In the end at Tuesday’s City Council hearing on Mayor Gloria’s Housing Package, it was 7 to 1 “yay” to one “nay”. The long, contentious debate over the controversies of the plan that’s lasted weeks if not months came to a conclusion – the last time the council voted on the package, it was 5 to 3 against – but with one “hold-out” this time around – who had her own reasons for denying Gloria a full, unanimous endorsement.
The most important controversy being Gloria’s proposal to allow affordable housing developers to build the units “off-site” — that is not on the property where all the other units are being built, units allowed under the city’s current law. And that was the controversy the last time this package appeared, only to be closely voted down. The Rag called it a “give-away to developers.”
What’s happened in the interim is that Council President Sean Elo-Rivera came up with a compromise – in the form of an amendment – and embraced Gloria – a compromise that allows those affordable housing units to be “off-site” but within a 3 miles of the original development site and within the same community planning area. It was a compromise that allowed the other members of the council who opposed it publicly the first go-around to now wave their own green flags.
In an email to their thousands of contacts, entitled “RIP Affordable Housing” Neighbors for a Better San Diego had this brief message:
Jen Campbell was the only No vote at today’s City Council meeting, rightfully noting that the amendments Mayor Gloria and Council President Elo-Rivera put forth did nothing to fix the flaws in the Complete Communities section of the Housing Action Package 2.0.
Here’s Voice of San Diego‘s take in their morning brief:
Mayor’s Housing Package Sails Through After Rejection Weeks Ago
Nearly a month after slamming the brakes on Mayor Todd Gloria’s housing package, San Diego’s City Council approved it in a 7-1 vote. Councilmembers ironed out their differences over some critical points that held the package up the first time.
Gloria’s Housing Action Package 2.0, in general, makes it easier to build dorm-like student housing near transit centers and colleges, encourages the creation of single-room occupancy units and touches on several aspects of housing development.
Here are the crucial amendments that were added to bring more councilmembers on board this time around:
- The housing plan will now keep development fee waivers for micro-units under 500 sq. ft. — which had originally been on the chopping block. It will also allow for development fee waivers on three-bedroom units, but those units will be deed-restricted to families making 150 percent of area median income.
- Gloria’s plan also included changes to one local housing law known as Complete Communities. Currently, anyone who utilizes the plan to get added density on a development, must build a certain amount of mandated-affordable units on-site. Gloria had proposed allowing these units to be built off-site in neighborhoods, in some cases, that were more low-income than where the original development was being built. That change survived. But now, in cases where a developer wants to build in a “moderate” income neighborhood the off-site units will have to be within three miles or the same community planning district as the original development.
Councilmembers took note of how “messy” and “challenging” the discussion became last time.
Catch up: We wrote about how Council President Sean Elo-Rivera got candid about the influence of development money in the city’s legislative process. Those comments shook some of the councilmembers who made sure to bring them up at last week’s council president selection meeting.
The vibes on Tuesday were different. Gloria and Council President Sean Elo-Rivera had already announced last month that the package would include amendments — Tuesday was the first day the public saw the changes. …
“The lack of affordable housing is central to many of our City’s top challenges, particularly homelessness and sky-high rents,” Gloria said in a statement. “This series of reforms will boost the supply of homes and reduce the cost of housing, help our businesses recruit and retain talent and put more hard-earned dollars back into the pockets of everyday San Diegans.”
Councilwoman Jen Campbell was the lone no vote.
And here’s David Garrick at San Diego Union-Tribune on the controversy:
The source of that controversy is a new incentive that will let developers that participate in the city’s 3-year-old Complete Communities program to build low-income housing and market-rate housing in separate locations. Under the program, developers can build much larger market-rate projects than zoning would otherwise allow if they agree also to build rent-restricted units for low-income people.
The program has until now required all the units to be built at the same site — but the housing package approved Tuesday allows the rent-restricted units at a different location. Under the updates, the low-income units can’t be in low-income neighborhoods, but they can be in moderate-income areas, even if the market-rate project is built in a high-income area.
On Tuesday, the council amended the mayor’s initial proposal to limit the moderate-income option to sites within three miles of the market-rate units and within the same community planning area. They also required that both housing developments, the market-rate and the rent-restricted, have amenities of similar quality.
Garrick reported on the opposition in council chambers:
Many of the roughly 80 people who spoke during the hearing criticized the new off-siting incentive. “The mayor’s segregated housing plan takes San Diego in the wrong direction and back to our shameful past,” said Geneviéve Jones-Wright, a local civil rights attorney who is challenging the mayor for re-election. “Racially discriminatory housing practices define much of San Diego’s current demographic landscape.”
Other critics accused council members of approving the package because of lavish campaign contributions from developers and the business community. “I know they tried to buy you, but you don’t have to stay bought,” said former City Attorney Mike Aguirre. …
Neighbors for a Better San Diego, a group that typically fights housing density, praised much of the package but objected to the Complete Communities changes. They say the city shouldn’t be changing what they consider an already radical program until it’s clearer what impact it will have in its original form.
Garrick noted the business leaders who praised the package:
“We support housing density and production, specifically for the life science workforce who can’t find places to live — even for people who are making a good wage,” said Melanie Cohn of Biocom. Stefanie Benvenuto, director of public affairs for the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, said it makes sense for the council to listen to industry leaders.
“When you have the industries that represent the builders — affordable and market-rate — telling you that these policies are what they need to make more housing available, then I think it’s fair to listen to them,” she said.
So start this up in Fairbanks Ranch and Rancho Santa Fe first – both so very close, in proximity, to the “life sciences”.
And build a huge transit center there, connecting north, south and central counites.
Sock Ray Blue! Invading the enclaves of the glided geese? With pitchforks and torches you say! Attila would roll over in his grave.
It’ll be great and we’ll finally get luxury, market-rate and affordable high density living, transit & cycling all in one central area of the county with a huge transit center right where it belongs (not to mention bars, fried food restaurants, a Target and laundromats). Who knows… maybe a small single runway international airport?
I’m sure the transit center could be named after McMillan or Manchester while their groundskeepers could be housed closer to work. Should be fun! Dredge the San Dieguito river for a new yacht harbor as long as we’re at it.
You’re talking’ SD jobs, hey!
The folks at Neighborhoods for a Better San Diego (NFBSD) deserve a big thank you for their continued effort to shine a light on this developer give away.
NFBSD has been unfairly labeled by the Mayor and Elo-Rivera as a NYIMBY group of homeowners against any new density. From what I can tell, NFBSD supports strategic density along major corridors that stand the best chance of getting people to use public transportation.
The Mayor started his density push by pointing to the number of homeless people that are living on the street and the need for more affordable housing. Elo-Rivera came along and said density was an equity issue, where minorities are not welcome in certain neighborhoods and it’s time to break down the housing barriers of the past.
Along the way, they both used climate change and transit proximity as a reason to up-zone neighborhoods, allowing for random ADU apartment complexes to be built on single family lots.
Yesterday’s vote gave us – radical up-zoning throughout the City, no housing a homeless person or the working poor can afford, the ditching of equity by off siting cheaper units and random high density development that does nothing to get people out of their cars.
What is never talked about by the supporters of “Complete Communities” is that most of the housing being built will be corporate owned apartments. There is nothing in this housing package that insures there will be units people can purchase.
The developer industry that brought us car reliant Mira Mesa in the 70’s and Rancho Penasquitos in the late 80’s is still calling the shots at City Hall.
DiegoK – thanks so much for this right-on analysis. How about writing for us?
Hi Frank,
After I retire, I might take you up on your offer. Until then, you’ll have to put up with my periodic venting. Your important work and contribution to the community and City are greatly appreciated.
Developer give away? Even affordable housing developers were supporting the changes. It’s better to have affordable units built somewhere than nowhere at all. We should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good
Yes, that’s what it is. Cheaper land, cheaper quality all leads to more profits for the developers. Leads to continued racial segregation, redlining.
Zack, how may offsite “affordable housing ” projects have been completed in the last 15 years? Must be nice to spend your day on the public’s dime propagating unsubstantiated myths on behalf of the politico-corporate real estate complex.
Mateo what you said to me doesn’t make any sense. Building off site affordable housing hadn’t been legalized until yesterday and even then it won’t be implemented in 2024.
Project plans replete with fancy renderings have almost always included “affordable units” that have been and are currently submitted to the planning commission where they have been notoriously “fast-tracked.”
Then the same M.O. As soon as ground is broken for construction nearly all developers return to the planning commission where they declare the “affordable” units just cannot be conceivably built. They pay an in lieu of fee and viola nothing but luxury apartments are built on site!
So for those keeping score at home, that is (0) affordable onsite or offsite construction. BTW the in lieu of fee represents less than 10% of the cost to taxpayers of displacing yet another San Diegan and another San Diegan and another San Diegan to die on the streets with no Council metric in place to track or record their death from exposure to the elements. We are now minting 160 freshly displaced San Diegans each month for every 100 we are able to take off the streets no thanks to bureaucrats like yourself ingratiating themselves on the public dole. The web you weave…
Much deserved props to the OB Rag for the very much open forum they provide, thank you!
Zack, my Grandfather used to say make sure you give everyone slack; they will either use the rope to pull themselves up, or hang themselves with it.
Hey Zack,
If the City, County and State were really serious about affordable and low income housing, they would be using their vast portfolios of land to make things happen quickly.
Gloria has bragged about building housing on top of City facilities, such as libraries. However, when the opportunity was there to do something with the Oak Park library, he took a pass. I guess it’s only a crisis when he is pushing for up-zoning neighborhoods.
https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/08/17/san-diego-years-away-building-housing-top-of-libraries
The Hillcrest DMV, which is old and tired, would be another candidate for this type of housing. New DMV at street level and housing above. If these units don’t pencil with essentially zero land costs, then nothing will.
Most people want affordable housing in our City but where it should go is what people don’t agree on.
Developers want it to be anywhere they can make the most profit, while residents are advocating that it be strategically located along commercial corridors so public transportation and infrastructure can be leveraged to its highest and best use.
Zack, there’s one point in the Mayor’s plan that is pretty much being ignored. Complete communities allows developers to greatly exceed the number of units allowed under the zone designation of the property, but the number of affordable units are not based on the number of total units constructed, but on the number of units allowed under the zone designation. This vastly reduces the number of affordable units that will be constructed either on- or off-site, and increases developer profit.
One of the developers even noted this in comments quoted in the UT, saying that the changes in complete communities makes the deal more attractive, which is to say more profitable.
You also have to consider that the bulk of the affordable units being constructed tend to be very small (often micro-unit) studio apartments. How is a family supposed to live in these units?
And then the 1,000 pound gorilla in the room is going to SLAM down with the way the climate is going in the northern Sonora Desert where San Diego sits.
The water crisis is going to get ever-more acute and where is it going to come from for all this new housing? It isn’t just about generating more wealth for the already wealthy or more housing for the growing population, it’s about just how low the quality of life can go before the entire Ponzi scheme breaks down. But by then the profits will be sucked out of it which is the entire point, eh?
Grow food or grow choking over-crowded cities using up the dwindling supply of water from the Colorado River? It may come down to there being no choice at some point, but band-aids are what our species does rather than taking the long future look. Our civilization never did get the ‘7 generations impact’ concept and I don’t see much change in that outlook.
The Fate of the West’s Water Rests on the Shoulders of This 27-Year-Old
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/12/jb-hanby-colorado-river-water-negotiations-00130881?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
___
The back history of all this growth is not exactly promising, is it?
sealintheSelkirks
Very interesting story in that link, seal.
Water?! We’ve got toilet to tap coming so flush those worries away! They could set it up like solar where you get a kickback for every flush contributing to the system that gets pissed away over time with higher rates. All the affordable housing should be able to neutralize any utility rate increases. We already have the highest electric rates despite solar, so what’s to worry about? You might be thirsty or want to take a shower, there might be no heat or lights, but at least you can afford a roof over your head!
I would bet all these little rule tweeks will be swept under the rug after the next election should the status quo continue to exist.
Indeed, Chris. Unless…
The most corrupt, elitist Mayor and his racist and classism segregationists on the new Jim Crow City Council will quadruple homelessness , by legislative design. The abusive eminent domain law championed by Todd Gloria (AB 2492) in the State Assembly will force San Diego homeowners to sell their homes to billionaire developers for a pittance of San Diego County assessed “fair market value” as soon as they can get a foothold through the purchase of of just one housing lot. Call it what it is: The Politico-Corporate Real Estate Complex strong armed Corporate takeovers of entire communities.
I totally agree with you. Hopefully we get 5 new council members and a new mayor in the upcoming elections. It’s time to get grass roots people in office, not career politicians hands out, on the gravy trains of developers.
We are probably not getting new council members. This was a 7-1 vote. It is possible of course that all 7 who voted in favor are in developer’s pockets but I’m skeptical. Just because they vote in a way you don’t agree with doesn’t mean they’re corrupt. I agree with the amendments and Campbell voted against them but I don’t think she’s corrupt.
Sometimes your side just loses. My side lost (so far) when it came to SB10. I don’t think that’s because of corruption.
cor·rupt | k??r?pt |
adjective
1 having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain: unscrupulous developments assisted by corrupt officials.
• evil or morally depraved: the play can do no harm since its audience is already corrupt
In the case of your side’s pro genocide housing policies Zack, both apply. When Sean Elo Rivera’s Jim Crow City Council colludes in opaque closed door meetings to defy and betray their constituents with impunity in a manner void of any regard for the public good; it’s rather easy to let one or sometimes even two or three corporate real estate crony Councilmembers on the take to cast a meaningless vote(s) to imply as if they had somehow miraculously experienced some kind of coming to Jesus moment.
Interesting that those speaking out against HAP 2.0 and touting it’s potential racial segregation and redlining, never speak out against single family zoning – of which San Diego is ~ 81%. Single family residential zoning is by far the biggest contributor.
From the article:
“I don’t know if we can underestimate how powerful homeowner resistance is to retaining single-family zoning,” Cantong said, “because generally wealthy, white, affluent, male, older constituents are more involved in planning processes.”
In other words, it’s often white wealthy homeowners who have the free time and resources to go to city meetings and argue their side.
“Homeowners resist multifamily housing development within their single-family zone predominant communities because they want to retain their property values and community character,” Cantong said, “where community character is kind of a liberal euphemism for racial demographics.”
https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2023/09/27/how-san-diegos-100-years-of-zoning-racially-segregated-the-city
San Diego is roughly in line with the other larger regions of the state in terms of its percentage of single-family zoning in relation to residentially-zoned land or all land.
How can any developer build “offsite” affordable housing, when they haven’t even acquired the “offsite” property necessary to build it and in all likelihood never will?
Please, spare us the dishonest, tired, broken down and disproven “blame the residents” diatribes.
Why is it that false narrative peddlers, like yourself Gail are never able to counter the argument, nor even acknowledge the politico-corporate real estate monopolization of housing?
Good government demands the intelligence of interest of every citizen. Unlike yourself, I have voluntarily attended community planning group meetings throughout the City, for years. I am proud to say that time and time again in almost every community planning group meeting that I have attended. it has been the residents calling for the construction of affordable housing. And as we know, existing affordable housing is incessantly targeted, purchased and then gets demolished and “affordable housing”never gets built, at a rate of about 1700 to 1 (please see; reality)
By the way KPBS and Andrew Keats have been nearly wholly dependent on developer contributions, and the addition of what amounts to ADU construction advertising (on Public Broadcast), that has been propping KPBS up for a decade now because of the loss of individual supporters that are sick of the false narratives like the ones you are espousing here.
In the aftermath of the housing crisis and continuing to this day, large institutional investment firms bought portfolios of heavily discounted distressed single-family houses, and a new institutional asset class was created: single-family rental housing (Fields, 2018; Mills, Molloy, & Zarutskie, 2019). Enabled by U.S. government policies, SFR (Single Family Rentals), Short Term Occupancy rentals like Air B&B& VRBO, and REITs channel astounding amounts of global capital into the acquisition, leasing, and operation of SFR in search of returns for their shareholders through dividends and capital appreciation. SFR REITs have rapidly matured in their 15-year existence into an obscenely highly profitable Wall Street real estate sector. SFR REITs have their origins in the housing crisis, but since then, the financialization of single-family rental housing has intensified; SFR REITs have grown quickly in size and in influence over local housing markets and are evolving into a stabilized ownership model. (See; Conrad Prebys, and Jeff Bezos)
Publicly traded SFR REITs operate very differently from small-scale investors and private equity firms, and they have significant market advantages. Chief among these advantages are highly favorable federal tax treatment and the ability to raise large sums of cash in the capital markets at lower rates than other types of investors. SFR REITs concentrate ownership of single-family rental housing units in specifically targeted markets to achieve important economies of scale. This concentration, combined with professional management and the use of digital technology,has allowed SFR REITs to operate more efficiently than other types of investors. As public companies, SFR REITs have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder wealth. This pressure to deliver financial returns combined with SFR REITs’ near-oligopolistic power over some local housing markets in the context of an ongoing housing shortage and increasing demand for rental housing that has lead to increased unaffordability and instability for households. The implications of SFR REITs as corporate landlords have heretofore gone largely unexamined by the 5 corporate media giant owned “local” news stations here in town and KPBS, silenced by large marketing campaigns and payouts, but given their power and the obvious reality of their impact, REIT’s warrant the critical attention of intelligent interest of every citizen.
SFR REITs link global capital, local housing markets, and households. The objective of of the investment strategies of publicly traded SFR REITs and the nature and magnitude of single-family housing owned by the largest SFR REITs in the United States: Invitation Homes, American Homes 4 Rent, Front Yard Residential, Tricon American Homes, and locally operated Blackstone own nearly all the single-family residential properties that have sold over the last 15 years in the San Diego metropolitan statistical area one of the markets, were purchased by SFR, REITs and STR’s now in monopolistic control of the most of properties.
The implications of SFR REIT monopolized ownership of single-family rental housing for our local housing markets and households in concert with California Democrats profiting hand-over-fist from build-only-to-rent policies is at the heart of the cause of the bleeding that is killing those that were once our neighbors, our classmates, and our co-workers. 73% of unhoused citizens are San Diegans. And it has been KPBS Round Table that has advocated for the same weaponized policy incompetence that provides plausible deniability for those co-opted Party candidates that have reaped this havoc.
The only thing more American than dissent is holding your own Party accountable, and for the record I am proud hippie live and let live liberal progressive, and a registered Democrat. I have been compelled to spend the last 15 years calling this out for what it is, genocide.
What?! NO matter how many times someone tries to say this, that still does not make it true.
“In other words, it’s often white wealthy homeowners who have the free time and resources to go to city meetings and argue their side.”
And what is wrong with this?
” they want to retain their property values and community character,”
This common, reasonable desire is not a sin or a crime no matter how often this also is repeated.
You want resistance? Then, keep up the senseless personal attacks.