San Diego’s most liberal and conservative Council members are teaming up to lower housing costs in the city.
Through the Council’s Smart Growth and Land Use committee, Republican Scott Sherman and Democrat David Alvarez are pushing a series of proposals aimed at combating the city’s high housing costs.
The committee meeting Wednesday will serve as a “housing summit” to launch the initiative. They’ll ask developers and housing advocates which policy changes could make a difference and stand a chance of passing before they introduce specific proposals.
But they’ve each pulled together a list of policy changes the city could make aimed at lowering the cost of housing. As prices have risen in recent years, it’s put an increasing strain on residents’ budgets, forcing them to spend more on housing and less on everything else, or to live farther and farther away from the city, trading grueling commutes for affordable rent.
Sherman is perhaps the Council’s most conservative member, and has argued strongly in the past against progressive priorities like increasing the minimum wage. Alvarez, meanwhile, has established himself as the Council’s most liberal voice and its most consistent and outspoken critic of the mayor’s agenda. But the two get along well and have said they’re comfortable working together.
“We have different ideologies, but we’re straight with each other,” Sherman said. “We can get things done.”
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
Get rid of short term rentals. How many thousands of rentals are being rented out for a few days. That just raises demand and prices for the remaining units. Of course that common senses.But then again I am not a politician.
The granny flat, lesser parking requirements , and other proposals, will likely result in the creation of some, but not many, units that would be affordable to moderate income households. Tha's good. However, the proposals will not likely result in the creation of units that are affordable to low (household incomes below 80% of the area median income) and very low (below 50% of the area median income) households. Those units will only be built by either requiring developers to build them, as part of larger market rate developments, or local, state and federal gov'ts subsidizing the building of those units so that the rents can remain low.
@bgetzel It's definitely going to take both an expansion of market rate housing and of subsidized housing.
There is plenty of affordable housing in Az, Nevada, Ohio, ect. Why do we have to ruin San Diego with "Smart Growth"?
@Jeff Kronenberg The San Diego metro is creating about 35,000 jobs per year, which means we need 10,000+ new housing units per year.
Should San Diego's employers stop creating middle and upper class jobs because established residents oppose any new housing? This would increase unemployment and worsen our region's hourglass economy (mostly low wage jobs).
Places to look for things that restrict building or converting, more housing in general and affordable housing in particular:
Housing regulations. It is so onerous that some developers have gone straight to the voters in order to try to develop housing. Consider a one stop shop where developers could go to get all their permits and approvals rather than chasing all over the city/county.
Stop Green Mail. This has become a hammer to extract concessions from a developer rather than a way to voice environmental concerns. It is being abused and should stop.
Community Plans. Every community has concerns about changing the character of their community, at the same time with some thought, every community can find a way to increase the stock of affordable housing. The community plan is a way to do this. It would also give developers a clear set of rules as to what is allowed and what is not in that community.
This is one of the areas that will benefit from the attention and money no longer wasted on a Chargers Stadium boondoggle. Progress in this area will benefit all San Diegans and make our city a better place to live.
Yeah, Republicans and Democrats getting along for the common good, I did miss the part where the Republican sold out to have all the "affordable housing" money be spent under a union only Project Labor Agreement. Are the authors of a measure / bond / feel good stance ready to guarantee public money isn't hijacked once again by union special interest?
Scott, is there a side note somewhere regarding how tax dollars are spent on this issue? Did you look? Do you care?
LA and SF are not models of housing affordability, but I am pleased they aren't proposing more affordable housing fees or tax increases. I am surprised to admit that the proposals outlined seem reasonable.