Housing Goals Are Reality
Which cities should make more room for the poor--those that already have their share or those that don’t?
Under orders from the state housing department, the Southern California Assn. of Governments came up with an answer nobody likes: Nudge the balance slightly closer to center but not all the way.
That means Ventura County’s poorest cities are being required to build proportionately more low-cost housing than their wealthier neighbors but even the affluent cities must build more than they have built in the past.
Why does it matter? The issue of how much low-income housing each city should build is pressing because the state Department of Housing and Community Development is requiring each city to revise the so-called housing element of its general plan for development. The process began in 1998, and the housing allocations now being imposed on cities reflect the number and type of dwellings to be built from 1998 to 2005. If cities don’t abide by those allocations, the state could refuse to certify the housing plans, opening cities up to lawsuits by developers.
Throughout Southern California, about 39% of dwellings are considered affordable for low- and very low-income people.
In Ventura County, about 33% of dwellings are in those categories--averaging about 21% in the affluent east county and about 45% in the less-prosperous west county.
The goals make a modest attempt to reduce rather than aggravate poverty pockets by setting slightly higher low-income housing goals for cities that are lagging behind (Camarillo, Moorpark, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks) and slightly lower goals for those that already have more than their share (Fillmore, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme and Santa Paula).
Nonetheless, last week Ventura County’s three poorest cities decided to appeal. Oxnard, Santa Paula and Fillmore argue that they already have far more than their share of Ventura County’s low-priced housing--at least twice as much as most local cities--and that building more would perpetuate problems often found in poor neighborhoods.
The richer cities see things differently, of course. Simi Valley City Manager Mike Sedell told The Times that his city doesn’t want to be “penalized for our demographics and the quality of life which exists in our community.” His city has fewer affordable homes, he said, because it is such a desirable place to live and draws affluent residents.
The “penalized” attitude misses the point. No city wants to build affordable housing because cities do better courting retail stores, which will bring in sales taxes, than houses, which send most of their property tax to the state. But pretending the need doesn’t exist merely forces the poor to double up in too-small dwellings, to live illegally in garages, toolsheds or campgrounds, or to clog the freeways that separate home from workplace.
Although SCAG’s figures are open to debate, the trends they address are not. These goals offer a reasonable blueprint that local leaders should make a good-faith effort to follow, even though that will not be easy or popular.
