---

Equitable allocation of housing

This essay will take an article titled Resolving Locational Conflict, by David Morell, and apply his analysis of how and where to site waste management facilities to our local housing crisis. Morell has a distinguished environmental career and is currently Chair of the Sonoma Ecology Center Board of Directors, is a member of the city Community Services and Environment Commission, and a Sustainable Sonoma advisor. Sustainable Sonoma has taken on valley housing as its first prime issue.

Equitable allocation

All of society generates waste and thus everyone has a responsibility to take a local fair share for waste disposal sites. All of society needs roads, and all municipalities need gravel mines to provide material to build and upkeep roads. Similarly, the affordable housing (1) crisis is a society-wide problem, and calls for an equitable allocation of affordable units across all of society.

The NIMBY problem

Like with waste disposal, planners, politicians, and citizens agree that the lack of affordable housing is a serious collective issue, but no one wants the remedy near them. This is the NIMBY problem. (2) This NIMBY problem needs to be finessed and dealt with, as it keeps cropping up to frustrate plans to address problems that legitimately need to be solved at the local level. Locals cannot simply externalize problems they have a fair-share responsibility to address.

Urban service area

In the lower Sonoma Valley, high density affordable housing is only appropriate within the existing urban service area, or USA where there is already water and sewer. Hop-scotching out of the of the USA will cost too much to extend the above utilities, and there is not adequate groundwater to support disconnected suburban sprawl. Connecting areas within the local USA axis could work to provide land for affordable housing, but that will require a lot of time to be of much help now.  

Available land and local veto power

There are different ways to arrive at making possible a region’s fair share of affordable housing. One is high density projects built by non-profit developers. In order to get such density, parcels of land of sufficient size within the USA are needed. One factor that prevents such affordable housing from being built is too much local veto power, either by neighborhoods or by local governments. Examples of local veto power: CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) stalling, rigid UGBs (urban growth boundaries), land use and zoning ordinances, and NIMBY mobilization against high density projects.

Zoning

If there is land that could serve for high density housing, is there any rule that says it can’t go in low density-zoned areas? Is zoning something that once in place, is expected to last forever as an immutable stasis? Or can zoning be expected to evolve to meet societal needs? Can zoning be a tool to achieve housing equity in society? Who decides zoning? Is it planned or does it occur on an ad hoc, accidental basis?   

Process, parochialism, and preemption

In order to try and bring a fair share of affordable housing, federal, state, county, and city governments have various policies and forms of action that can be brought to bear. To address widespread NIMBYism in coastal California, the CASA (Committee to House the Bay Area) process is an effort to preempt the stranglehold of status quo local control. In contrast to CASA, the Springs Specific Plan (SSP) was rolled out in a much more community-friendly way, with a strong effort to involve the public. The city is being careful to stage a strong public housing process with its HAP (Housing Action Plan).

Regardless of if there is careful planning and efforts at public involvement, or just plain top-down actions taken by fiat, there ends up to be a dynamic of disputation. Interests don’t change because of what plate a policy is delivered on, but NIMBYism can be blunted if general fairness issues are addressed.   

To quite David Morell, “some balance must be found between the extremes of preemption and local veto power.” In his paper, Morell says the decision-making process must be seen as legitimate and fair, and if so, that diminishes opposition. If there is a local government process, as was done with SSP, and will be done with the city’s HAP, then local government has set the stage where it can later over-ride too much local parochialism. The overall goal, that most are in agreement with in principle, is to have discreet areas, like lower Sonoma Valley, have its fair share of affordable housing.

Balkanization

The trouble with the lower valley is that it is divided into two unequal municipalities covering the same geographic area. The Springs, i.e. the unincorporated urban service area north of Sonoma, has no local government. There is one decision maker, Supervisor Gorin, and three staff for more people than live in Sonoma. This unincorporated area has two advisory bodies, the SVCAC (Sonoma valley Citizen’s Advisory Committee) and the new MAC (Municipal Advisory Committee). Springs process for land use and housing issues is necessarily more diffuse, having to deal with disconnected, far-away county agencies, that are difficult for locals to engage. The SVCSAC and MAC are efforts to reduce the representative disconnect, nevertheless, all decisions go through Susan Gorin.

Sonoma by contrast has five decision-making city council members, a Planning Commission, and a whole city government plus many other city commissions that are easily accessible. In Sonoma, you can establish connections, have influence, and be known much more easily. The level of representation and participation is higher in Sonoma.

Structural unfairness, segregation

The relationship between Sonoma and the Springs has been noted as structurally unfair, much like East and West Germany. Housing for the same area is not divvied up equitably. Representation is unbalanced. A unified lower valley government has been proposed many times to remedy this unfairness, yet parochial interests from both city and Springs have managed to stop any movement in this direction. In spite of aspirations for a more efficient and just local government (3), for all local valley residents, we have what we have, and that is the context we have to deal with, and it won’t be changing any time soon (4). This means that city and Springs have two separate planning processes, with Sonoma land use, the UGB in particular, dictating Springs limitations, but with Springs residents unable to vote on them.  

Balancing interests

The Springs Specific Plan has had all the marks of a fair process, yet the Donald group’s (5) main argument is one of unfairness, lack of notification, blaming county for poor process, and then claiming the whole process is illegitimate. The group claims there was a lack of notification, even after six to seven years of consistent local process, and with some Donald neighbor(s) attending SSP meetings, and clearly knowing of the proposed SSP zoning maps. 

In the case of the Donald group, the strategy so far is to stake out the role of the victim, to try and get SSP tossed for the Donald area, and take no responsibility, or constructive role to address the lower valley’s fair share of affordable housing. Given that land within the city’s UGB and within the full lower valley urban service area is limited, and opportunities to rezone are rare, and that planners would obviously look for open lots with higher density building potential to get the necessary numbers of units, what we’ve got here is a battle of extremes: local veto power vs. comprehensive planning; stasis vs. evolution. (6)

Paralyzed checkmate

Local veto power may extend past mere protest to lawsuits (7) and appeals, thereby demonstrating the effect of local paralysis, and why many look to preemption, like the flawed CASA plan, as a remedy. Unfortunately for CASA, the remedy seems to be to let market rate developers, who are synonymous with high housing costs, somehow be the cure. This remedy stretches credulity, especially with city and county inclusionary ordinances that fall way short of meeting the actual affordable housing need. Relying on inclusionary ordinances, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) with no requirement to be affordable, will not meet the current fair share housing need, but this is exactly what low density-zoned neighbors want. What the lower valley ends up with is a paralyzed checkmate, with all parties frustrating the taking of responsibility for a fair share of affordable housing.

Aspirations and the rules of the game

In spite of all the Donald protests, if all zoning options and Plan boundaries remain in the final SSP, it will be incumbent on the Donald group to work in good faith, in the current public process, and not from the past. There are always threats of appeals and lawsuits, and it remains to be seen how far this group will go in that direction.

It will also be incumbent on the county to not allow market rate projects to come in and avoid the intent of the SSP high density zoning, which is to make possible a high number of area median income or AMI housing units. This AMI housing is exactly what will satisfy one of the top SSP aspirations: to not have the Plan contribute to more Springs gentrification.

SSP high density zoning in the Donald area will be a market rate Trojan Horse if provisions are not made to require the land use to be AMI affordable for the bulk of the units. 

If in the end, the SSP is to have high density zoning in the Donald area, the area deserves some compensation, maybe in the form of street and infrastructure improvements (connecting 5^th West to Donald for fire safety), traffic calming features, a park, bike paths, street improvements, tree plantings, reduced property taxes etc.

What’s fair?

So, what is fair for affordable housing in the lower valley? How will this be reckoned? What is an equitable regional allocation for affordable housing? What are the numbers? This would on one hand follow a proportional affirmative action formula, and on the other hand be a question of total number of needed affordable units for the lower valley. The lower valley consists of the 38,000 people who live within a five-mile radius of the Plaza, or it can be defined by the combined urban service areas of the city and Springs.  Fair would be proportional to the Bay Area demographic as a whole; representing the regional class/ area median income and ethnic/ racial spectrum; that’s fair for proportions. If the nine-county Bay Area is X percent Latino, and X percent number of people making area median income, this is the fair share and appropriate proportion for the local demographic here.

Affirmative action-type remedies for fair housing shares are appropriate for the lower Sonoma Valley because this is a low density, disproportionately white area that did not come upon its segregated state by accident.

Fair proportions and numbers are different for Sonoma then for the Springs. Fair will also take into account not just proportions but absolute numbers as well.  The lower valley region has a carrying capacity, for usable space, water and sewer utilities, transportation, jobs, and economy. How a local carrying capacity is sliced and diced depends on one’s interests. For example, those wanting to exclude can claim lack of water and sewer, while those wanting to include can ask for current stakeholders to use less and share more. A reasonable carrying capacity cannot be taken up only by wealthy retired white people, in low density zoned neighborhoods. That does not meet sustainability equity criteria.

What’s fair for lower valley housing is to have regional proportions of class and race, and units affordable to them all.   

Electeds need to make the tough calls

The goal of fairness for collective housing issues, is to have an inter-jurisdictional equity in addressing regional housing needs. Market rate housing and low density zoned areas, are by definition, unfair, because they sequester too much space for too few. Too much low-density zoning in too small a space is not a fair use of space or resources. The role of government is to address and mitigate social inequities, not to make them possible. This is why SSP higher density aspirations is good planning; it’s why non-profit developers are needed for high density housing, why a much higher inclusion is needed, and why “supply and demand” is a smokescreen for more market rate housing, and why including the Donald area in the SSP makes sense.

Displacement and inflation metrics needed

RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) does not really capture a fair mitigation of the current housing crisis because the very high displacement rate of lower income residents is not accounted for. RHNA does not account for the over-concentration of luxury, market rate housing that has been allowed to get to be too high of a proportion of the overall housing stock. New metrics are needed to account for the extreme inflation of housing prices, and high cost of living overall, that then serves to further displace and segregate people.  

Neighborhood by neighborhood where there is land

All neighborhoods, city and county need to be counted, and have possible zoning changes and projects looked at in their areas. After a fair public process, decision makers need the spine to override paralyzing NIMBY sentiments, and make neighborhoods take a fair share of the legitimate societal need for AMI housing. If all bear the same responsibility, in the same integrating, including process, NIMBYism can be blunted. If not, what we’ll have is a continued denial of the efficacy of affirmative action, and pockets of privilege based on willful segregationist policy. All high density then will be pushed onto the Broadway-Hwy. 12 corridor, to then receive the next wave of vetoing based on perceived too much traffic and parking.

The NIMBY stance inevitably leads to advocating for the preservation of a low density, white suburbia. It leads to protection of the haves and excluding the have nots. This is where all the checkmates and planning paralysis leads. Is that who we are? Is this the character we want to be known for?

Compensation

Neighborhoods taking high density affordable housing projects can be compensated, and ones that do not can help pay until they get their fair share too. Clear criteria should be established for inclusion and integration of low density neighborhoods; areas with sufficient open land within the combined urban service areas should be prioritized. This criterion is simple: everywhere include what is representative of the 9 – 12 county Bay Area class and racial demographic; everywhere mix the density so as to foster a fully representative society; everywhere take higher rather than lower numbers.  

Regional housing compact, Housing Special District

The lower valley could have a regionally negotiated housing compact, with a special housing district that subsumes the lower valley on an urban services axis from the sewage treatment plant to the Agua Caliente/ Sonoma Developmental Center area. This housing compact and Special District could, with strong public process, over-ride current fair share policy checkmates and parochial paralysis. Dots could be connected to unify the local urban service and transportation grid area. That would not be “sprawl”, but rather unification and addressing the fully regional housing need. A Housing Special District would blunt the disproportionate power Sonoma has over the whole area.

Parochialism weakened by HHH

In Sonoma the parochial still have much power, but the people also elected a new, more progressive council (Harrington, Hundley, Harvey). This is an indication that the Sonoma population is not as conservative and parochial as it has been, and that the populace is generally receptive to more progressive solutions to inequitable housing issues.

HHH will have to confront inequitable pressures from both market rate housing actors and parochial NIMBYs. As David Morell said, “some balance must be found between the extremes of preemption and local veto power.”    

In a world where anthropogenic climate change and massive social inequity are the top two problems, many, many people are happy to have a city council willing to look at these issues from the bottom up, and to not ignorantly carry on with business as usual, as if there was no tomorrow. Imagine what we could do if the whole lower valley had a government like this!

One critical realization of sustainability: no environmental problems are going to be solved without also dealing with social equity issues. People who are exploited and misused have no incentive to meet any lofty environmental or climate goals.

SSP end game; status quo or adaptive change?

With the SSP and the Springs unincorporated county, there has not been flat out preemption on housing policy, as with that proposed by CASA. At the end of the day, after a long SSP public process, the end product will be advised upon by the SVCAC and MAC, then go to the BZA (Bureau of Zoning Adjustments), and then to the Board of Supervisors for decisions. The higher up you go, the more decision makers are aware of larger-scale housing equity issues, and of fire-related loss of housing stock, and the more likely local parochialism will be overridden. An overriding of local veto power may be coming to the SSP, by upholding the Plan boundaries and zoning provisions for affordable housing. With no override or preemption actions for SSP pushback, the Plan area may be thrown back into a non-adaptive inequitable status quo.

One critical Rubicon for SSP decision makers: was and is the process fair enough? If so, a larger collective good can be justified to override parochialism.

Morell’s conclusions shifted to equitable housing

David Morell’s conclusions about where to site waste facilities, also apply to what we need here in the lower valley for affordable housing:

1. Create a comprehensive housing program beyond today’s inadequate system.

2. Promote efficacious housing strategies to meet AMI and fair/ proportional share integrated, inclusive housing goals.

3. Involve the public.

As Morell said, we need to “look for effective compromise in the face of irreconcilable differences.” The tough nut to crack: All agree there is a collective problem needing to be addressed, but no one wants it in their back yard.

“A balance of siting authority between local decision makers and state agencies is essential; neither abject local parochialism nor total state preemption are warranted. Adequate patterns of negotiated compensation are also essential, to redress the inherent imbalance between regionwide benefits and localized costs. Finally, a process of equity must be introduced into siting… so that each area is asked to host… it’s regionally proportional share… To receive siting approval, facilities must meet a true social need– not simply a (market rate) interest… And government agencies at all levels must communicate with genuine honesty, sincere credibility, and complete integrity to the public if they aspire to success in gaining local commitments to hosting these unwanted land uses.” (8)

“No system… will satisfy everyone’s interests; too many divergent pressures and intense emotions are always at stake in this policy realm. No matter what is said and done, some people will feel aggrieved that the (housing) ended up in their town rather than elsewhere. But their minority viewpoint need not always prevail. Siting process can ensure that at least the way decisions are made can be perceived as fully legitimate. Certainly, some level of parochial animosity will remain whatever the rationality of the arguments amassed by the (housing’s) proponents. Opposition based on this factor alone needs to be identified, recognized, and then accepted for what it is. A few opponents in a community can always be isolated (though never silenced) and thereby rendered ineffective by the majority viewpoint. Here again, the politics of equity are critical to success in siting. By avoiding “sacrifice areas” and locating most (affordable housing) facilities proportional to areas (of fair share need), logic can reasonably be expected to prevail over parochialism.”

“Finally, (housing) policy makers, legislators, and the public at large must come to accept the blunt reality that (housing) will be managed.” If housing is not inclusive, low income state residents will be displaced and segregated, to far-away ghettos requiring long, GHG spewing commutes, or they will be forced to pay 50% of their income locally to market rate rents and mortgages. This externalizes the poor (i.e. the AMI cohort, or the majority of people) and further exacerbates a society of haves and have nots, which is not sustainable. “(Housing issues) do not disappear simply because proposed (projects and Plans) are defeated in the local siting process, as victims of ‘not in my back yard’ emotionalism.” Housing and wealth inequity is being generated at higher and higher rates in the US, and “this must be managed somehow, somewhere. This unfortunate truth provides strong impetus to achieving success through an innovative new siting process centered on the politics of equity.”

If after strong public process, there is not adequate compromise for inclusion of a regionally fair share demographic in local housing, then local control paralysis and dissembling has to be overridden by decision makers who see a bigger, more equitable picture. Decision makers also need to hold out for objective criteria for fair share AMI housing, and not try and pull the market rate and low inclusion wool over our eyes as a false remedy.  

Notes

1: The definition of affordable housing, by all reasonable measure, is exactly the same as what is affordable to people who make a range of the area median income, or AMI. AMI is $68,000 for a family of two and $83,000 for a family of four. Typically, AMI is divided into four general levels: above moderate = 120% AMI; moderate = 100% AMI, low = @ 50% AMI, and very low = below 50% AMI. State-wide, and especially coastal California municipalities have been derelict in providing for the low and very low income categories.

2: Being a NIMBY is not a property of some people and not others. Everyone has the potential to be a NIMBY. Thus, NIMBY is not a pejorative term but rather descriptive of a universal human tendency, to circle the wagons around the in-group. NIMBYism is a cousin of nativism and other forms of parochialism.

3: A unified lower valley government clearly meets the goals of LAFCO, Local Agency Formation Commission, however, no one has the political will or power to push a unified lower valley government through. There is not enough economic weight in the Springs to support a separate incorporated local government. Annexation by Sonoma is the only obvious, viable solution, but city administrators and citizens are not anxious to take on an area with major infrastructure problems and costs. Roseland was annexed by Santa Rosa, and that process could be mirrored in the lower Sonoma Valley, for all the same reasons.

4: This is because those who want to be included, who have the most to gain, have way less political power than vested property owning stakeholders who have the most to lose. And so with affordable housing, are electeds there to kowtow to the wealthy and the made, or to do what is right and equitable?

5: The Donald area neighborhood has formed an opposition group to their inclusion in the SSP. See my Sun blog for more SSP, NIMBY, and local land use analysis.

6: The SSP is one of the few opportunities where zoning can be creatively explored. Otherwise, local government seems to be a captive audience to the market, private property owners, speculators, and market rate developers. This is why we have such a systemically unfair representation of affordable housing: all process goes to the highest bidder, and government seems helpless to enforce any equity. The SSP is a process where maybe some equity can be planned for.  

7: The unincorporated urban service (USA) area north of Sonoma is typically all called “the Springs.” The Springs is a catch-all name for the whole USA area. The SSP is the name of the Plan for this unincorporated USA area. Donald residents have been saying “we are not in the Springs”, and therefore, should not be in the Plan at all. They see the Plan as having been fudged into the Donald area in order to meet housing opportunity site qualifications to get the @ half a million dollars in SSP grant money. Of course; with limited options for sites to build enough local fair share affordable housing, planners would be remiss to not identify lots with the requisite capacity. Affordable housing has to go somewhere.  

8: LULU, or locally unwanted land use.

---

---