“The Fair Share Housing Allocation”

September 2004  
 

The most important issue facing California today is the lack of housing to serve those who have chosen to make this state their home. The housing shortage is particularly critical in San Luis Obispo where policies, procedures and fees create almost insurmountable obstacles to meeting this need. The result is that during the 1990s SLO grew at a rate of 1/3% rather than the 1% envisioned in the General Plan. This causes a significant shortage of available housing, and a rating as the fourth least-affordable housing market in the Country. This shortage also affects the city in regards to the Fair Share Housing Allocation.

 Much has been said in the past few months about the “threat” this state policy is to our city. It is important that we carefully look at the facts. State regulations require all California cities to adopt General Plans which include Housing Elements that are fair and reasonable, including the provisions for Affordable Housing. In 1994 the city adopted a non-compliant Housing Element. Consequently the State withdrew $1.46 million in previously approved housing grants, and withheld unknown millions in State housing grants that it might have been awarded over the following eight years. The city could have complied by making minor changes in the Housing Element language. Despite all the current political rhetoric, the city would NOT have been required to spend great sums for public improvements.

 The State Office of Housing & Community Development (HCD) and SLO Council Of Governments (SLOCOG) have worked hard to arrive at “Fair Share” allocations that all parties could accept. It is the responsibility of local government to voice the concerns of its citizens, to make their concerns and desires known, and to forcefully argue for their point of view. We may not be completely satisfied with the final compromisesac, but when all negotiations are complete, SLOCOG and the cities need to accept the final figures from the State, or face government sanctions and probable lawsuits, which local agencies almost always lose.

 If the City adopts the new figures, it WILL NOT be forced into massive expenditures. The 5450 housing units, serving city-average of 2.3 person/unit, calculates to 12,535 persons. Adding this to the current population of 44,426 gives a population total of 56,961, which is less than the 57,700 of adopted General Plan Documents. Stated simply, City General Plan documents already include this level of population increase, and more.

If the city adopts the new figures, it WILL NOT lose control of its planning process. City planning documents must comply with “Fair Share” requirements, but the city itself does NOT have to produce the housing. The marketplace will dictate housing development, and projects will still be subjected to the detailed review process now in place. This process currently results in projects moving at a glacial pace before housing is built (the Margarita Area has been in the process for over 15 years).

So why all the fuss? Its election time, and politicians need platforms to show they are “standing up to the State” or “protecting our citizens”. In actuality, this “stand against the State” works against SLO citizens. The sanctions, the cost of lawsuits, and the loss of future state grants will all hurt. But most importantly, this posturing and tilting at windmills diverts our city from addressing the critical housing needs of our community, and WE ALL LOSE.