Post-SOAR, ‘Affordable’ Housing Remains Taboo
The Times’ report on the housing crunch in Ventura County on June 4 was a good starting point for public discussion on the tremendous shortage of housing, cities’ legal requirements for affordable housing, what residents tell us they want and the ocean that separates all of the above.
People constantly tell elected officials that it is more important to follow the “intent” of Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR)) or Measure A than what those initiatives actually mandate.
In my 14 years on the Camarillo City Council, I have become convinced that most people who move to our city want us to put a blockade at the top of the Conejo Grade and issue magnetic cards allowing only residents to pass.
Furthermore, while medical advances allow older folks to live much longer, and while younger ones keep having babies, people tell us to stop growth and stop it now. Many have not yet grasped that we can’t stop growth and that we need more housing that average people can afford.
Most elected officials are following their hearts in this matter. Some go the way of no or low growth; others try to tread that fine line between providing ample, affordable and quality homes for families in a variety of neighborhoods and getting so far away from the wishes of the people as to trigger a recall.
To illustrate the differences between what we need and what people want, consider the current public outcry in Camarillo over three apartment complexes in various stages of the process. Council members and City Hall have been bombarded with phone calls, e-mail and letters from people who don’t want them.
One is a 165-unit complex proposed for western Camarillo. The opponents, who live nearby in single-family homes on small lots, feel that it would be too dense and generate too much traffic.
In eastern Camarillo, a 160-unit complex is under construction where most apartments will rent for about $1,200 per month; 32 units are designated for low or moderate incomes. Callers have said they don’t want “the type of children who live in apartments” attending their children’s school. If one tries to remind them that at one time or another many of us have lived in apartments, some get really nasty. Some acknowledge that more apartments are needed, “but put them over on the other side of the creek where they belong; not in Mission Oaks!”
The third complex was referred for more specific study about a year ago and is across from Leisure Village. Calls reveal tremendous fear generated in some senior citizens by the thought that children might live in the vicinity. As a parent, I’ve been startled by their characterization of young people as thieves, hoodlums and muggers. Most of these callers are not aware that the only apartments currently in Mission Oaks, a 160-unit low- and moderate-income complex, are just a block from another of Leisure Village’s fences. They recognize the need for more housing, especially affordable housing--but not in their front yard.
*
If we followed the desires of all these people to build the apartment complexes elsewhere, we would just be moving them to somebody else’s neighborhood because there is a very limited amount of land available for building. Sure, we could rezone some commercial or industrial land but there’s not much of that left either. We can’t forget the state requirement to build our fair share of housing that people of average incomes can afford. Additionally, the need for enough land for businesses in order to have enough jobs for all these people must enter the discussion at some point.
We must do everything we can to educate ourselves but it is going to be mighty hard. Perhaps the very expensive “visioning” process that Ventura used is the best approach. The Ventura City Council will be able to tell folks that the plan was not devised by the council but by a process in which thousands of citizens contributed their ideas and made the decisions.
*
Many elected officials are following what they think is the will of the people. However, all people are not equally vocal and there are many who need housing they can afford. There aren’t many elected officials in the county who were as naive as I was to run on a platform of more affordable housing and lose the first time, then try again and be successful four years later. However, I jump at every opportunity to get the City Council to buy land on which to build affordable housing and to encourage builders to include some in their developments and complexes.
The bar for managing the issues of growth and housing has been raised and the challenge as well as the need is now greater than ever before.
