By Robert Campbell
On August 28, 2026, the San Diego Housing Commission held a special meeting, a quick under-the-radar addition. In this meeting the Commission unanimously passed massive, 100% deed-restricted affordable housing projects, two of which are in the city’s Chollas View and Encanto neighborhood area. A 244-unit prefabricated development at 4970 Market Street and a 64-unit project at 6601 Imperial Avenue on the corner of Woodman.
Rather than marking a triumph for housing equity, the hearing revealed a profound institutional disdain for vulnerable communities, exposing how municipal leaders and outside developers continue to weaponize low-income housing policy to entrench structural segregation.
In urban planning and fair housing, the single greatest factor in breaking generational cycles of poverty is opportunity area placement. Ensuring that subsidized housing is built in high resource neighborhoods with access to high performing schools, low environmental toxicity, high paying job centers, and robust community infrastructure.
Yet, throughout the entire August 28 Housing Commission discussion, opportunity area and resource metrics were given no discussion.
The conversation was restricted to narrow technical checkboxes, does the project have solar integration (no, but “solar ready”), cost-per-unit metrics ($442k for the prefab per unit on Market, $848k per unit for the traditional build on Imperial), transit access (.5 and 1.2 miles for Imperial to the Trolley), and drastically reduced parking minimums (such as providing a meager 15 parking spots for 64 units on Imperial of which 17 units are 3 bedroom). There was no discussion whatsoever regarding physical unit sizes, the prefab on Market appears to have units little bigger than parking stalls, ignoring whether these spaces are functionally adequate for families as you can see in the picture provided.
Worse still, both the Market Street and Imperial/Woodman sites are situated directly within historically redlined neighborhoods. Decades ago, federal housing maps and discriminatory lending practices drew red lines around much of southeastern San Diego, cordoning off our communities from investment, generational wealth-building, and equitable municipal resources. Today, rather than correcting these historical sins through proactive regional integration, the city uses these very maps as a blueprint for where to place new concentrations of deep poverty, treating legacy disinvestment not as a wrong to be righted, but as a permanent beacon for compounding poverty destiny.
At minute 56, second 26 of the meeting, Housing Commission CEO Lisa Jones, who is paid somewhere around $400,000 per year, openly defended building new extremely low income family housing in these historically redlined corridors. Jones remarked that affordable housing is “…on a site that nobody else will do.” “…especially when we do infill projects, there was a reason they weren’t built [in these areas] before.”
Rather than viewing our historical barriers, such as environmental toxicity, lack of infrastructure, and systemic neglect as a mandate to invest equitably or demand better, Jones rationale was made clear, “We don’t want to limit what is coming down the pipeline because that would be less housing overall.” Under this cynical framework, protecting developer pipelines in low resource areas takes precedence over Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH), civil rights, environmental justice, and human dignity.
As sociologist Matthew Desmond observes in his 2023 book, Poverty, By America, we remain “very separate and very unequal.” Desmond notes that this corruption of opportunity can only end when we stop embracing segregation through exclusionary zoning and its quieter, localized policy counterparts. As Desmond writes:
“The most important thing we can do is to replace exclusionary zoning policies with inclusionary ordinances, tearing down our walls and using the rubble to build bridges… While exclusionary zoning makes it illegal to develop affordable housing, inclusionary zoning makes it illegal not to.” (pp. 165–166)
By packing low-income housing exclusively into low resource areas while high-opportunity neighborhoods remain exclusive and immune to affordable housing, San Diego does the exact opposite of deconcentrating poverty. Desmond underscores that “by deconcentrating poverty in schools and communities, integration blunts its sting. Simply moving poor families to high-opportunity neighborhoods, without doing anything to increase their incomes, improves their lives tremendously” (p. 161).
When cities fail to integrate communities, the human cost is severe, particularly for children. Research highlighted by Desmond demonstrates that growing up in a severely disadvantaged neighborhood carries developmental consequences equivalent to missing an entire year of school in verbal ability, while achievement gaps between rich and poor children harden well before kindergarten (p. 117; drawing on Douglas Downey’s How Schools Really Matter and statewide SES achievement studies). Channeling vulnerable families into low resource areas which sends them to schools with chronic performance deficits locks children and the school into a system that is deeply disadvantaged.
This targeted placement of poverty populations directly violates the spirit and letter of California’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements which legally bind public agencies to dismantle, rather than reinforce, patterns of segregation and poverty. By funneling households ranging from 30% to 70% AMI, alongside permanent supportive housing for unhoused individuals, exclusively into historically redlined zones that are low resource, the city deepens cumulative environmental injustices and widens the regional equity gap.
Furthermore, this dynamic sits in direct tension with the legal shadow of the Baker v. San Diego litigation settlement from last year, which historically challenged how the city’s housing strategies disproportionately impact minority and low resource neighborhoods through the over concentration of low-income housing. Pushing through massive, unprecedented prefabricated complexes such as the 244 unit Market Street build without any AFFH opportunity evaluation, environmental justice evaluation or genuine public engagement signals that the city has learned nothing from its ugly past.
San Diego cannot build its way out of a housing crisis by doubling down on segregation. When the housing commission rushes special meetings, writes off historically redlined, low resource neighborhoods as places “nobody else will do,” and excludes local communities with rushed meetings to appease outside developers, it ceases to serve the public trust. True housing justice demands that high-resource neighborhoods finally shoulder their fair share of affordable housing, rather than continuing the old policy of out-of-sight, out-of-mind confinement.
Below you’ll find the estimated dates of the project’s milestones as they march along an accelerated timeline.
Placing hundreds of low-income families into new income restricted projects funneled to neighborhood schools that are already grappling with concentrations of poverty exceeding 90% is a profound structural failure and a disservice to our communities. At Lincoln High School, 90.8% of students are identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. Instead of fulfilling the promise of AFFH through economic mobility, this localized isolation channels vulnerable children straight into educational pipelines where chronic performance deficits, facility strains, and systemic disadvantages are already entrenched.
Together we must demand equitable, high opportunity, resource rich areas in the placement of affordable housing, especially the 30%-60% AMI levels across the city. Attend upcoming city hearings, hold the city and housing commission accountable, and let us demand that San Diego’s housing policy serve every resident. Together we must work to stop the concentration of poverty for us all.
I’ll close with one of my favorite quotes, “We must be the change we want to see in this world” – Gandhi.
Mr. Campbell, your zeal for forcing large, out of character housing complexes into all neighborhoods, regardless of need or want, is symptomatic of the aggressive yimbyism displayed by “progressives” today. Fortunately, the rest of us are tethered to reality.
1. You gloss over a price of $442-848 thousand dollars per unit, as if this is somehow normal for “affordable” housing? For an apartment? Would the cost be even more prohibitive in a “high resource” neighborhood?
2. Your premise that a family must flee “red-lined” neighborhoods to succeed, supported by one author and one book, rather than building opportunity and new development in areas that need it, is pretty insulting. Pretty sure the teachers and staff at Lincoln High School don’t appreciate the insinuation that student success is unattainable there.
3. The root problem is supply and demand: San Diego is an attractive region with many buyers willing to spend a lot of money on housing. One cannot create affordable housing here (see cost per unit above). Fortunately, the majority of the rest of the country remains very affordable. Rather than live in a big, overpriced apartment building, with no parking spaces in San Diego, move out of state. Buy a small home and start to build generational wealth. Don’t destroy communities and neighborhoods by foolishly chasing “affordable” housing in San Diego.
Steven,
Thank you for the comment. It is completely understandable to feel frustrated by the skyrocketing costs of building housing in California. The per-unit figures ($442k to $848k) are staggering, and they point to a massive, broken economic system that makes creating affordable housing extraordinarily difficult everywhere. You are also entirely right that the educators, administrators, and staff at schools like Lincoln High work tirelessly against daunting odds, pouring immense dedication into a very difficult task to support their students.
At the same time, a glaring symptom of this deep concentration of poverty is that roughly two out of every three students in our (my) area of the city do not attend the local public schools, choosing instead to opt out via open enrollment. That flight is a measurable consequence of packing institutional burdens into single communities while high resource areas remain exclusionary.
Telling families to simply pack up and leave San Diego is not a solution. The argument, backed by robust research is that we must actively commit to breaking down barriers and moving families into highest resource neighborhoods. Yes, that means as a society and a city, we will have to commit to higher land acquisition costs to make it happen. That is exactly what equity and AFFH mandate.
We cannot just throw our hands in the air and quit. We must mandate inclusion in housing policy. No more buyout in highest and high resource areas. The city has the power to enforce this and they did, for about 2 years before repealing and going back to in-lieu of inclusion fees.
Eliminating developer buyouts and investing in building extremely low income and low income housing in highest and high resource neighborhoods is what’s needed. True equity means sharing responsibility citywide, not continuing to concentrate poverty in low resource areas. This ensures that low income families are not excluded from housing choice.
This is a very important article! Only thing missing is the fact that the Housing Commisioners are appointed by the mayor and city council. Are the commissioners just rubberstamping what our conservative Democrat city politicos want to benefit their development cronies? It’s time to question San Diego’s mainstream Democrat leadership and elect real progressives.
Thx very much, Robert, for sharing your thoughts on these projects. I really wish the City Council would discuss these issues at a public hearing, where we could hear from all sides.
Why don’t you advocate for such a development or developments in Ocean Beach then? Do you not see your own hypocrisy? You never ever ever adovacate for something housing always against, truly fascinating.
Jane, not sure who you’re pointing your arrows at. If it’s the Rag you’re referring to, then you’re way off. We have been one of the lone voices for affordable housing in whatever is built as Midway Rising and within the NAVWAR redevelopment project. So…. there’s that.
Jane,
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate the direct question. I do advocate for expanding very low and low income housing opportunities in highest and high resource coastal and suburban neighborhoods like Ocean Beach, La Jolla, and other areas that have historically remained exclusive to some of our hardest working families.
The entire premise of equitable housing policy is that every neighborhood, especially highest resource neighborhoods with the strongest infrastructure, lowest environmental burdens, and highest performing public schools must shoulder the majority of affordable housing. Right now, our city’s model relies almost entirely on funneling the lowest income housing projects into historically low resource corridors while highest resource areas remain largely insulated, welcoming working families by day for their labor but locking them out by night.
My opposition isn’t to housing itself, it’s to the location and the cynical practice of placing housing of poverty at any cost under the guise of progress. At a most fundamental level, no reason should exist for a developer to be able to provide an in-lieu fee in any new or rehabilitative project within highest and high resource areas.
If a developer can afford to build in highest and high resource areas, they can afford to ensure 10% of their construction is affordable. Inclusion on-site must be the absolute standard. True housing justice means demanding inclusionary policies across the entire city so that high resource neighborhoods are forced into open their doors and not remain exclusive.
This is among the more important points Robert makes in his lucid response, and it’s a direct reflection on your accusation:
“My opposition isn’t to housing itself, it’s to the location and the cynical practice of placing housing of poverty at any cost under the guise of progress. At a most fundamental level, no reason should exist for a developer to be able to provide an in-lieu fee in any new or rehabilitative project within highest and high resource areas.
If a developer can afford to build in highest and high resource areas, they can afford to ensure 10% of their construction is affordable. Inclusion on-site must be the absolute standard. True housing justice means demanding inclusionary policies across the entire city so that high resource neighborhoods are forced into open their doors and not remain exclusive.”
Also, my experience with this issue shows me that majority of residents in all our neighborhoods is accepting of low income housing. The issue is how much, at what density, and what height, and always with added infrastructure that will allow neighborhoods to absorb these new units – – be they low income or market rate. And of equal importance that there besufficient parking for new and existing resident s, given the reality that public transit is not sufficient to allow all, but an insignificant number of additional to live without a personal vehicle. This last issue is what infuriates me most about this debate. San Diego does not have a public transit system that gives anywhere near a significant number of residents the option of doing without a personal vehicle. And it’s insulting and so disingenuous that our elected officials refused to acknowledge that fact, and continue to propagate the myth that if someone can ride the bus or trolley or a bicycle once, twice, or three times a week, they will not need a car.
This is not only disgusting, it’s very very sad. The voters wanted a “strong mayor form of government”, so how is it working out voters?? Gloria and Clowncil can appoint the Housing Commissioners, and every other Dept. head, as they are NOT protected by the City Unions. He can hire and fire at the snap of his fingers, so they go along to get along to keep their jobs, it seems.
A friend of mine is in the process of getting a manufactured home, 3bdrm., 2 full baths, living room, dining room, laundry room, complete with his choices flooring, window coverings, stove (elect. or gas), fridge, central heating for $145,000.00. Then there is grading dirt work to be done, and are delivery fees to get it from San Bernadino County to his property. And contractor to put in permanent foundation. So where on earth is the dollar amount of near a half million dollars created???? The current get rich quick politicians seem to have perks like season tickets to Padre games, but since their biggest donors reportedly are builders/developers makes me wonder who’s getting a cut of that $400K plus EACH. They need to send it out to bid, and the City Purchasing Dept. needs to review those plans to make sure every nut and bolt is accounted for so there’s no quick money “add on” exorbitant fees. And check out the winning bid developer. I hope these long standing developers disappear when this next group of Council Reps are gone, and the Mayor and final group disappear with the election in 2028. And new developers/contractors win the bids.
People please pay attention to who you vote for next election. Do not vote based on party, race, religion, gender, a push over, how they dress, they smiled at you, etc. NONE of those adjectives have anything to do with ARE THEY QUALIFIED. SD needs politicians that are experienced with big money Budgets. Do they have a financial education, or hands on in a small business that has to pay attention to budgets. None of the people on the current City Council or the Mayor even have an education in finance/budgets except Kent Lee, but he doesn’t have any day to day experience in finance.
It’s too bad the city clowncil reps and Toddler allowed such a bad idea to progress. Change is up to voters.