Should there be carbon penalties for ‘no growth’ communities?

Imagine having to plant a few hundred trees near the Oregon border or handing over all the money in your wallet next time your city council votes down a housing project.

That is one of the ideas coming out of the newly released California Apartment Association’s key findings report.

The report suggests rewarding communities that build housing near jobs and transportation, but penalizing suburban sprawl by linking it to California climate change legislation.

Communities that turn down housing projects would pay a fine for, presumably, forcing people who work in their community to move farther away. Climate change is factored in because, in most cases, commuting can harm the environment by releasing more carbon emissions.

Another suggestion in the report is to penalize the communities by linking failure to build new housing to carbon offsets, credits given in lieu of offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. One way the state allows for that is reforestation protocols, or planting trees with less than 10 percent tree canopy cover.

The Sacramento-based Apartment Association represents residential property owners and has 13,000 members. The report it released Wednesday came out of a housing forum it held in September attended by politicians, unions, economists and housing advocacy groups.

Robert Wassmer, director of CSU Sacramento’s urban land development program, said it is too easy for cities to turn down housing projects for low income residents.

“Local governments will say they can’t possibly approve housing because there is too much political resistance and it is too big of a cost,” he said. “Right now, they can say that without putting any dollars forward.”

Wassmer, who attended the forum, said putting financial penalties in place for denial of new projects will give politicians cover for approval. He said local lawmakers could argue denying new housing will require municipalities to raise taxes or cut back on services.

Tom Bannon, CEO of the association, said many politicians want to approve new housing but are in a tough spot when their neighbors oppose it. He said community opposition is in contrast with a state requirement that mandates communities show how they will meet projected housing needs.

“If they vote for (a new project), they have the wrath of the homeowner,” he said. “But, they are not abiding by what the city agreed to in accepting their fair share.”

Throughout the report, the association repeatedly warns against rent control measures. Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, San Jose, West Hollywood and Thousand Oaks are among some of the cities in the state that already have rent control.

San Diego does not, but a local group has been pushing for it. San Diego Tenants United led a march in September asking for the city to enact rent control measures, arguing prices had gone up so fast in 2016 that the city needed to intervene.

Yet, rent control can be difficult to pass with most economists dismissing it because controls can lead to a reduction in the quality and quantity of housing available.

Bannon said recent rent control measures in Northern California and rent increases have the apartment association concerned it will see more rent control proposals across the state.

“As the state brings in new jobs, all of a sudden there is inadequate supply of housing and prices go up,” he said. “We want to continue the state’s economic growth. From the (San Francisco) Bay Area, you’re hearing from big companies that they may not be expanding because there is no room for our future employees.”

The association said it produced the report because it says more apartments and housing are needed in California to reduce costs for renters and buyers. It estimates an additional 100,000 homes need to be built each year.

Some of the other ideas listed in the report:

• Revisit Gov. Jerry Brown’s “by-right” proposal. It would have approved developments without California’s stringent review process as long as it set aside at least 20 percent of units for low-income residents. Also, if the development is near a transit stop, it could be quickly approved as long as 10 percent of units are for low-income renters. It was strongly opposed by a coalition of environmental and labor groups.
• Fix the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. The association says the law is being used to block “sensible development,” such as new homes near transportation and jobs. One suggestion was to consider an appeals process, like those in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
• Promote urban infill. The association suggests increasing taxes on landowners who don’t don’t sell valuable lots that could be used for housing.

Wassmer acknowledged it might not be in some communities’ best interests to approve housing, but it is at the regional and state level — requiring Brown to step in.

“This all has to come from the governor,” he said. “He tried the more collaborative, cooperative approach with the by-right (proposal) but that didn’t go anywhere. Now, he needs to think about using executive power.”

phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com (619) 293-1891 Twitter: @phillipmolnar

ALSO

Half your income on rent? You’re not alone