Op Ed - 40th Anniversary of the Fair Housing Act

IS LOCAL HOUSING REALLY "FAIR"?

SANTA ROSA PRESS DEMOCRAT, April 26, 2008

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in the sale and rental of housing. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill April 11, 1968, one week after the murder of Martin Luther King, and said "fair housing for all -- all human beings who live in this country -- is now a part of the American way of life."

The bill outlawed the common, open practice of denying housing and home loans based on race, and was later amended to ban discrimination based on religion, national origin, gender, age, disability and family status. So 40 years after the law was signed, do people in Sonoma County have equal housing opportunities? Overt discrimination is rare. Realtors and landlords are generally careful not to indicate discriminatory preferences. They face serious penalties if they violate the law.

But how does it happen that students in a few public schools in Santa Rosa are overwhelmingly Caucasian, while other schools are overwhelmingly non-white? Clearly a school's students reflect the characteristics of the neighborhoods the school serves, but how did those neighborhoods get to be mostly white or mostly non-white? The answer may be in the zoning code. One area -- Fountaingrove -- is dominated almost exclusively by large-lot expensive housing. Other areas of the city are zoned for high-density apartments. De facto segregation wasn't necessarily the goal of city officials who approved the zoning, but it's the result.

Another factor contributing to the racial disparity is the city's "inclusionary zoning ordinance," which actually operates to exclude affordable housing from new developments. Most cities in the county require developers to include some affordable housing in their projects, helping integrate neighborhoods. Developers in Santa Rosa are allowed pay an "in lieu fee" instead. The money is used to build affordable housing, but usually in neighborhoods which have lots of affordable housing.

Santa Rosa is not alone. Healdsburg is considering a proposal to build a 130-room luxury hotel and 70 elegant houses on 250 acres known as "Saggio Hills." The hotel will employ about 250 low-wage workers, and more will be employed as gardeners and maids in the fancy homes. The developer has offered to donate some land to the city which could be used for affordable housing at some future date, but the proposal does not include affordable housing for any of these workers. Nor is there housing affordable to them elsewhere in Healdsburg. So they'll have to commute from Santa Rosa or Ukiah.

The developer says the project will feature "green design." But color-wise, its residents will be mostly white. And any benefit from solar panels will be dwarfed by the huge environmental impact of hundreds of workers commuting on Highway 101.

A member of the Sonoma City Council recently objected to efforts to provide affordable housing which would serve farmworkers and other low-income, mostly non-white families. He derided it as "subsidized housing" and equated it to housing common in Eastern Europe. Nevermind that he and other wealthy homeowners get a huge housing subsidy -- in the form of mortgage interest tax deductions.

All of our city councils favor economic development. They want an abundance of workers, but they aren't ready to accept these workers -- who tend to be non-white -- as neighbors. Cities that welcome exclusive developments like Saggio Hills often have to be pushed to approve affordable housing developments which will be occupied mostly by non-white families.

But there are signs of hope. Petaluma has been more successful than most cities in encouraging diversity in its housing development. Affordable housing is integrated into single-family housing areas; schools have a good socio-economic balance. Can they do better? Of course. Can all of our cities do better, in order to make the promise of "equal housing opportunity" a reality for all persons regardless of race, national origin, disability, age, family status, religion and income source? Yes, and let's hope it doesn't take another 40 years.

David Grabill, Attorney with the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group
(www.hagster.org)

Affordable Housing Progress Report

Our Affordable Housing Progress Report has summaries of how each of the cities in Sonoma County, as well as the unincorporated County, have progressed in meeting their affordable housing needs during the last planning period (1999-2007).

No on 98 - Sample Letter

Please copy/paste this into an e-mail or letter and send it to as many friends and neighbors as possible urging them to vote NO on Prop 98 (but 99 is fine). Do it soon... absentee ballots for the election will be mailed out in a few days - DG
______________________


Dear Friend,

I'm emailing you today to make sure you are aware of a dangerous ballot measure on the June 3rd statewide ballot. Proposition 98 is a deceptive measure that a group of wealthy landlords spent millions to put on the ballot. These landlords want you to believe the measure is only about "eminent domain," but Prop. 98 is full of hidden provisions that would hurt all Californians.

• Prop. 98 attacks renters by eliminating renter protections and rent control.

• Prop. 98 guts important environmental protections like laws we need to combat global warming, and protect our land, air, water and coasts.

• Prop. 98 jeopardizes the quality of our drinking water and our ability to secure new water sources to protect our environment and fuel our economy.

• Prop. 98 will result in frivolous lawsuits, higher taxpayer costs, and hurt our economy.

That's why a broad coalition including AARP, League of Women Voters of California, the Coalition to Protect California Renters, California Professional Firefighters, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Teachers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Chamber of Commerce and dozens of others all oppose Prop. 98.

Many of these same groups are also supporting a real eminent domain reform on the June 3rd ballot. Proposition 99 is the straightforward solution we need to protect against eminent domain abuse. Prop. 99 prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. Unlike the landlords' Prop. 98, Prop. 99 is eminent domain reform with NO HIDDEN AGENDAS.

Please be sure you have the facts and vote NO on 98 and Yes on 99 on June 3rd

Visit http://www.no98yes99.com/ for more information.

Thank you!

Affordable Housing - Green and Beautiful

This article, from the 4/3/2008 NYTimes, shows an affordable development in NY city that was built to the highest "green" building design standards. Construction costs were essentially the same as conventional buildings. - DG


Here's an article from the American Planning Association journal about the developer, Jonathan Rose: Click Here

Escondido city council bans 4 bedroom condo's

The Escondido City Council recently voted to prohibit a developer from including some

4 bedroom units in his proposed condo complex, apparently concerned that some of

those beds might be occupied by (oh help us!) illegal immigrants.  Here's an editorial

from the San Diego Union Tribune about the council's concerns...  - dg

 

U-T EDITORIAL: NORTH EDITION
Big Brother in your (fourth) bedroom

April 19, 2008

Recently we opined on D.R. Horton wanting to offer four-bedroom townhouses at its Paramount project in downtown Escondido. The City Council was aghast, fearing apparently that illegal immigrants would start buying $400,000 condominiums or that families doubling up would result in the affluent buyers' BMWs taking up all the on-street parking spaces.

The city asked Horton to return with none of those sinful four-bedroom floor plans.

Horton, notorious for not speaking to either media or even city managers, cannot possibly make money on this project, some real estate observers believe. It bought the land at the height of the real estate boom, endured a catastrophic fire and more delays, and eventually will come to market when all prices have been pushed into the bargain basement. Horton, the observers say, simply wants to fulfill its civic obligation in Escondido, complete the project and move on.

Horton did return to the council and acquiesced. The condominiums offered will still have four bedrooms, though one may be opened somewhat instead of having floor-to-ceiling walls.

Buyers, to satisfy Big Brother Escondido, will have to sign that they will use the fourth room as a den, an office, anything but a bedroom. What's more, that provision will be written into the covenants, codes and restrictions for the complex.

Presumably, any buyer of a four-bedroom townhouse would choose to use one as a den or office, anyway. So, no harm, no foul?

Not so fast. Big Brother Escondido has now passed a law telling you what you can or cannot do in your own bedroom. It is no longer your choice. The vote was 5-0, with even Sam "I believe in the least government regulations on our citizens" Abed voting to interfere in a decision that really should be between willing builder and willing buyer.

There was no mention of what the penalty for violators will be, which sends our imagination soaring.

Perhaps, offenders will be deported just outside the Escondido city limits. Or, maybe they will be forced to register with other cities as "serial bedroom occupants."

Escondido's council majority clearly is caught up in an anti-immigration backlash and is swinging at even imaginary targets. This ordinance outlaws a market product quite popular in a number of California cities. In its paranoia, the Escondido City Council is actually taking away freedoms from American citizens.

This ordinance is both silly and sad. Sad in that this passes for "less government" in Escondido. Sad in that this restriction inevitably will pit some homeowner against a relentlessly rigid homeowner association. So much for harmonious quality of life in Escondido.

Next Saturday: Big Brother Escondido in your overnight parking space.

---

Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.

HAG Teach-In May 13, 2008

A New Home for Less Than $13,000?

CALIFORNIA RENTAL MARKET FAILING TO MEET NEEDS OF WORKING FAMILIES

$24.01/Hour Needed to Afford
Average Two-bedroom Apartment

Washington, D.C. -- According to a report released yesterday, a family in California needs to earn at least $24.01/hour -- working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year -- to be able to afford rent and utilities in California's housing market. This represents an increase of 44.3% since 2000.

This year, California is the second-most-expensive state in the nation for renters. The typical renter in California earns $16.67, which is $7.34 short of what's needed to afford even a modest apartment.

Working at the minimum wage, a California family would need 3 wage earners working full-time -- or one full-time earner working 120 hours per week -- to afford a modest, two-bedroom apartment.

"Throughout the state, we are hearing stories of families who are becoming homeless because their paychecks aren't keeping pace with rental costs. The foreclosure crisis is further increasing pressure on the rental market, because families that were once homeowners are now competing alongside other renters to find an affordable place to live," said Julie Spezia, Executive Director of Housing California. "This report clearly illustrates why we need to build more apartment homes that working families can afford."

About 57% of California renters do not earn enough to afford a two-bedroom apartment in today's housing market.

The report, Out of Reach 2007-2008, was jointly released by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) -- a Washington, D.C.-based housing advocacy group -- and Housing California. The report provides housing expense and wage data for every state, metropolitan area, and county in the country. Nationally, a household needs to earn $17.32 to meet their basic needs for housing.

About Housing California
Housing California is the leading advocate in the state Capitol on affordable-home and budget policy for homeless and low-income people. We are a statewide coalition of more than 1,000 nonprofit developers, homeless-service organizations, and regional and local housing and homeless advocates. Our mission is to prevent homelessness and to increase the supply of decent, safe, accessible and permanently affordable homes for homeless and low-income Californians. For more information, visit www.housingca.org.

For additional information about the National Low Income Housing Coalition's Out of Reach 2007-2008 report, visit www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2008/.

---

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

Infill development in San Rafael approved over NIMBY opposition

82-unit condo plan in San Rafael approved

Jennifer Upshaw - Marin Independent Journal 03/12/2008 01:00:14 AM PDT

A controversial plan to tear down an old office building and construct an 82-unit condominium complex near the Marin County Civic Center was approved in the wee hours after a long meeting of the San Rafael Planning Commission Tuesday.

Commissioners voted 4-2-1 to approve the project, with conditions related to frontage improvements, construction hours and pedestrian access, city officials said. Demolition of the existing office building is expected to begin next spring.

Commissioners Daniel Sonnet and Gayle Wittenmeier-Mills voted against the project, citing concerns about transitions with adjacent structures and the narrowness of the existing street. Commissioner Larry Paul was absent.

Tuesday's meeting drew dozens who spoke passionately both for and against the proposal at 33 San Pablo Ave.

Jenette Erven, a 23-year resident of San Pablo Avenue, said the building just doesn't fit the neighborhood.

"I feel this project has been put on a fast-track from the beginning," she said. "None of us are against affordable housing. What we are concerned about is the scope and the size of this project and the height and the density - it's huge."

Housing advocates, and community groups such as the League of Women Voters and the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, lauded the endeavor as a prime example of responsible growth.

"Everyone says that infill is what we want," said Elissa Giambastiani, a 20-year housing advocate. "No one wants to build on open space.  If we want infill, we're going to have to accommodate that in all sections of the city."

Concerns about height, mass and the number of units have delayed approval for some time. The project has been before the Design Review Board several times, and made a previous appearance before the Planning Commission.

City planners at one point recommended the proposal be rejected for aesthetic reasons. The plan was reworked, and the number of units reduced from 93 to 82.

Plans now call for a four-story complex with a stepped design. Sixteen units would be set aside as below-market-rate affordable housing. State law allows for a denser development if a certain amount of affordable housing is included in the project.

Jeff Hutchinson, project manager with San Rafael-based developer Monahan Pacific, said he believes his group has bent over backward to please the neighbors.

"What we've done is shoved the building up the hill and away from the neighbors as much as we can," he said. "We feel we've gone a long way to accommodate people's concerns here."

But neighbors disagreed, saying they felt they were being taken advantage of.

"I feel our neighborhood has been called upon over the years to carry a big burden for San Rafael and we've done our fair share," said Charles Cacciatore, a 14-year resident of Laurel Glen Terrace. "There's this arrogance that they (the developer) know what's better for our neighborhood than we do."

Affordable Housing Doubled at Old UC Site in SF

San Francisco Chronicle 1/18/08 - by Heather Knight

City and state officials announced an agreement Thursday with developers of the former UC Berkeley Extension site in San Francisco to include more affordable housing - more than doubling the number of such dwellings for the 413-unit project at 55 Laguna St.

While 66 of the 328 rental apartments for families had been designated as affordable, the new agreement makes an 85-unit complex for seniors - most of whom are expected to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender - affordable as well. The units for seniors previously were to be rented at the market rate.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, Assemblyman Mark Leno, state Sen. Carole Migden, the mayor's Office of Housing and gay rights and housing activists pushed to increase the percentage of affordable dwellings in the project from 16 percent to 37 percent. On Thursday, they celebrated the agreement with the University of California and A.F. Evans, the development company hired for the project.

Mirkarimi said Thursday at a news conference on the steps of City Hall that he had previously viewed the UC system as "an inflexible juggernaut" but was pleased that "patience and smartness prevailed."

"This is a major milestone," he said. "We have made critical progress."

Planning for the development has been going on since UC Extension moved out in late 2003, citing budgetary concerns.

In addition to the apartments, the development is also due to include a 25,000-square-foot park where the asphalt parking lot now sits and a 10,600-square-foot community garden. Both are intended to be accessible to the public, as is a planned 12,000-square-foot community center.

The city's Planning Commission was expected late Thursday to approve the environmental impact report for the development, another important step before the entire plan goes to the Board of Supervisors for approval.