The city of SLO is in the process of gathering input on the idea of allowing large numbers of small condos and apartments in the commercial zones downtown, ranging up to 600 square feet. I’m not generally a fan of New Times opinion writer John Donegan, but his column “San Luis Obispo should heed San Francisco’s demise as a warning,” (Jan.19) is instructive and cautionary.
High density is not a panacea. We are already seeing more crime in town, including all the issues bemoaned ian the article. Those who wish to live in big and dense cities may do so, without trying to remake smaller towns to their liking. There are plenty of cities from which to choose, and if small-town America is not satisfying, feel free go explore other places.
Those most in need of low cost housing, farm and service workers, will not be able to afford these new apartments/condos. Many have families, and a small one-bedroom or studio downtown is not a welcoming place for young children to grow. Without a car, getting to work outside of town is not easy, nor are there grocery stores nearby. Downtown has already become difficult to access, and parking for new development will exacerbate the situation.
The only affordable housing is built by nonprofits like People’s Self-Help Housing and the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo. I have never seen a new for-profit residential development built in the city that sells for affordable prices, no matter what is promised.
Christine Mulholland
San Luis Obispo
This article appears in Feb 2-12, 2023.
No one is calling high density a panacea. I share your concern with high costs of living and support projects like People’s and HASLO as well. And yet, people who will never qualify for a low-income apartment will live here regardless, so we need to build housing for them too, or they’ll bid up the price of existing homes. The homes in the downtown area go for, what – $1m plus? You can’t charge that much for a 600sf apartment, even a new one. Smaller housing, close to downtown, is just one of the many housing choices that have been made illegal for decades. And someone will find it fits their needs and their budget. That’s really it.
Despite her disclaimer, it appears our former city council member is a bigger fan of Mr. Donegan than she portrays. Apparently Ms. Mulholland believes that there is a direct causation between crime and affordable housing inventory (“We are already seeing more crime in town…”). Wow! The conclusory statements about “farm and service workers” having families and then determining what is best for them (“…not a welcoming place for children to grow…”) is equally troubling.
Rather than having our downtown adapt and evolve to meet the needs of the City, Ms. Mulholland would seem to prefer our downtown be put under glass to ensure her version of “small-town America” remains in place. Perhaps Ms. Mulholland should be the one to “explore other places”.
SLO City has a long history of drawbridge mentality to keep it a special place for the special people who already have theirs. Folks may drive in to work their jobs serving the city denizens but come nightfall they are expected to head back to the north county, south county, or out of county – anywhere but SLO City. And we see this same viewpoint in this letter – protect what I have from interlopers who might want to live here, too.
After finding myself cited by two different people here, I feel obligated to point out that both missed the point of my column on San Francisco. San Francisco is not in such a mess due to high density, and is in fact roughly the same density as when I lived there in the early seventies, when it was a much nicer place to live. It is in its current sorry state due to horrendous mismanagement and anti-businss policies, pursuant to following an ideological agenda, and to cynical politicians using “free stuff” to buy votes.