Affordable housing in Sonoma: Hit and myth

Affordable housing in Sonoma is not a problem, it’s an emergency. Our city is turning into a virtual gated community, and the gate is made of money, lots of it. The results of this monetary barrier are significant; only 16 percent of the people who work in the City of Sonoma live in the City of Sonoma, and as our tourism-based economy grows the problem will only get worse.

Historically, housing has been provided in two ways, the housing market and government-supported programs. The housing market has had its ups and downs over the years; like any “product” it is subject to supply and demand. Factors such as growth management ordinances limiting the growth of the supply, an Urban Growth Boundary preventing sprawl through annexation of farmland, and a burgeoning Bay Area population all have come into play and had their effects. The demise of Sonoma’s Redevelopment Agency effectively ended the revenue source government had used to create affordable housing for over three decades.

The recession that began in 2008 wiped out the slim reserves of many working families, depressed wages and increased poverty and homelessness. At the same time, the wealth created in Silicon Valley stimulated a market-based, regional Bay Area real estate boom that has now driven the median price of a home in Sonoma to $700,000. Thus while those at the lower end of the earnings ladder fell further into debt and poverty, those at the higher end accumulated more assets. This has been called the creation of an “hourglass economy.”

It’s not just the poorest who cannot now find housing; teachers, nurses, and city employees are finding it difficult to live in Sonoma, or even the Valley.

There are few solutions to altering market-based housing, but government-sponsored affordable housing programs are still a viable option. The key, of course, is money. Unless government develops new revenue sources, it will not be able to make any significant contribution to the creation of housing.

Recently, as noted in our In-Depth Report, the City Council and the Planning Commission jointly met to discuss one potential revenue source, development fees specifically tailored to funding affordable housing. These are variously called housing “impact” fees, or “in-lieu” fees; however named, they are fees tied to new construction of market-rate housing and possibly commercial development. It’s a good idea, but it won’t produce very much money.

Meanwhile, however, the option of raising the City’s TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax charged tourists who stay at hotels) by two percent would generate lots of money, upwards of $750,000/yr. At this point, regrettably, the present Council shows no inclination to do that.

One of the persistent myths about town is that we are running out of land for housing. Emotionally, this may be true, but from a technical, land-use standpoint it’s completely false. The Housing Element of our General Plan requires that adequate land to meet our anticipated housing needs be available, and only by doing so has our plan been certified by the State of California. Legally, the city meets housing land-use requirements, despite emotional impressions otherwise.

Thus it’s not a matter of land, but a matter of money, and the solution is obvious: impose development fees on expensive new homes and commercial hotels and tax tourists to fund professional and workforce housing. Complicated it’s not.

— Sun Editorial Board