Farm-Worker Housing Tripped Up by Red Tape : Shelter: Two publicly financed projects, in Oceanside and San Marcos, are stymied, jeopardizing $500,000 in state funds.
For reasons both political and bureaucratic, plans to construct farm-worker housing in North San Diego County--with the state picking up $500,000 of the tab--may be dying on the vine.
The money, authorized in state legislation authored by Assemblyman Robert Frazee (R-Carlsbad) and funneled through the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development, was intended to finance the construction this year of two housing projects.
One proposal called for building three mobile homes to house up to 21 farm workers on a private avocado ranch on Oceanside’s east side, financed in part by $100,000 in the state funds. The other project called for construction of a $4.1-million, county built and operated 38-unit apartment complex in a residential neighborhood of San Marcos, with $400,000 in state aid.
They would have become the first two publicly financed housing projects for farm workers in San Diego County, where an estimated 30,000 farm workers--if not far more--lack decent housing.
But, for different reasons, both projects are now stymied and the state money may go unspent this fiscal year. Officials say they hope that, if the projects aren’t developed this year, the money won’t be lost to them forever but will be recycled through Sacramento for allocation again next year.
But they also fear that, given the state’s worsening fiscal crisis, politicians next year may reallocate the farm-worker housing money into the state’s general fund, and that these two proposals will end up being missed opportunities to help alleviate--albeit in a small way--the farm-worker housing crisis in San Diego County.
“There’s a very good risk of losing the money, if we can’t put together the project in San Marcos,” said Mike McGuigan, project manager for the county’s Housing Authority.
“It’s our mission in life to provide affordable housing for various populations--from the elderly to the agricultural worker to the disabled to the single parent with children.
“We know we can’t build enough housing for everyone in the county who needs housing. There’s not enough money in the U.S. Treasury to do that. But 38 units for farm workers is better than no units.”
The San Marcos project called for a 38-unit, townhouse-type, low-income housing project in the 400 block of Firebird Lane, just a few blocks from City Hall. A three-bedroom apartment would rent for $315 a month and four- and five-bedroom apartments would rent for $100 and $200 more, respectively.
The Housing Authority had scouted 50 sites in the county for the project and settled on San Marcos for several reasons, including the affordability of the 8-acre site--$865,000--and the need for farm-worker housing in the area.
Of the total $4.1-million price tag, the state would kick in $400,000 through the Frazee bill, which directed that the $500,000 be spent in San Diego County; the city of San Marcos would be asked to contribute $500,000, and federal grants and additional county contributions would finance the rest.
The project would feature not only housing for farm-worker families, but a community center and offices for nonprofit agencies providing such services as health education, language instruction, job training, legal assistance and child care. A property manager would be on site at all times.
But, this week, the San Marcos Planning Commission voted, 4 to 3, against the project. Adjoining property owners opposed the project, saying it was an inappropriate use for their neighborhood and that the concentration of farm workers would exacerbate existing crime and vandalism.
Planning Commission Chairman Arnold Hafner said he wasn’t convinced that the county could operate the project and be “reportable and responsible” to the city for problems arising from it.
“We have a (housing) problem, and we need to solve it, but I’m not sure that Big Brother can solve it for us. If the county really wants to be altruistic, let them send the $4.1 million to us directly, and I guarantee absolutely that we’ll spend the money on low-cost housing like this,” he said.
The Housing Authority is appealing the decision to the City Council, which can overrule the Planning Commission. But San Marcos Mayor Lee Thibadeau has his own doubts about the project.
“I’d like to see us participate in providing homes for farm workers, but I have some concerns about doing it in that particular neighborhood,” Thibadeau said.
Another option, he said, would develop such a project in existing housing that would be converted to farm workers’ use.
“But the problem is, the law says the housing has to be new,” the mayor said. “I just think that maybe we can do better than what the county wants to do, by developing it in an existing community.”
McGuigan said he was “stunned and very disappointed” by the Planning Commission vote in San Marcos. “I honestly don’t know if the City Council will override the decision.
“We know that you’re going to face difficulties in any neighborhood whenever you do anything with ‘affordable housing.’ We’ve heard their concerns at community workshops, and we’ve tried to address them, but there are people who, no matter what you do or what lengths you go to to try to satisfy them, they’re not going to be happy.”
He said the county’s application for the $400,000 in state funds was specifically for the San Marcos project and that, if the city rejects it, the county will have to reapply for the funds with the state once it finds another potential site.
The state offer of the $400,000 grant was open to any public agency in the county--and the county itself was the only one that responded.
Likewise, the separate $100,000 grant was also offered to any public agency in the county for a downscale project, and the city of Oceanside was the only one that sought it.
That plan called for the money to be funneled through the city to a private landowner who would agree to place three mobile homes on his property for 10 years to house 21 farm workers. Although the grant would finance the mobile homes, the property owner, whose employees would be the beneficiaries of the housing, would have to pay daily operating expenses, including utilities and on-site supervision.
In Oceanside, only one person responded to the city’s search for a farm-worker housing host--Phil Gilligen, an avocado grower on the city’s eastern side. Gilligen agreed to spend $50,000 of his own money to convert a farm building to a recreation room and kitchen for the farm workers. In turn, the farm workers would pay $3.15 a day for a bed, to help pay the operating costs.
But the proposal collapsed because the state insisted that Oceanside promise to stand by the project for 10 years. Gilligen said he wanted the right to back out of the project, with appropriate notice, if he ended up selling his land or converting it to a different use. And he said that, if he did quit the project, he would reimburse the state on a pro-rated basis for the time he used the state-funded housing.
The state, in turn, said it wouldn’t agree to such terms unless the city of Oceanside itself promised to find another host for the farm-worker project for the balance of the 10-year term, should Gilligen back out. The city said it couldn’t make such a promise.
“If one grower opted out, we’d have to find another site--but we don’t know if we’d have another site in Oceanside,” said Dick Goodman, the city’s housing director. As it was, he noted, Gilligen was the only person in the city willing to take on the farm-worker housing project.
“We know that, today, we couldn’t find anyone else except Gilligen, so we couldn’t assure the state that we could find someone in the future to continue the project,” Goodman said.
The likelihood of finding any rancher or farmer along San Diego’s coastal strip, where the housing situation is most critical, who will commit his property for 10 years to agricultural use is dim, Goodman said.
“Around here, agricultural land is simply a holding pattern until the property is developed some other way,” Goodman said. “And we hoped that the state grant would provide farm-worker housing on a short-term basis. This was supposed to be an innovative farm-worker housing project, anyway, without all the cookie-cutter, boilerplate terms that the state usually includes.
“If we’re going to have to meet every single condition that the state places on farm-worker housing projects that it supports in the Central Valley, then we’re never going to build one in San Diego County,” he complained. “And that’s why you don’t see any state-funded farm-worker housing south of Bakersfield. It’s absurd.”
“For now,” Goodman said, “the farm-worker housing project in Oceanside isn’t not only on the back burner, it’s not even in the kitchen.”
