Posted on 08/08/2023 5:57:26 AM PDT by george76
California cities are losing local control as state-mandated housing to battle what officials call the state’s “housing crisis” sweeps the Golden State, experts say, with some afraid of losing their small-town feel.
The state’s housing department requires local jurisdictions every eight years to plan for housing, including that which is deemed “affordable” sold at or below market rate, as part of what’s known as a Housing Element.
Of concern to some is that squeezing in high-density affordable housing may not suit every city the same.
Sebastopol—an apple farming town of 7,500 people in Northern California east of Santa Rosa—is just the latest example of a possible mismatch, as the state has mandated it zone for 213 new units by 2029 in the small town, mostly at reduced rents based on one’s income, and subsidized by taxpayer dollars.
Christine Epperly—a member of the city’s design and review board, which helps plan new developments—said in a recent interview with EpochTV’s “California Insider” that an Idaho-based developer recently proposed an affordable housing project and received permits without any city or current resident input due to state law.
Under Senate Bill (SB) 35—a law that streamlines approvals for certain affordable housing projects—an 84-unit project will bring six two- to three-story buildings to the small town, with units ranging from one- to three-bedrooms.
But the project is leaving some concerned over less parking and more density the project will bring, according to Ms. Epperly, who is also a licensed engineer specializing in structural engineering.
“The road narrows down in that location, so there's no possibility for street parking in the proximity of the units,” she said.
She said the development would have approximately 1.7 parking spaces per unit, but with some designated for the disabled or for car charging, the number becomes even smaller.
With the way the town is designed, being without a car at the new development would be a challenge, she added.
“Sebastopol is in the middle of nowhere. You have to have a car. They’re pretending like you’re going to walk into town to go to the grocery store but you can’t,” she said.
According to Ms. Epperly, when the developer, Pacific Companies—which owns apartment communities in several other states—realized they could receive a permit to build the project in as little as 90 days through SB 35, they stopped seeking local input and approvals.
“They used the SB 35 process, which means a local jurisdiction has no say whatsoever,” she said. “It’s crazy.”
The Sebastopol project will be one of over 100 other communities in California managed by the developer, and according to Ms. Epperly, they chose California for their latest project because of federal and state subsidies.
“I asked the developer. He was very forthcoming and he said, quite frankly, California gives us the most money,” she said. “He explained that they get federal money subsidies, state money subsidies, and local money subsidies if they call it farmworker housing.”
Under such housing, farmworkers and their families are eligible for cheaper rents through federal, state, and local subsidies paid by taxpayers.
Each jurisdiction has its own income brackets for farmworker housing but for Sebastopol, those eligible must earn 30 percent or less of the city’s median income to qualify for a unit in the new development, according to Ms. Epperly.
But in Sebastopol, she said, there are no farms—only vineyards that require periodic work, and vineyards usually contract outside companies to prune and ultimately pick the grapes during harvest.
In light of this, a farmworker housing apartment complex seems unfit, she said.
“I can't imagine that there are all these low-income farmworker people. ... I don't know where they're going to come from. They're not local,” she said.
The median income in Sebastopol was about $90,000 in 2021 according to the most recent figures from the United States Census Bureau.
According to data from the county, those earning 30 percent of an area’s median income are eligible for rents capped at around $950 for a three-bedroom apartment, or $660 for a studio.
But, the problem is, more housing doesn’t always equal lower rents, and at the same time could push away longtime residents not ready for change, Ms. Epperly said during the 30-minute episode.
“They’re saying that [the housing] is unaffordable now because there are not enough units. So, if you make a whole bunch [of] more units, it’ll drive the costs down, but that’s actually not the case,” she said, since developers have fixed costs that later establish prices.
Additionally, Ms. Epperly said since the pandemic she has been told contractors are struggling to find good workers, ultimately making labor cost more as workers produce less.
“You combine that with the material costs and you’re looking at these fixed numbers. You can talk about building however many units you want. It’s still going to cost that,” she said.
As more large developments are built taking away from the small-town feel, some longtime residents may also move elsewhere, she said, such as an old couple who lived near the now state-approved development.
“They had this beautiful house that faced on another street—but backed up onto this project—that they had lived in for over 30 years. ... They were heartbroken but they said we can't [be] back[ed] up on this. So they sold their house,” she said.
In the Northeast small towns have figured out the “secret”.
They refuse to fund town water and sewer.
Development of multi-family becomes economically impossible.
At this point the towns and the states are broke so they cannot even dream of funding such infrastructure.
In New Jersey big developers sue small towns that have not achieved their affordable housing quotas. The remedy often allows the developer to build the affordable housing along with a significant number of market rate housing. It is a way that developers strong arm small towns into allowing large housing developments that they never wanted in the first place.
There is nothing in the new housing laws that requires the new residents to be currently living and working in the county. The new residents don’t even need to be citizens or have employment on a farm or Vinyard. They could be non-citizens, who wou;d like to work on a Vinyard and be a new member of the SEIU.
The house across the street from mine in San Diego was owned by a Vietnamese immigrant. He had a PhD in optics and was summoned to work in the Los Angeles area. That started a serial set of renters. At one point there were Vietnamese students renting the place with 17 cars parked all over the streets and front yard. They stopped paying rent and an eviction notice was issued. One morning they all moved out, then just after sunset I heard a massive crash of broken glass and a car speeding away. Every window was broken. The bathroom sinks were stoppered and water turned on to flood the house. Hammers were applied to bash holes in drywall of every room. The whole hit job was done in just under 5 minutes. Almost $30,000 in damage.
I sold my house in that neighborhood after 18 years. I had purchased it for $108k in 1983. It sold for $246k in Feb 2001. It has recently been on the market for $1.2M. While the upgrades are nice, they don't comport with the neighborhood. I wouldn't move back to the house for the original $108k today.
Or Monterey or Pebble Beach?
There is nothing in the new housing laws that requires the new residents to be currently living and working in the county. The new residents don’t even need to be citizens or have employment on a farm or Vineyard. They could be non-citizens, who would like to work on a Vineyard.
Besides that reality, there was one where 10-20+ homes/families on a restricted cul de sac re: had no new housing units homes on that street for decades.
Now, anyone can build one to two so called mother in law units, ADU’s, usually behind the original homes with minimal B$, in about 6 months.
We have 2 recently newly built ADU’s on the end of our cul de sac with at least 4 young women living in the 2 units and at least 4 small vehicles.
There is a new stipulation to the units built for the homeless, though, one that is hidden in the fine print. The homeless units must remain in the care of the city to be used only for homeless, even if the property is sold.
I don’t get this, but people must get a credit toward their property taxes for building a homeless unit in their back yard.
I don’t sympathize with these idiots at all. They vote for this when they vote Democrat and they think that it is never going to affect them. Besides, I thought that most of the wineries in CA, had been converted to marijuana farms.
Gavin’s goal is to turn the state into an HOA, same for the country if he ever makes it to president. He’s a sleazy, slimy, champagne liberal.
We left the Bay Area because it’s turning into LA. Tearing down affordable 2 story apartment buildings and putting in multi-story, high density, mixed use buildings with no improvments to infrastructure. One hidden gem in these bills is that, if you can say you have a certain (small) % as affordable housing, you can bypass the local building/planning departments....also most of these places are getting built with only 1 parking space allocated per unit, the other slobs in your unit can just take public transportation! Har-de-har...
Wetback Boulevard(s)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.