Crowded Dwellings Are Dangerous, Damaging
* The fundamental role of government is to protect lives. So, The Times is correct when it points out that the city of Santa Ana has persistently sought the ability to govern residential occupancy standards (“Using Safety as Tenet in Occupancy Issue,” Editorial, March 27).
Current state law sets the maximum number of residents in a dwelling unit. Historically, this was determined by counting the square footage in bedrooms. This changed radically, however, as the result of a court decision which said you must count all ‘habitable’ areas for sleeping purposes (i.e., dining rooms, living rooms, etc.) in a dwelling to come up with the occupancy level. What this now means is that a 600-square-foot apartment can be legally occupied by 10 people!
This is the state law and it does expose people to life-threatening risks. Residential units were never built to handle the occupancy loads allowed by the state’s new math.
People have died. This evidence is compelling. In late 1991, Santa Ana Fire Battalion Chief Tom Skelly told me that there would be fire deaths in our city and it was just a question of when, due to severely overcrowded conditions sanctioned by the state. Just a few days later, three were killed in such conditions. Six more people would be burned to death and 10 would be injured in the following 13 months. The evidence is compelling and heart-wrenching.
We have sought a legislative remedy because the state bureaucracy is unwilling or unable to explain why the existing standard is safe. Our approach is to restore common sense to the equation by giving local cities the ability to legislate in this area. Presently, local governments may only set a different occupancy standard than the state standard of 10 per 600-square-foot apartment when a finding based on climate, topography or geology is made.
Obviously occupancy is unrelated to weather, earthquakes or hill slides. Nonetheless, the state Department of Housing and Community Development has stated that there should be a lower occupancy standard (2 per bedroom plus 1) for developments supported or subsidized by the state.
Why should only the fortunate few who qualify for state programs have safe and affordable housing? It seems, instead, the state of California is blindly endorsing a policy that is unsafe. And if the answer is ultimately to build more housing, how many communities will step up when one must assume occupancy based on 10 people in 600 square feet?
Yes, we’re persistent. As Battalion Chief Skelly told me back in 1991, when the fire deaths occur, city officials will be asked what was done to address this problem. We’ve presented the issue to the state officials who make the rules. We will gladly explain our evidence.
It only seems reasonable that the state housing and community development officials explain their evidence and methodology that results in a residential unit with 10 people in 600 square feet. Why not have a state policy that provides for both housing and safety?
ROBERT L. RICHARDSON
Councilman, Santa Ana
* Your recent editorial in support of the families who are overcrowding the apartments in Santa Ana is just another example of muddle-headed, feel-good thinking that is destroying neighborhoods not only in our inner cities but in other communities as well.
I am on the board of directors of a condo association in Mission Viejo and we are experiencing some of the same overcrowding problems that Santa Ana is facing.
We have as many as 12 or more people jammed into rental condos with an occupancy limit of five, according to the CC&Rs; of the association.
This has led to excessive noise, destruction of the landscape, increased wear and tear on the facilities, vandalism, graffiti, theft and other problems we never faced until recently.
The tragedy of the situation is that many young first-time buyers and elderly retirees are seeing their property values decrease and their rights to the quiet enjoyment of their unit being trampled upon.
Unfortunately, your paper and the state seem to be on the side of the ones doing the overcrowding. My gut feeling is that you don’t give a damn about the poor, your main concern is keeping a large labor pool of low-wage workers to fill jobs in the fast-food, retail and other low-paying industries.
I would wager that if you check into the overcrowding problems you will find that some of those who are involved are having a good portion of their rent paid by HUD, another well-intended but failed government program.
You might also find that some of the money saved on rent is being sent back to Mexico or other countries.
Occupancy rules set by the state courts that allow up to 19 people in a two-bedroom apartment will not solve the affordable housing problems, it will only lead to chaos, crime, the breakup of families, slums and other social problems.
The state will be better off when it empowers local communities to set their own reasonable occupancy limits. Maybe then we can make our communities more manageable and as a result safer and more livable.
EUGENE ELDRIDGE
Huntington Beach
