Land Use

I am taking these classes from the university of Masachusetts in the hope of becomeing a city planner when the boys are older. The classes areall on-line. Part of what we do is have very long written discussions about the readings. It is fun to take classes in something I am interested i and will, Ihop, lead to making money. Below is my opening statement in the discussion. It is very informaland not in essay form.

----

What measure(s) do you think need to be used to make housing more affordable for all? Is housing affordable in your community? Should all communities be responsible for making affordable housing?

----

Some of the answers I give will might seem strange but I am trying to think about this problem while holding several not always compatible ideas in my head at once.

Affordability: The San Francisco Bay area is extremely expensive. If you buy a house here you should expect to lay out a considerable amount of money. If you want to buy on the Peninsula or in San Francisco you are going to spend a huge amount of money. But does expensive mean unaffordable? Well, for some people, yes. But for others, no.

As you all know, I live at the southern end of the Peninsula, in the North East corner of Santa Clara County. The county is a huge area encompassing Silicon Valley, the mansions and wineries along the Santa Cruz mountains, the lowland slums of east San Jose, the hyper-rich tech millionaires of Los Gatos, Palo Alto and Monte Sereno, the great expanses of tract houses in Sunnyvale, and the ranches and farms of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. The Median HHI in Santa Clara County is $78,000. But what does that mean for house prices?

In most of the country, houses cost about 5 or 6 times the median income*. That means that in the Bay area house prices “should” be about $450,000. But the Bay area is an extremely desirable place to live. There is great demand for housing here and even though other California metropolitan areas are seeing their housing prices collapse (In sacramento, out Capitol there are one or two houses for sale on every block, and half of those are in foreclosure) ours are holding steady, with a median well above that theoretical $450,000. The median price is about $700,000. And in some extremely desirable parts of the Bay Area (e.g. Cupertino, Palo Alto, the Oakland hills, Tiburon, Marin, the northern half of San Francisco) there are still bidding wars where houses/condos have lines of buyers waiting with cash in hand. So, obviously, someone is able to afford these prices. Just not me.

Liberty: It bugs me to no end when governments tell people what they can and can’t do with their property. Especially, when the owner of the property wants to build housing. I lived in Cupertino for a couple of years and was driven nuts by the people there. Aside from the fact that they wouldn’t let me grow corn in my front yard or build an indoor firing range in my back yard, they were what I think of as Housing Nazis. They actually had more code enforement officers than police officers. On the street where I lived were four undeveloped lots that were owned by the same peson who owned one of the adjoining properties. He wanted to build 12 2-bedroom condominiums on those four lots, and was willing to pay for the necessary sewer and water upgrades for the hole street. But some of the neighbors freaked out. They were worried about the condos not fitting in with the ranch houses. There were petitions, law suits, angry zoning commission and city council meetings. You would have thought it was a proposal to build a crack house. They wanted ranch houses or nothing. Now here is the problem with ranch houses. They sit sideways on the lots and I do mean “lots”. That’s right. Each ranch house takes up two lots. So instead of housing for 12 families, only housing for 2 families was approved.

Single-Family Detached Houses: I hate them. I think they (along with television, automobiles, and air conditioning) have ruined communities in our country. The Central Valley of California (where most of the fruits and nuts you eat come from) is being paved over as single family detached houses spread like a rash over the countries most productive farm land. Won’t we all be sick with regret when we can’t find an almond, or a fig, or a raisin, or a plum or a kiwi? Or when a jug of Carlo Rossi wine costs $12 instead of $4 because the vineyards have been buried under asphalt, swimming pools, and lawns? Or think about this scenario: When we run out of oil and all of the farms that used to surround our cities have been turned into tract-house sprawl how are we going to get food to where we live?

Street design: I have lived in San Jose and in San Francisco. San Jose (the more populous of the two cities) talks a lot about revitalizing its downtown. This is something San Francisco never talks about. I think a major reason for the difference is that the streets of san Francisco were planned and build before the automobile was a major social influence. That means the streets are more narrow, the side walks are wider, and the blocks are shorter than are typically built. Its difficult for cars, but it seems to be great for the city: People actually enjoy walking around. Which means you don’t have to have cars, which means you can build more housing since you don’t have to worry about where to put cars. San Jose has wide streets, narrow (in comparison to SF) sidewalks, and long blocks. It is easy to drive around in San Jose. But it is difficult to walk around SJ. You have to have a car. Which means you have to have someplace to put a car. Which means there is less space for housing.


So to answer the questions:
1. What measure(s) do you think need to be used to make housing more affordable for all?
I agree with some of what Euchner recommended.
- Allow development on government owned land. I agree with that whole heartedly. What I don’t agree with is “fits the historic character of the community”. That means no skyscraper condos, it means, in almost all of the Bay area nothing higher than 1 story. Even in the denser areas it means nothing higher than 3 stories. What’s the point of going through the hassle of development f its just to build another single family detached house?
- Experiment with split-rate tax system. Such a plan isn’t possible in California. Since 1979 our Constitution requires that property taxes are based on the last purchase price. We do not trust assessors to value our houses. That is for the market to decide. Also, all tax increases have to be approved by the voters and that isn’t going to happen.
- I do not understand “as-of-right” zoning. I would only have 4 zones: Not developable (wetland or earthquake hazard), agricultural, high-density mixed use (residential/commercial/light industrial), heavy industrial.

In addition to Euchner’s recommendation I would do the following:
- Abolish public housing. Instead I would turn every housing project into condominiums and give them to the current residents. This would have two benefits: It takes someone off of the government teat (always a morally dubious place to be) and creates a whole host of property owners, who if they are smart can parley that property into changed lives. It also will encourage builders to build in the neighborhood since they will be able to get high prices that they otherwise would have. In San Francisco it was estimated that being within 2 block s of a housing project took 15% - 25% off the value of a property. For example, my wife and I were thinking about buying a 10 unit Edwardian but the reason we didn’t was its proximity to a notorious project, where even police feared to go. Also, I know of three large vacant lots near housing projects where no one is willing to build.
- Repeal Rent Control Laws. Some rent control is worse than others. San Francisco is bad (for the reasons mentioned in the Consumers’ Research Magazine article) but Berkeley on the east side of the Bay is worse. The number of rental units in that city has actually declined since they passed their rent control ordinance.
- Declare vacant buildings a nuisance and condemn them after 90 days of vacancy. According to anecdotal evidence (the word of a postman) ¼ of the buildings in San Francisco’s most blighted neighborhood (BayView/Hunter’s Point) are unoccupied. They are owned by speculators waiting for the market to raise the price (a new light rail line is going in) before they sell. The speculators are not willing to rent to people because the rent control ordinance also makes it almost impossible to evict a tenant.

2. Is housing affordable in my community: I already answered this. It is very expensive but because people are paying for it, it is by definition, affordable..

3. Should all communities be responsible for making affordable housing? I’m not sure I understand this question. If it means should all governments build housing for people, or subsidize rents, or something like that, then no. No communities should be responsible for making affordable housing. But if the question means should government remove unnecessary obstacles such as setbacks, height limits, 2 to 3 bathroom to bedroom ratios, minimum lot sizes, and garages (as long as one man is homeless it is immoral for the government to require housing for cars.) then yes.


*This doesn’t mean that the people with median incomes are buying median priced houses. Only the top 60% can realistically qualify for a mortgage. That bottom 40%, unless they do a TIC on a duplex, or some other “non-traditional” arrangement should get used to being renters.