way life is."

ABAG Numbers

HAG sent this letter to the Assocciation of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG") recently concerning their Regional Houisng Needs ("RHNA") allocation process.

Re: Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology

Dear Executive Board,

The Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group is a voluntary grass roots organization which promotes affordable housing development, and increased housing opportunities for persons with special needs such as seniors, persons with disabilities, farmworkers and homeless persons. We are writing to comment on the draft RHNA methodology recommended by the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) and ABAG Staff.

The process is underway to determine the regional housing needs allocations ("RHNA") for various jurisdictions within the area served by ABAG. We have reviewed the preliminary RHNA figures for Sonoma, Napa and Marin Counties, and are very concerned by what we see.

The big ABAG cities -- San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco -- are allocated huge increases in their RHNA numbers for the 2009-2016 planning period. These cities are being given approximately double their previous (1999-2009) housing needs allocation. Sonoma County, on the other hand, is tentatively allocated a substantial reduction in RHNA, even though job growth and population growth in the county is not predicted to drop by comparison with the previous planning period.

The unincorporated areas of Sonoma County are seeing a huge cut -- going from 6,799 total RHNA units for the 1999-2009 planning period down to 1,320 total units in the draft allocation for the 2009-2016 planning period. Similar cuts are in the works for Napa County. Marin County has always had low RHNA numbers.

This is troubling for several reasons. There is very little developable land in Oakland, San Francisco or San Jose. There is no basis to expect those cities can or will substantially increase production of housing -- particularly housing affordable to lower income households.. So the units just aren't going to get built... no matter how high their RHNA numbers are set. On the other hand, there's a fair amount of vacant land available for higher density development in areas of Sonoma, Marin and Napa Counties that are already served by water/sewer. These counties can and should provide housing with a range of affordabilities to accommodate expected job growth and population growth over the 2009-2017 planning period.

"Smart Growth" means that for every new job in Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties, there should be new housing built that is affordable to the employee filling that job. People working in Marin should be able to live there, and not have to commute from Oakland. Farmworkers in the expanding Napa vineyards should not have to commute an hour over the mountains from Lakeport to get to their jobs. Sonoma County teachers should be able to live in Sonoma County.

ABAG, like all the COGS, gives little jurisdictions a disproportionately large say in how the RHNA pie is cut up. The little jurisdictions and unincorporated areas are the most resistant to development of affordable housing, so they've apparently pushed as much of it as possible off somewhere else. The high priced towns -- Sonoma, Tiburon, Calistoga, Sebastopol, St. Helena, Mill Valley -- should not be allowed by ABAG and HCD to duck providing housing affordable to low and moderate income households. They generally have an abundance of sites, good schools, and other infrastructure. They should get RHNA allocations which recognize their capacity to absorb at least the same amount of growth as the region in general.

People who work in Sonoma, Napa and Marin County -- whether the jobs are new ones or old ones -- should be able to live in those counties in housing they can afford. They shouldn't have to live in Oakland or San Jose. But these new numbers carry the message that local governments in Sonoma, Napa and Marin don't have to provide more housing for lower income households; rents will go up; people will be forced to commute long distances or live in overcrowded or substandard conditions.

We believe that ABAG's tentative numbers will, if finalized, seriously limit the production of housing affordable to lower income households in the region. Most jurisdictions meet or exceed their share of need for above moderate income housing. Adjusting the RHNA up or down doesn't have a significant impact on development of single family detached housing units for that income group. But building housing for lower income households requires appropriately zoned sites served by infrastructure, schools and transportation. These sites are already in scarce supply. Most non-profit developers believe that the most serious constraint on affordable housing development is, in fact, the lack of appropriately zoned sites. By lowering the RHNA for jurisdictions in Sonoma, Napa and Marin Counties, ABAG is making a determination that they don't need as many sites as they are now providing, even though they are not now providing enough sites. There is simply no evidence on which ABAG can legitimately base such a reduction in RHNA.

The draft RHNA numbers we have seen include an overall reduction of more than 60% for Napa County; 50% for Sonoma County, and 40% for Marin County. Sebastopol's RHNA is reduced by 70%; Windsor by 50%. These numbers are wholly unsupported by any evidence of a decline in job growth or population growth in these areas. We believe these reductions are both arbitrary and capricious and exceed ABAG's legal authority to adopt.

Similarly, the draft RHNA numbers include huge increases -- approximately 100% -- for Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose. But there is no basis for ABAG to determine that these increases reflect anticipated population growth in these cities, and no basis for ABAG to find that there is anywhere near the amount of sites available in these cities to accommodate these levels. These increases will not likely result in any greater rate of housing development in these cities -- particularly with respect to housing affordable to lower income households. Doubling the RHNA numbers for these large cities is, of course, a convenient way of reducing the numbers for jurisdictions in Sonoma, Napa and Marin Counties -- jurisdictions which have long been resistant to providing adequate affordable housing for their workforce, their disabled, their farmworkers and other low income households.

There's another strange twist to this sorry ABAG saga... two years ago at the very start of the planning for the 2007 RHNA cycle, ABAG complained that the state hadn't provided adequate funding to do proper housing needs surveys. In response, Cathy Creswell at the Department of Housing and Community Development sent ABAG a letter which purported to grant ABAG an extension of two more years to do its next RHNA allocations. This extension letter violated state law which required the new RHNA determinations to be completed prior to the start of the planning period -- 2007. But more importantly, these new draft RHNA numbers only cover the planning period starting in 2009. The numbers make no mention of the housing needs which were accruing during the 2-year Creswell extension. ABAG and HCD have unlawfully and arbitrarily determined that no regional housing needs were accruing in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009.

The failure to include regional housing needs for the two-year period of the extension -- almost a third of the entire planning period -- doesn't affect housing starts for above moderate income housing. But it does have a substantial harmful effect on the availability of sites affordable to lower income households. Those sites have to be carefully selected, rezoned, and made accessible to infrastructure.

The failure to include needs numbers for this two-year period -- in addition to being arbitrary and in excess of ABAG's jurisdictional authority -- would appear to violate Government Code Section 65008, which prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against development of housing affordable to lower income households.

We would respectfully request that ABAG begin again the RHNA allocation process, and allocate substantial additional regional housing needs to areas like Sonoma, Napa and Marin Counties and jurisdictions within those counties; and allocate smaller housing needs to Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose in a way that will realistically reflect the capacities of those cities to actually build the housing units.

Another reason why housing costs are so high...

The next time a developer or a legislator tries to claim more inclusionary zoning will drive up housing costs, or that developers are overtaxed, hand 'em a copy of this article from today's LA Times Click on the link for the full article.... the chart at the end is mind boggling.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-karatz17dec17,1,148471,full.story

How KB Home CEO's Pay Went Through the Roof

KB Home may be the fifth-largest U.S. home builder, but it was No. 1 when it came to pay for its chief executive.Over the last three years, former CEO Bruce Karatz made $232.6 million in compensation. That's nearly three times what the chief executives earned at Pulte Homes Inc. and Centex Corp., which are bigger and more profitable.Among the nation's 12 largest builders, Karatz's closest competition came from Robert Toll, the CEO of Toll Bros. Inc. He pulled in $138.7 million over three years — a sum that Karatz outdid by nearly 70%.

Housing developers can (and should) provide a
percentage of units affordable to lower income
households. A condominium developer in Mendocino
County has agreed to set aside 20% of the units in
his project for lower income, plus another 20% for
moderate income. Click here for details

Prop 1-C Vote Analysis

Prop 1-C, the statewide housing bond, was approved by voters by a comfortable margin in the November election. It will provide $2.8 billion for "housing for persons in need" including low income housing, shelters, supportive housing for persons with disabilities, and housing for farmworkers. Here's a new analysis of who voted for and against the bond.

Although 17 counties still have not completed their counts from the November election, turnout is now up to 8.8 million ballots cast, which represents 55.6% of all registered voters.

Prop. 1C's support is up to 57.8%, with 4,766,514 votes for 1C and 3,484,122 votes against it.
The Public Policy Institute of California today released a statewide survey of voters that breaks down the areas of support for Prop. 1C and other measures and analyzes the reasons for its support. The full poll is available at http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_1106MBS.pdf

Key findings include:

Democrats supported 1C by a margin of 69-31%.
Independents supported 1C by 57-43%
Republicans opposed 1C, with 40% voting for 1C and 60% voting "no."

When asked to assess the level of state funding for affordable housing now that 1C has passed,

53% said state funding for affordable housing is still "not enough"
14% said it is "more than enough"
20% said it is "just enough"
and 13% expressed no opinion.

Among those who voted yes on 1C,

56% said not enough
6% said more than enough
26% said just enough and
12 % didn't know,

Even among those who voted no on 1C, "not enough" led "more than enough" by almost 2-1:

49% said not enough
27% said more than enough,
14% said just enough and
10% didn't know.

This appears to be good news for the prospects for a permanent source campaign -- most voters think state funding for affordable housing is still insufficient and even those who opposed 1C think funding is too low. It suggests that many who voted no on 1c could be persuaded to vote yes on another housing measure if it is designed well enough to convince them the funds are spent properly.

When 1C supporters were asked why they voted yes, the top answer was
"it's a good cause/people in those circumstances need help" (35%), followed by
important to the future of CA/needed/good idea (27%).

Other reasons included:
Cost of housing is too high (12%)
Emergency shelters are needed (9%)
Endorsed by group or public figure I trust (2%)
Supported by governor/legislature (2%)
Smallest amount of all the bonds (1%)
friends and/or family supported it (1%)
Other reason (6%)
Don't know (5%)

This suggests that our disciplined focus on shelter and those in need was correct. 71% of 1C supporters cited either those in need, the need for shelter or the importance of 1C to the future of California. Only 12% cited the overall lack of affordability in CA, and only 1% cited the relatively small size of the bond.

When 1C opponents were asked why they voted no, the top answer was
bond amount is too much (18%), followed by
state spends too much already (16%)

Other answers included:
won't fix the problem (10%)
I vote no on all bonds (9%)
bond debt is too high already (8%)
state should not subsidize housing (6%)
housing should be pay-as-you-go (4%)
friends/family opposed it (1%)
no need for more shelters (1%)
other (21%) and don't know (6%).

Once again, I find this encouraging for a permanent source campaign because it indicates that relatively low numbers of voters believe the the state should not subsidize housing or there is no need for more shelter. Large portions of "no" voters disagreed with the specifics of 1C, not with the principle of state support for shelter and affordable housing. Thses voters may be willing to support future housing measures if they are satisfied that the amount of funds is correct and the way they are used is proper.

Other findings from the poll:
1C was supported by about 70% of those who voted for Angelides, and by 49% of those who voted for Schwarzenegger.
Support for 1C was higher among women (60%) than men (53%), and higher among Latinos (67%) than among whites (54%).
Not surprisingly, support for 1c was also higher among renters (75%) than homeowners (51%) and among those earning less than $40,000 (64%) than amomg those earning more than $80,000 (51%).

Finally, opinions on whether future funding for housing is sufficient breaks down as follows: 22% of Republicans said funding is more than enough, while 59% of Dems deem it insufficient. 56% of Bay Area voters say funding is too low. 55% of Los Angeles residents agree, as do 47% of Central Valley residents. 58% of renters and 52% of homeowners.