As referenced in Part I of this article, the state’s use of faulty statistics and forceful legislation has left a dilemma no city should face. That of either losing neighborhood livelihood and character or spending millions in court costs to resist powerful development lobbies profiting at the community’s expense. Let’s turn this dilemma around with a concerted effort to emphasize the importance of housing that improves our future lives.
Rather than relying solely on private developers to meet housing needs, the state could choose to play an active role in directly funding and supporting the creation of affordable housing. State monies can be redirected to include measures such as increasing funding for the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), creating a statewide housing trust fund, or providing low-interest loans and grants to non-profit developers and community land trusts. Or tax credit subsidies for low-income housing projects; again similar to the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.
With even small state subsidies, cities can use budgeted funds to purchase affordable units to be rented by the city in perpetuity. Good examples include recent nationwide efforts to develop “community-owned cooperative real estate.” The strategy began in Oakland, CA by a nonprofit neighborhood group called the East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative with the support of a nonprofit legal group, the Sustainable Economies Law Center. This strategy seeks to assist community control with unconventional financing instead of falling victim to market costs in development. Also, communities can push to create a collaborative with Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to help increase their state funding, and instead of ‘giveaways’ of zoning, setting favorable loan rates or grants, determine a means of insuring debt on the value of developing. By making targeted investments in affordable housing, the city and state can help ensure that the benefits of development are more equitably distributed and that the needs of the most vulnerable residents are prioritized.
One of the most effective ways to influence state policy is through grassroots organizing and advocacy. This involves building a broad-based coalition of residents, community organizations, and advocacy groups who are committed to advancing affordable housing solutions. By working together to educate the public, mobilize supporters, and pressure elected officials, these coalitions can help to create the political momentum needed to secure increased funding and stop incentives for market-rate housing. Such assistance needs to be applied only to the affordable housing portion.
Lastly, raising public awareness to require fixing the state’s randomized Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process and its unrealistic quota system, as if by a hand unseen. Leveraging public opinion, media attention, and ballot measures can further build momentum for change while becoming powerful tools in influencing state policy. While these strategies can be effective in securing changes for affordable housing, it is important to recognize that they are not without challenges. Building and sustaining a broad-based coalition requires significant time, resources, and effort.
Additionally, the political process can be unpredictable and subject to shifting priorities and competing interests. Regulating the influence of land speculators and corporate interests in housing policy is particularly challenging, but it is a critical step in achieving a more equitable and sustainable housing system. This could involve reforming campaign finance laws, increasing transparency and accountability in the development process, and requiring developers to provide more meaningful community benefits in exchange for development rights.
In conclusion, the path forward for Santa Monica in addressing the housing crisis requires a multi-pronged approach that prioritizes community engagement, data-driven decision-making, and a commitment to social and economic justice. By challenging the status quo and advocating for policies that genuinely address the needs of all residents, Santa Monica has the opportunity to serve as a beacon of hope and a model for other California cities grappling with similar challenges. The road ahead may be difficult, and the obstacles formidable, but with determination, collaboration, and a shared vision for a more equitable future, we can create a housing system that ensures everyone has access to safe, affordable, and dignified housing. Let us seize this moment to build a stronger, more inclusive community that reflects the values and aspirations of all its residents. Together, we can demonstrate that it is possible to balance growth and development with the preservation of community character and the well-being of our most vulnerable neighbors. The time for action is now, and the responsibility lies with each and every one of us to work towards a brighter, more just tomorrow.
Jack Hillbrand AIA, Architect
for SMa.r.t.
Send comments to santamonicasmart@gmail.com
Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow
Dan Jansenson, Architect & Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission; Robert H. Taylor AIA, Architect; Thane Roberts, Architect; Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Architect; Samuel Tolkin Architect & Planning Commissioner; Michael Jolly, AIR-CRE; Marie Standing, Resident; Jack Hillbrand AIA, Architect
For previous articles see www.santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writing
The SMa.r.t. article two weeks ago was in error by noting state mandates end in 2055.
In fact, the state affordability covenants expire 55 years after a project opens; at that time the units revert to market rate rents.
