Fred Allebach, Connecting the Dots: AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 companion for Sonoma Valley and City of Sonoma DUC and DAC Studies

Fred Allebach

Member Sonoma Valley Housing Group

Member Santa Rosa/ SoCo NAACP

12/24/23

AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 companion for SV DUC and DAC studies

Interpretation of AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 screenshots

General observations

AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 data is not all up to date but it does corroborate the patterns seen in this packet of SV and City BG studies.

It’s clear that Tract-level analysis collapses intra-Tract differences and makes a whole Tract appear uniform when it is not. For example, City of Sonoma Tract 1502.04 has serious differences between the central east and central west sides, and the poverty of the central west side tips the whole Tract to appear as disadvantaged when the central east side clearly is not disadvantaged. Springs-area Tract 1503.05 constantly shows up as disadvantaged but BG1, the most northerly BG is primarily ag land use with community separators and scenic vistas.

Map interpretation

Housing and transportation cost burden map, BG level, shows a 30-75% cost burden range in lower SV. This shows the effects of low hosing stock and the high cost of character protection for lower income residents.

Flood hazard map, SV land use puts MHP zones in the worst, lowest-lying, highest flood hazard locations along Sonoma Creek and other creeks. City and County General Plan Land Use Elements could change the channel and put MHP overlays into current single family, low density zoned areas so as to not saddle the poorest residents with the highest flood risk. Poor MHP location relates to past redlining land use practices.

Low and Moderate income map, BG level, shows Springs lower income cohorts/ communities of interest contiguous to City boundary and City central west side.

Median Household Income (MHI) map, Tract level, Tracts 1503.05 and 1503.04, Boyes/ Fetter’s and El Verano show up as Low MHI; Tract level data does not show City MHPs, central west side, and Temelec as Low MHI even though they are. Demographers say BGs have a higher margin of error, but missing DUC and DAC BGs seems to me like a serious error as well. This is where educated staff and decision makers have to exercise judgement and see the forest from the trees. Seeing the actual is good science; intentionally ignoring the actual is more at political, tribal, and ideological.

Overcrowding maps, Tract; Tract 1503.05 shows the most SV overcrowding and most severe overcrowding even as 1503.05 has the highest preponderance of multifamily homes in SV. More dense infill in this area is not proper AFFH land use; future SV density and upzoning needs to go into areas where land use has sequestered a lot of space for single family homes.

Population by race map, Tract; Tract 1503.05 is primarily Latino; percent white in SV tracks with TCAC Highest Opportunity Area maps; the SoCo 1^st District is @ 70% white/ 30% Latino. In the 1^st District older white voters out-register and outvote Latinos by a margin of 80% to 10%, this is the result of being disadvantaged, and this is why the SV immigrant Latino community of interest needs special policy consideration and white advocates. It’s not reasonable to expect the lower income Latino COI to perform at the same level of public involvement as whites. General Plan and other outreach efforts can’t assume a representative sample of public opinion when systemic disadvantages hamstring 30% of the population, allowances for structural deficits need to be made. Land use and housing policy in SV needs to handicap for equity and justice.

Poverty map, Tract; Tract 1503.05 shows up again and again and again; the City central west side BG of Tract 1502.04 makes the whole Tract appear as poverty when clearly the central east side is not in poverty. Tract-level analysis like this may have driven the City Housing Element to make findings that underplayed the level of City segregation and falsely informed where the RHNA inventory should go.

Race map, Block Group; this map shows the Springs Latino community of interest blending into the City’s west side; this is evidence that SV unincorporated DUCs are contagious with City DACs.

RCAA map, Tract; Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence in SoCo 1^st District: Kenwood, Glen Ellen, Eldridge, Bennet Valley. Glen Ellen/ Sonoma Mtn. Environmentalist whites in these areas worked to put community separators in the most northerly BG of Tract 1503.05, thereby hemming in the majority Springs Latino DUC/ Tract with a long-term land use poison pill, with no upzoning allowed until 2036. Politically activated affluent whites saved the best most open space locations for themselves while sequestering the Springs Latino DUC to the most undesirable, least parks, least trees, dense locations in SV.

Rental overpay map, Tract; all lower SV is cost burdened bc of low density protectionism and NIMBY land use policy, not enough housing stock; the more land use is restricted, the higher the housing costs.

Segregation map, Tract; Tract 1503.05 has high people-of-color segregation; at the lower SV level the artificial division between the City and Springs municipalities has effectively segregated POC to the other side of the tracks while Sonoma whites play fantasy island; this underlines the call for Springs annexation to address systemic SV segregation and unequal access to services, resources, and representation. SV segregation is a past wrong that needs to be righted, like South Africa and other similar locales, even as current whites are not the ones who created this disadvantageous land use regime. As Ta-Nahisi Coates said, suburban whites “are living off the interest of Jim Crow.”

TCAC (Tax Credit Allocation Committee) economic score map, Tract; the shape of Tract 1503.05 shows up over and over again as a disadvantaged area along many metrics, despite that the most northerly BG is full of community separators and scenic vistas and is mostly ag land use. A study of SV BG MHI shows that the Latino DUC is not limited to Tract 1503.05, and is largely absent from the most northerly ag-centered BG of Tract 1503.05. Staff and decision makers need to see the actual in SV, not a view where Tract-level analysis masks real on-the-ground differences.

Vouchers map, Tract; 1503.05 shows up again with HUD rental vouchers, Latino and white working class COI populations blend into the City’s northwest side.

Acronyms

ACS US Census American Community Survey

ADU accessory dwelling unit

COI community of interest

CDC Sonoma County Community Development Commission

HCD CA Department of Housing and Community Development

HE Housing Element

GP General Plan

BOS Sonoma County Board of Supervisors

LAFCO Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission

AFFH Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

SV Sonoma Valley