R.I.P. affordable housing

Our News Wire newsletter is your weekly dose of local news, arts, and culture every Thursday.

Send me local news!

On June 7, the SLO County Board of Supervisors made good on its promise to repeal the inclusionary housing ordinance.

Few actions of this board can surpass the long-term damage potential of striking down the ordinance that was just about the only thing the county could point to as evidence that it was serious about the affordable housing crisis.

The concept of inclusionary housing is based on the demonstrable fact that individuals, communities, and economies are better served when neighborhoods are designed to incorporate a range of socio-economic statuses, improving the quality and diversity of the neighborhood and reducing the vehicle miles traveled between work and home, easing the burden of pollution and traffic. Inclusionary housing ordinances require developers to design and build a percentage of affordable units alongside upscale homes and make them available to qualified buyers through deed restrictions. Successful inclusionary programs have provided a reliable source of affordable housing without bankrupting the building industry.

When the SLO County Planning Commission created an inclusionary housing ordinance 15 years ago, it was weak tea, and one could argue that it didn’t do nearly enough, but it did something. (One example of how the county rolled before it had an inclusionary housing ordinance: In 2005, Supervisors Harry Ovitt, Jerry Lenthal, and Katcho Achadjian voted to approve the conversion of 60 acres of agricultural land in rural Templeton for the construction of 11 million-dollar estate homes. According to Supervisor Ovitt, this would allow a “segment of society” to “move up.”)

The ordinance was hobbled at birth. In 2008, the supervisors acquiesced to a five-year phase-in plan rather than simply requiring henceforth that developers make 20 percent of new homes affordable. Despite the urgency of the housing crisis, the gradual phase-in approach was taken at the request of the Homebuilders Association, which argued that it was needed because of the state of the economy and the need to adjust their financing models. Proceeding in incremental annual increases, in year one, 4 percent of new units had to be affordable; in year two, 8 percent; and so on. The in-lieu fee was supposed to be increased by 20 percent each year for five years until a target of approximately $20,000 per home was reached.

By the end of the first year of the five-year plan, the county had collected only $6,500 in fees. It costs about $100,000 for the county to get an affordable home built with in-lieu fees. Preparing to embark on year two of the phase-in, the supervisors again heard from the Homebuilders Association that due to the state of the economy, the supervisors should delay the incremental increases. Supervisors Bruce Gibson and Jim Patterson pushed to keep to the schedule, pointing out that the same dim economic picture had applied the year before, and was the reason why the homebuilders had requested the phased approach. But Supervisor Adam Hill sided with Supervisors Frank Mecham and Achadjian on giving the builders another pass, precluding the construction of affordable units or in-lieu contributions to their construction.

By 2016, three years after the in-lieu fee of the inclusionary housing program was supposed to have achieved full funding, the county had yet to reach year two of its phased-in funding plan. In November of that year, Supervisors Lynn Compton, Mecham, and Debbie Arnold elected to keep the in-lieu fee frozen at year-one funding levels.

Back in that genteel era, the foes of affordable housing never thought to simply kill it off. Just repealing it with nothing to put in its place would have been an act of heedless audacity greater than that of the congressional Republicans who at least pretended they wanted to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act and just hoped no one would notice there was nothing in the “replace” column.

In short, the demise of the best tool the county had for the creation of affordable housing came after years of slow poisoning and starvation.

After the board voted to repeal with no pretense of replacement—once again at the behest of the Homebuilders Association, which once again showed up to claim financial hardship and otherwise play their greatest hits of the last 15 years—there were vague assurances of future meetings to see if someone could come up with something to address this affordable housing thing.

As the county supervisors were sorrowfully performing last rites, a few blocks away the SLO City Council was actually strengthening its own inclusionary housing ordinance, increasing the percentage of affordable units required in new development.

It was an object lesson in how government is supposed to work by crafting policies for the greater good—a lesson provided by the City Council at the moment when their county colleagues were doing the opposite. Δ

Andrew Christie is the director of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club. Reach him through the editor at clanham@newtimesslo.com.

This article appears in Jul 21-31, 2022.