In making the argument that exclusive neighborhoods ought to remain socioeconomically segregated to preserve elite class bragging rights, John Donegan somehow manages to be both breathlessly condescending toward the less fortunate and also woefully ignorant of the types of housing policies that produce thriving communities (“Beverly hillbillies,” Feb. 15).
Donegan ignores a mountain of sociological evidence pointing to the benefits of well-designed mixed-income neighborhoods for social solidarity, economic mobility, and shared prosperity. Evidence shows that neighborhoods segregated by social class tend to mirror hierarchies that develop in other facets of American civic life, exacerbating inequalities and contributing to accelerating rates of distrust and suspicion among citizens.
Beyond this, Donegan never pauses to consider the low-income individuals who serve these wealthy communities—workers whose labor is taken for granted even while their livelihoods and financial stability become increasingly precarious and uncertain. These low-income workers are not asking for mansions in Beverly Hills, they’re merely asking for a reasonable commute, an affordable place to live, and the prospect of living a dignified life.
Vince Meserko
Cal Poly
This article appears in Feb 22 – Mar 3, 2024.
Hi Vince – You pretty much nailed it. Individuals that favor gated communities, segregation and exclusivity often lack a vision that economic and social diversity bring character and enrichment to communities and are mandatory for about 50% of the population that rent vs. own. Home values and rent prices skyrocketed in the last 10 years to a point that has made SLO County unaffordable to tens of thousands of residents, including teachers, medical professionals, ag workers, and all service providers. Funding low-income homes in SLO county is an uphill battle. Developers, even with currently available incentives, are mostly uninterested because low income home development profit margins aren’t worth the effort to them (Dana Reserve is an example of what is worth it, and even it is seeing hard push-back). Tax payers will likely end up funding projects that develop land on the east side of the County for high-density, affordable housing. And it will probably take another 5 to 10 years to see it happen.
IF a market existed for these developments they would be building them. The issue is that lower cost homes would sell but not the higher end homes needed to make the project profitable. Cost of land is astronomical as are the fees paid to government. Someone has to pay for it.
Where were you when all the new annexation areas in San Luis Obispo built cookie cutter housing projects that instead of incorporating housing types throughout the project as the City’s General Plan requires segregated them into high density, medium density and lowest density. Oh, just like the Dana (not) Preserve project. The Devil is in the details but what you are advocating is upzoning build neighborhoods in some hope that housing will miraculously become “affordable”- whatever the hell that means. Spend some time reading up on “Rent Theory” regarding land valuation and then come back to me on the issue with density and affordability.
Mr. Meserko believes that I do not understand the “types of housing policies which produce thriving communities”. I admit that I am a bit wary of the idea of using social engineering to achieve a desired demographic and community. My observation has been that the most charming and desirable locales have been organic and spontaneous. Social engineering doesn’t have a very good track record in producing utopias.
I stand by my summarization of the bottom line effect of inclusionary housing mandates and assessments. They benefit the few who receive subsidized housing, at the expense of those who have to pay their own way. They don’t produce affordable housing for all who desire it.
I also have endured lengthly commutes. My first house, in a rough area but the best that I could afford, required a 26 mile commute on congested Bay Area freeways. I also spent years commuting 21 miles, and sometimes substantially more, through the worst of LA traffic. I am sympathetic to those who endure long commutes.
Some suggest the construction of more high density rental apartments. Part of the problem of apartment construction, though, is the onerous burdens that California law puts on landlords, making it an undesirable way to invest money. For example, you may recall the recent two year or so prohibition on the eviction of deadbeat tenants during the pandemic. There are plenty of other disincentives still in effect. Even if the community decides that they would like more apartments, why would someone want to invest in something with so many problems when you can get a better return with a lot less pain?
Once again, John Donegan, one of the finest retired intellectuals in Pismo Beach, doesn’t understand the meaning of basic words and concepts. He thinks that letting people build apartments on their own property is “social engineering” and that the development patterns of cities like Atherton, CA were “organic and spontaneous.” I guess this is the exactly the type of brilliant insight that we pay him for.