Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

June 26, 2002

Low-cost housing snubbed by cities

Easy Bay failing to plan for growth

A review of local housing elements - state-mandated housing plans that Bay Area jurisdictions were supposed to update by the end of 2001 for the first time in a decade - shows most locales aren't doing well, and some didn't meet the deadline at all.

The study by the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, the Greenbelt Alliance and the Nine County Housing Advocacy Network gathered data from every city in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma counties.

It looked more closely at the region's 40 largest and fastest-growing places where 80 percent of new Bay Area households are expected to settle by 2006. Of those, 72 percent failed, needed improvement or were incomplete in their plans.

Among East Bay cities, only Berkeley made the ``honor roll" with strong strategies for affordable housing growth.

Elsewhere in the East Bay, Alameda, Fremont, Hayward, Brentwood and Walnut Creek, as well as Alameda County's unincorporated areas, failed.

Of 40 key cities, only Richmond succeeded in building all the affordable housing it was deemed to need from 1988 to 1998.

"A lot of people are throwing up their hands and saying, 'There is no solution.' We don't believe that," said Non-Profit Housing Association regional coordinator Shannon Dodge, explaining the study's findings provide a road map to success for cities and counties.

Affordable housing is defined as costing no more than 30 percent of household income for those earning less than 80 percent of the region's median income. For example, a family of three earning $51,360 could afford to spend $1,284 per month for housing.

Oakland has $1.018 billion in unmet housing needs. The city was at 75 percent of its affordable housing goal in the early 1990s, but now lags behind at just 38 percent of its goal, said Roy Schweyer, the city's housing director.

The city would have to build, or at least have planned, 3,300 affordable housing units by 2006 to keep up with demand, Schweyer said. Oakland has added 212 affordable housing units since 1998 and has another 1,062 planned or under construction.

Oakland has yet to demand that developers include a certain number of affordable units in new housing projects. But the city was poised Tuesday night to vote on a $4-per-square-foot developer linkage fee that would pool funds for affordable housing. If approved, the fee would not take effect for three years.

The city raised $30 million for affordable housing through a local bond issue in May 2000 - all committed to projects - and the council recently approved a policy to replace on a one-to-one basis all single-room occupancy hotel units that are taken over for new development.

Despite the obstacles, Councilmember Nancy Nadel (West Oakland-Downtown) said the city is doing more than many East Bay cities.

"Oakland has a lot of projects," she said. "We're nowhere near what we need... but we're definitely moving forward."

City officials say Alameda wants to move forward as well, but others say Measure A, a 1973 city law that was passed to keep out ugly apartment buildings and save Victorians from conversion, is a major roadblock to building affordable housing. The law prohibits building anything larger than a duplex.

Earlier this month, Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES), an ad hoc group of housing advocates, real estate professionals and environmentalists, announced it was writing an initiative for the 2004 ballot to modify Measure A.

For starters, the group says townhomes, apartments and condominiums should be allowed at Alameda Point, the former Navy base, according to Bill Smith, a leader of HOMES and an active member of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. It wants housing for low-and middle-income people at the old base.

Although Alameda earned an "F" on the affordable-housing report card, partially because it missed the deadline for updating its housing element, it did make strides with affordable housing last year. The city settled a lawsuit with affordable housing groups Renewed Hope and ARC Ecology that makes developers at Alameda Point set aside at least 25 percent of their new homes as "affordable."

In Berkeley, housing officials were pleased to be on the affordable housing honor roll.

"Affordable housing in Berkeley has a lot of overall policy support that comes consistently from the City Council," said Stephen Barton, director of Berkeley's housing department. "Of course, many individual projects become very controversial, but overall the city continues a steady effort to improve housing." Of the city's 45,000 housing units, roughly 1,600 are below market rate. The figure does not include federally subsidized housing.

Berkeley has its own housing authority, and a housing trust fund. It is also one of few Bay Area cities to put general fund money into the housing fund, Barton said. The city also spends about $300,000 yearly on administrative support to several nonprofit housing developers.

For future projects, Berkeley has two senior housing proposals and a mixed project on University Avenue for families, seniors and disabled residents in the works.

The study urged cities to increase the percentage of redevelopment funds going to affordable housing and to:

- Encourage housing construction downtown, near transit and jobs.

- Provide more local funding for affordable housing.

- Require developers to set aside 10 percent to 20 percent of their projects for affordable housing.

Staff Writer Josh Richman contributed to the report.

###