Site search
sponsored by
News
The Grass Valley City Council did an about-face on its approach to providing affordable housing Tuesday evening.
A 21⁄2 year effort by council members Chauncey Poston and Jan Arbuckle to revise the city's inclusionary housing ordinance to make it less burdensome to developers was tossed out after several hours of comments by local Realtors, developers and builders.
Instead, Mayor Lisa Swarthout directed staff members to come up with a process to rescind the current ordinance altogether. Poston and Arbuckle were asked to continue to meet with the stakeholders who opposed the ordinance in the hopes of coming up with alternative methods of providing affordable housing for moderate-income residents.
The revisions were intended to lessen the requirements on builders of developments of 10 or more units. The city's current Inclusionary Housing Policy requires a developer to make 20 percent of the units affordable, and those units are required to remain affordable for 30 years.
The changes would have lowered the requirement from 20 percent to 10 percent of the units, raised the income standard from 80 percent to 120 percent of the median income, and lowered the deed restrictions from 30 to seven years.
The new ordinance also would have allowed a developer to either provide an affordable unit, pay an in-lieu fee, dedicate land or transfer his development rights to another property within the city.
But those in attendance made it clear they wanted no inclusionary housing requirement, period.
Many, in fact, argued the ordinance was no longer needed, given the implosion of the housing market.
“I'm personally opposed to any type of government overlay to regulate supply and demand,” said developer Phil Lester, adding that 50 percent of the units currently on the market are priced under $400,000. “Supply and demand will take care of this; we don't have to legislate it.”
Several in the audience said the city should be focusing on creating jobs rather than penalizing developers.
“We could solve the problem immediately by passing one ordinance,” said developer Phil Carville. “Double the wages of the firemen and policemen. That's a very simple solution. Why don't you do that? The problem is that takes a certain amount of chutzpah … Instead, most government looks for ways to pass the buck.”
Carville told the council members it does not make sense in this market to burden developers.
“The city will sacrifice its ability to provide affordable housing, because nothing will get built,” he said, warning, “if this passes, many of us won't build our projects.”
Council members Dan Miller, Yolanda Cookson and Swarthout all expressed their reservations with the ordinance.
“I don't agree with deed restrictions,” Miller said. “I say let the market dictate itself. Inclusionary housing just creates another road block.”
Swarthout suggested pursuing a loan assistance program as one alternative.
“Maybe it's time to take (the city's) focus off housing and put it back on the workforce,” she said.
Poston, who noted the new ordinance had gone through 14 drafts, was acerbic in his comments.
“I originally thought this ordinance would be a no-brainer,” he said. “We were drastically reducing the obligation by developers. We wanted to lessen the burden in hopes of getting some units built.”
While he appreciated the recognition of his hard work, he said, “the difference between a pat on the back and a kick in the ass is about 18 inches. That's how it feels. We worked for two years on this, hoping to come up with a concrete dialogue other than, let's do away with everything … I thought we were long past this debate.”
Arbuckle said she would be willing to continue to meet with the developers on the condition that they come to the table with solutions and not use the meetings as a delay tactic.
“If we do away with the ordinance altogether, will something be built?” Miller asked. “Are we going to create an atmosphere where developers will actually start to build?”
In the end, the council members directed city staff to work on a process for rescinding the current inclusionary policy and remove the conditions for projects currently in the works.
“I'm really disappointed,” Poston said during a break in the proceedings. “We tried to do something good.”
To contact Staff Writer Liz Kellar, e-mail lkellar@theunion.com or call 477-4229.
A 21⁄2 year effort by council members Chauncey Poston and Jan Arbuckle to revise the city's inclusionary housing ordinance to make it less burdensome to developers was tossed out after several hours of comments by local Realtors, developers and builders.
Instead, Mayor Lisa Swarthout directed staff members to come up with a process to rescind the current ordinance altogether. Poston and Arbuckle were asked to continue to meet with the stakeholders who opposed the ordinance in the hopes of coming up with alternative methods of providing affordable housing for moderate-income residents.
The revisions were intended to lessen the requirements on builders of developments of 10 or more units. The city's current Inclusionary Housing Policy requires a developer to make 20 percent of the units affordable, and those units are required to remain affordable for 30 years.
The changes would have lowered the requirement from 20 percent to 10 percent of the units, raised the income standard from 80 percent to 120 percent of the median income, and lowered the deed restrictions from 30 to seven years.
The new ordinance also would have allowed a developer to either provide an affordable unit, pay an in-lieu fee, dedicate land or transfer his development rights to another property within the city.
But those in attendance made it clear they wanted no inclusionary housing requirement, period.
Many, in fact, argued the ordinance was no longer needed, given the implosion of the housing market.
“I'm personally opposed to any type of government overlay to regulate supply and demand,” said developer Phil Lester, adding that 50 percent of the units currently on the market are priced under $400,000. “Supply and demand will take care of this; we don't have to legislate it.”
Several in the audience said the city should be focusing on creating jobs rather than penalizing developers.
“We could solve the problem immediately by passing one ordinance,” said developer Phil Carville. “Double the wages of the firemen and policemen. That's a very simple solution. Why don't you do that? The problem is that takes a certain amount of chutzpah … Instead, most government looks for ways to pass the buck.”
Carville told the council members it does not make sense in this market to burden developers.
“The city will sacrifice its ability to provide affordable housing, because nothing will get built,” he said, warning, “if this passes, many of us won't build our projects.”
Council members Dan Miller, Yolanda Cookson and Swarthout all expressed their reservations with the ordinance.
“I don't agree with deed restrictions,” Miller said. “I say let the market dictate itself. Inclusionary housing just creates another road block.”
Swarthout suggested pursuing a loan assistance program as one alternative.
“Maybe it's time to take (the city's) focus off housing and put it back on the workforce,” she said.
Poston, who noted the new ordinance had gone through 14 drafts, was acerbic in his comments.
“I originally thought this ordinance would be a no-brainer,” he said. “We were drastically reducing the obligation by developers. We wanted to lessen the burden in hopes of getting some units built.”
While he appreciated the recognition of his hard work, he said, “the difference between a pat on the back and a kick in the ass is about 18 inches. That's how it feels. We worked for two years on this, hoping to come up with a concrete dialogue other than, let's do away with everything … I thought we were long past this debate.”
Arbuckle said she would be willing to continue to meet with the developers on the condition that they come to the table with solutions and not use the meetings as a delay tactic.
“If we do away with the ordinance altogether, will something be built?” Miller asked. “Are we going to create an atmosphere where developers will actually start to build?”
In the end, the council members directed city staff to work on a process for rescinding the current inclusionary policy and remove the conditions for projects currently in the works.
“I'm really disappointed,” Poston said during a break in the proceedings. “We tried to do something good.”
To contact Staff Writer Liz Kellar, e-mail lkellar@theunion.com or call 477-4229.
