Davis, CA – A Sacramento Bee opinion writer makes a pretty good point when she argues in a column this weekend that “California must dole out harsher punishment for cities that flout housing laws.”
Her jumping-off point is the settlement with Elk Grove on their denial of a low-income housing project.
“After more than two years and an equal number of lawsuits, the state’s battle against the city of Elk Grove for its refusal to build affordable housing is over,” Robin Epley writes. “But the war is not, unless the rest of the state is sufficiently cowed into building the units that low-income residents desperately need to call home.”
Elk Grove is now subject to “numerous penalties.”
Epley writes that AG Rob Bonta along with Governor Newsom “stood together on Wednesday and crystallized their stance for cities that still haven’t gotten the message.”
“Whether you are Huntington Beach or Elk Grove or Woodside or Pasadena,” Bonta said, “you have a duty and an obligation to follow the law of the state of California.”
It sounds good if you’re a housing advocate—right?
Epley notes that “if Bonta and Newsom truly wanted to bring the hammer down on wealthy cities that refuse to build their fair share of housing — be it Huntington Beach or otherwise — then the punishment they cooked up for Elk Grove doesn’t exactly fit the crime.”
She continued, “I was hopeful Bonta’s involvement would give these laws the legal “oomph” they deserve, but the AG’s settlement with Elk Grove wound up sounding more like a ‘pfft.’”
Epley is right to point out that the penalty is a slap on the wrist.
One requirement is “instead of the originally-proposed project of one affordable housing complex near the city’s downtown core, Elk Grove will now need to build two.”
“They don’t want the 66-unit housing project built?” Bonta said. “They’re going to get 146; so you tell me if that worked out for them.”
Epley shoots back: “That’s a good start, but perhaps forcing the city to build 300 — or even 600 — affordable units in the inner boundaries of the city would have truly hurt (and it would have had a better chance of sending the kind of message Bonta clearly hoped to convey).
“That’s the kind of punishment that would command the attention of the stuffed shirts in Elk Grove and any other city that thinks it should cater above poor and working class Californians, who are increasingly priced out of the state’s housing market.”
This has been my problem all along—especially as well shifting our attention closer to home in Davis.
In theory, the state has done some helpful things on the housing front. In theory.
For example, the RHNA numbers have been cranked up. Moreover, rather than simply showing the possibility of rezoning land, they are making cities actually rezone the land and show progress.
Again that sounds good in theory.
But what is the hammer if a city doesn’t comply?
As I noted in the commentary I published yesterday, it took the city three attempts and several years to get its Housing Element certified by the state.
Now the city is falling behind in actually producing that housing, again—at least now the state is monitoring it.
“This city is falling behind. It is not on track to meet its housing targets,” said YIMBY Law on their new tracker that was released this summer.
The tracker noted, “Every 8 years California assesses housing need and assigns each city with a target they must hit. If Davis repeats its efforts from the previous cycle it will only meet 82% of the identified need.”
So what happens if the city continues to lag? Ah, the dreaded Builder’s Remedy solution.
Yes, the city of Davis was briefly in Builder’s Remedy status. But it turns out for a city like Davis, that might not be such a big stick after all.
It does appear that Builder’s Remedy will lead to the approval of Palomino Place without a Measure J vote. But that’s a relatively small—175 unit—project.
Every little bit helps, but this project is not a game changer when the city is going to need over 2000 units and nearly 1000 of them affordable in the current RHNA cycle.
The only other project that might have come in under Builder’s Remedy was on 4th and G, but that has since been removed by the applicant.
One limitation with Builder’s Remedy is the 20 percent affordable housing requirement—which for a lot of infill projects is a non-starter.
Moreover, it appears that Builder’s Remedy is only going to affect infill housing—peripheral housing is generally legislative rather than administrative and thus not covered.
In Davis, that means there is not much in the way of opportunities.
As we have been warning for some time, Davis just doesn’t have a lot of infill opportunities. And redevelopment with a required 20 percent affordable housing would frankly be welcomed by the city—not feared as a punishment.
In short, the Builder’s Remedy—at least in Davis—is a stick without much to hit.
So yes, I agree with Robin Epley—the state, if it wants to come down on communities that aren’t building enough housing, has to hit communities where it counts.
In a place like Davis, they do have a big potential stick but it’s not Builder’s Remedy, but rather Measure J. If the state were to take away that tool from the voters, many would stand up and listen. That would be a huge gamechanger.
I still think that move will come—but we are not there yet.
