High-Density Time in O.C.?
If you have lived in Orange County for the past 15 years or more, you may be experiencing a frustrating sense of deja vu when you read about many of the major problems the county is wrestling with. These include where to locate another airport, how to provide more jail beds, and how to build the affordable housing needed by new residents in a booming economy. It’s the same list as in the 1980s.
The housing issue is especially critical, because while the need has grown along with the economy, housing prices have escalated. If today’s decision makers aren’t any more visionary and decisive than those of the past, the scenario may be the same 15 years from now.
Yes, the county’s economic health is sound and the county remains a magnet for new businesses and residents. But for how long? The shortage of affordable housing affects many, including teachers, government workers and young people who wish to remain in the community.
The business community is keenly aware of the problem. In the 2000 Orange County Executive Survey compiled by the UC Irvine Graduate School of Management, housing costs for employees were singled out as a top barrier to doing business in Orange County and named by 71% of the executives responding.
Their concern is understandable. They see growing traffic congestion with workers having to move to Los Angeles and Riverside counties to find homes they can afford. That takes hours out of their day and money out of their paychecks to cover commuting costs.
But the employers feel the result too in more lateness, absenteeism and job turnover. Many can’t afford to pay the wages to cover the added costs of commuting.
They face difficulties finding workers with the skills they need because more and more of those workers can’t afford to live nearby. Potential employees choose not to subject themselves to the long commute.
Eventually, the erosion of the labor pool and quality of life may discourage many businesses from locating here--and prompt companies already here to relocate. Prospective employees have already started rejecting the county.
Orange County cannot continue to hang out the “no vacancy” sign to lower and middle-income workers and make neighboring counties its bedroom.
There are encouraging signs that federal and state officials are starting to give the problem more than lip service. This year’s state budget has $570 million to help make housing more affordable and available. And the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has increased its housing subsidies that will help more low-income families afford rentals.
The average rent in Orange County is now at a record high of about $1,100 a month. But those government efforts, welcome as they are, will barely dent the complex problem. According to state estimates, Orange County needs an additional 75,000 homes for people of all income levels by 2005 to meet population-growth expectations.
Years ago, the county had more options. Land was less expensive and more plentiful. With today’s built-out cities, most of the land available for home construction has already been developed or is in the preconstruction stage.
It’s not desirable to eat up all the irreplaceable open space, but there are two real opportunities left--the closed Marine Corps bases at Tustin and El Toro. Some housing already exists there. It should be used rather than wasted.
Progress in this area has been too slow, but at least county supervisors began moving to address the problem last week. The final development plans for the closed bases, whatever they may be, should include some housing, lest more opportunities be lost.
There also needs to be a change in government’s thinking. Incentives for apartment construction would help. So would some reductions in developer fees to help small and medium-sized building companies. And many planning and population experts believe the only way to immediately meet the affordable housing problem is with higher density development of apartments and condos.
Just the mention of high density raises the hackles of many people, but cities can’t keep courting just commercial and pricey single-family home construction. Higher density, if it’s well-planned and located with adequate support services, must also be considered.
Today we are living with the consequences of past inaction and problems that should have been better solved many years ago. We must not subject future generations to the same fate.
