Fred Allebach
NAACP Housing Committee
8/5/24
First glance thoughts on Healdsburg Measure O
A growth management ordinance (GMO) of 30 market rate per year in Healdsburg is pretty low, as well as treating single family homes (SFHs) and multi-family homes (MFHs) the same. 20 years ago when this GMO was put in, it was the height of the UGB, no growth movement. Those were different times. This is a significant barrier to new affordable housing (AH) now.
Measure O seems to be saying that some modification of the GMO for “middle class” housing is the cure for low AH production. In this respect Healdsburg is similar to Sonoma, market rate overproduction and Moderate (Mod), Low (L), Very Low (VL) and Extremely Low-income (ELI) underproduction.
So what is “Middle class” housing by AMI and MHI range? We need to know that in Healdsburg. What is the constituency NAACP is seeking to back here given that Blacks in SoCo are over-represented in Section 8 vouchers and homeless, and by this measure, need the lower-income AH to find a home? Where do Blacks fit into Healdsburg’s terms of “middle class housing” and “workforce housing?” Are we backing BIPOC interests in general and in Healdsburg that is local Latinos?
Infill and city centered development is IMO new code to keep single family zoning (SFZ) areas white and low density. This “smart growth” is good from a GHG standpoint but not from a social integration standpoint. Why? Because smart growth lets previous segregated zoning stand pat and does not ask for any changes in the underutilized space in SFZ areas. Smart growth puts green, environmental reasons at the top and minimizes remedies for past segregation.
I need to know Healdsburg’s inclusionary ordinance rules. Sonoma has a 25% inclusionary ordinance that for rentals is 5% ELI, 10% VL and 10% L and for ownership is 5% L, 10% Mod, 10% Above Mod. Sonoma also has an exception that any unit 850 square feet and below does not count to the inclusion and is considered to be “affordable by design (ABD).” There is no proof that ABD does not sell for market rate prices here in Sonoma.
What does the Healdsburg inclusion for essential workers? Are essential workers even targeted here? Does it have a fair proportion of ELI, VL and L compared to Mod and Above Mod? Is for sale and for rent different in proportion for Healdsburg AH units?
Measure O seems like it is seeking to placate the SFZ areas and voters, most likely a very high percent white. This Measure O may be all that is politically do-able there. Do we take the best we can get? Maybe. I don’t know politics there, if similar to Sonoma, white SFZ NIMBYs are a strong force. A former council member here recently said that “any council member voting to upzone the SFZ east side would not be on the council very long…”
If 85% of Healdsburg is SFZ, that’s a LOT. It seems that a modern redlining pattern has taken hold, where segregated SFZ areas are assumed to be “built out” and immune from any changes. We got ours, now all you BIPOC can live downtown with the worst noise and air areas. What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Oh, if everyone got a SFH and a yard, a dog, a garden and a fence, that would be “sprawl”, a fate worse than death for humanity. There is a certain amount of modern reedling that I just have to call BS on, yet it’s also true that endless sprawl ultimately ruins local geographies.
Being actually sustainable is somewhere in the middle, IMO. This is where AFFH law comes in, with the Martinez v.Clovis precedent, too much SFZ and not enough AH production will get a Housing Element certification revoked. It remains to be seen if SoCo Legal Aid has the appetite to challenge exclusionary zoning in SoCo?
In Measure O, I see a standard bevy of build, build, build endorsers that see underutilized space as along commercial corridors and not in single family/ R1 low density zoned areas. There is merit to some of this smart growth planning but IMO, only if it gets balanced with strong lower-end AH inclusions/ production and only if there is some effort to address exclusionary zoning in the rest of a municipality.
Segregation happened primarily in the white-flight, SFZ areas but owing to entrenched modern redlining and land use practices, these areas are highly resistant to change. They have stacked the planning deck to their favor and the overt redlining verbiage has been taken away, leaving coded language (neighborhood character) and plans that achieve the same result of segregation.
The GMO seems like it may be counter to AFFH, and also to meeting Healdsburg’s RHNA in as much as AFFH calls for integrating SFZ, higher opportunity areas. The Healdsburg GMO could be illegal for HCD, it could be an impediment to housing.
Middle class and workforce housing are weasel word terms and really meaningless without an AMI and/or MHI calibration.. Healdsburg may have its calibration. What is it? We need to know what they are talking about. Typically the greatest need is for 60% AMI (area median income) and below, and for below 80% state MHI (median household income.) “Workforce” housing is typically up to 120% AMI? The workforce is middle class? What is middle class these days? Middle of what? We don’t want weasel word coded terms to nix out lower income people, i.e. essential workers. Middle class is Above Mod and above? Workforce os Mod?
If we throw in “essential workers” as part of the workforce, then we need it include Low, Very Low, and ELI too in the workforce category, and not at token levels but full, equal levels to the other ranges.
IMO, MFH should be exempt in commercial corridors and in SFZ areas, but the NIMBY push back may be too high there, like in Sonoma. NAACP could hold out for an endorsement that peppers MFH exemptions into SFZ areas for AFFH/ equity purposes.
GenH and others talk about “gentle upzoning” and missing middle housing, and what we see really is a bunch of wishy washy terms to disguise what’s really happening. Gentle upzoning in SFZ areas, with small plexes and SB-9 units, will never be AH. Missing middle has been glossed to go all the way up to 160% AMI. What we see is kind of a shell game of terms and all ends up dialed to the highest profit and highest price point possible within these weaselword terms.
IMO an NAACP endorsement of Mearie O should be contingent on at least a 50% share of the AH production being for Low, Very Low and ELI (the other 50% being for Mod, Above Mod and “missing middle.”. Because, if we are going to wat for supply to be increased to a level where prices come down, we will be waiting a long time here in SoCo.
Alternatively, if NAACP Measure O endorsement is a political calculation to hang with GenH and Greenbelt etc, then those outfits can be asked to leverage their heft to making sure the lower-end AH production as a result of Measure O is proportional to the need.
Median household income (MHI)
CA MHI 2022 ACS Survey is $91,551 (80% is $73,240)
SoCo MHI 2022 ACS Survey $96,830 (80% is $77,464)
Area median income (AMI), depends oh household size
Acutely low income: 0-15% of AMI
Extremely low income: 15-30% of AMI
Very low income: 30% to 50% of AMI
Lower income: 50% to 80% of AMI; the term may also be used to mean 0% to 80% of AMI
Moderate income: 80% to 120% of AMI
No comments:
Post a Comment