Nine-month study brings call for employer housing impact fees to help finance below market rate housing
In 2018, 19 Santa Clara County residents of varying political philosophies did something that few have done: undertake a nine-month investigation of this issue with an objective to provide recommendations. The result was “Affordable Housing Crisis: Density Is Our Destiny,” by the 2017-18 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ).
The title might scare some. We all, understandably, want to maintain neighborhood character that can be challenged by increased density. Higher densities in some areas, though, is our destiny. We’re in a crisis. A disappearing middle class is among the profound ramifications of a critical lack of BMR housing.
Many of the CGJ’s recommendations have been the focus of governmental efforts. Some recommendations have failed to gain ground. They should be reconsidered.
Perhaps the CGJ’s most controversial recommendation was the call for employer housing impact fees to help finance BMR housing. The thought of an “employee tax” sparks a wide range of reactions. In March, a Mercury News/Silicon Valley Leadership Group poll found that just 30 percent of voters supported a new per-employee tax on businesses to fund general improvements.
The poll, though, identified general improvements, where the CGJ report calls for such a tax specifically for BMR housing. Mountain View residents indeed have approved an employee tax. Cupertino, for one, also has considered the idea. Even with companies such as Google, Facebook and Apple commendably stepping up in a big way, the CGJ report calls for such a tax now.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has said he expects “corporate California” to help the state solve our housing crisis, but the moves by some big companies (Salesforce.com, Microsoft and Cisco Systems are among others that have stepped up) have been voluntary, ad hoc efforts. Not good enough, says the CGJ.
The CGJ report makes 19 recommendations in all. The CGJ calls for higher densities near transit hubs, a bigger increase in BMR “inclusionary” units, more cooperation among cities in meeting the state housing RHNA goals and more liberal accessory dwelling unit (ADU) policies.
In Santa Clara County, San Jose is crucial to solving the housing crisis, accounting for roughly half our population. Its situation is tricky, since a focus on a jobs-housing balance is crucial. San Jose’s jobs-housing balance skews toward housing. But for cities such as Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Mountain View and Cupertino, the ratio is jobs-heavy. The CGJ report specifically targets certain recommendations to these jobs-heavy cities.
But the jobs-housing ratios don’t absolve San Jose from needing to pick up its housing game. It’s nowhere near on pace for its 10,000-unit BMR goal.
The CGJ by charter is limited to the county, but Bay Area-wide approaches such as the Committee to House the Bay Area, or CASA, is in keeping with CGJ’s thrust. CASA, formed by ABAG and the MTC, came up with recommendations largely in sync with CGJ’s recommendations. The Cities Association of Santa Clara County also it taking a regional, “planning collaborative,” approach to housing. The need for quick action is urgent.
January 10, 2020
The Mercury News
By Henry Groth, a member of the Santa Clara County Chapter of the California Grand Jurors’ Association
No comments:
Post a Comment