Encouraging more affordable housing in Sebastopol

[Barry]

In another thread, GinaWIlls said:

...At the recent "Housing for the Rest of Us" Science Buzz Cafe in Sebastopol, several residents cited city actions in planning, zoning, code enforcement, property taxation and assessment, and permit costs that either prevented someone from creating a unit of affordable housing or made it prohibitively expensive to do so.

Anybody care to say more about that? What do you propose??

[LyndaMcD]

The idea that our cities and county cannot do anything to alleviate the housing crisis is absurd. At the very least, there are many ways they can help create policies that encourage individual initiatives and solutions. For example, in January 2015 Novato City Council approved a new zoning ordinance that created a new class of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), with dramatically lowered permitting requirements. Called Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs, aka granny or in-law flats and second units), these units are repurposed spaces already attached to an existing home, such as spare bedrooms and garages that can be converted to rental properties. Other relaxed requirements include no need for additional parking spaces or fire sprinkler systems; sewer fees for JADUs were slashed from $8,990 to $40 for JADUs. The North Marin Water District's $10,000 water connection fee was also eliminated in April. JADUs still require building permit fees, based on the expected project cost.

This kind of progressive thinking can help create new housing opportunities at affordable prices--in ways that increase density and diversity. Currently, many good ideas are stymied by out-of-date and restrictive policies.

[rossmen]

Defund code enforcement. Zoning is a strategy for existing property owners to increase value, no zoning. Yes government spends more to make housing expensive than to increase affordability. Why is it illegal to live in a trailer on someone's property? Legalize it!

...What do you propose??

[Shandi]

I just read that it is legal to live in a trailer if you're providing care to the owner.

...Why is it illegal to live in a trailer on someone's property? Legalize it!

[rossmen]

Yes if the site has all the legal hookups required of a trailer park, which most houses do not. There are other limits too. This option is used very little. More common is the living in a trailer while building a house option, though this also is being squeezed by additional regulation. By far the most common is illegal trailer living, imagine how many housing opportunities could be created by legalization! The 2000 units needed to end homelessness in Sonoma County could be done by the stroke of a pen...

I just read that it is legal to live in a trailer if you're providing care to the owner.

[gypsey]

Since this is not something I am knowledgeable about, I would appreciate knowing how doing away with zoning etc might affect environmental safety.

Defund code enforcement. Zoning is a strategy for existing property owners to increase value, no zoning. Yes government spends more to make housing expensive than to increase affordability. Why is it illegal to live in a trailer on someone's property? Legalize it!

[gypsey]

Again, I am looking for info re this issue. How would sanitation, water, and electricity etc be accomplished at the stroke of a pen? How would environmental safeguards be enacted?
Just asking
Gypsey

Yes if the site has all the legal hookups required of a trailer park, which most houses do not. There are other limits too. This option is used very little. More common is the living in a trailer while building a house option, though this also is being squeezed by additional regulation. By far the most common is illegal trailer living, imagine how many housing opportunities could be created by legalization! The 2000 units needed to end homelessness in Sonoma County could be done by the stroke of a pen...

[rossmen]

One interesting thing about Texas is there is no zoning, the towns and cities have similar layout as here and housing costs are lower than every other state.

Since this is not something I am knowledgeable about, I would appreciate knowing how doing away with zoning etc might affect environmental safety.

[rossmen]

Existing environmental safeguards would apply. The thing about trailers is they are built to be (relative to a house), self contained, easy to move, and are inexpensive. Far less impact than building a house, apartment, and even a granny unit conversion. That's why unpermited trailer living is so common. Held back by regulation, words with punitive consequences.

If it were legal to live in a trailer would it change the character of our neighborhoods? Of course! There would be more people, cars, children and racial, economic and age diversity. That's why it's illegal.

Again, I am looking for info re this issue. How would sanitation, water, and electricity etc be accomplished at the stroke of a pen? How would environmental safeguards be enacted?
Just asking
Gypsey

[Ted Pole]

Well, there's affordable and then there's affordable. Affordable for whom? Poor people? Old people? Housing for people to buy, to rent or to merely occupy? Just for the struggling people of Sebastopol, or of West County or even more.

Try proposing a thousand units of "affordable housing" to the current property-owning taxpayers of Sebastopol, and watch the immediate arguments about "the character of our town" come out. You think the Barlow and CVS raised a stink? Baby, you ain't seen nothing.

The issues with trailers, park model RVs, tiny houses, etc. is how to pay for and provide water, power and most importantly, septic/sewage. In S'pol, the real issue is water and sewage and how much capacity the city has for new hook ups. Let's leave aside for a moment the idea that one day your next door neighbors suddenly have a trailer and three new people (a couple, their child, and a dog) living on their lot on Calder Street, and what the potential impact might be. Multiply that by X and there goes the idyllic neighborhood you plopped down $700,000 to live in.

Get outside the city limits, and you have to deal with the county, and then it gets really gnarly. Septic capacity per acre is stingy, expensive and enforced. Even those "caretaker cottages" have size and time restrictions that are prohibitive for all but the already well off.

It's why the tiny house thing hasn't taken off like it was supposed to. Mizzuz Pole and I looked into it, and it is a true PITA, as we are far from wealthy.

In Texas, and in most other, less attractive places, nobody cares if you drop a trailer on some land. Hell, you're doing them a favor just being a resident.

I don't think Sebastopol, for all its well intentioned concern about the unaffordably housed, has the desire to piss of the tax base, and the county simply doesn't want to risk an environmental disaster.

The real solution is to get the hell out of Northern California, and move to someplace nobody wants to live in. Start a new Sebastopol in Wyoming.

[arthunter]

I hear this often ... get out, get out, get out ! ...

Well, many of our residents can't get out ... many of our residents are elderly and starting all over somewhere else is not an option ... many of our residents have been here since Sonoma County was a cheap rural haven where diverse groups of people shared the land and lived in relative harmony ... many have invested their life's blood here, having children, starting farms, becoming involved in community projects, and growing deep roots ...
All throughout history one group of people have been displaced by another and it seems that the newer residents displace the older residents ... how can this be? ... gentrification perhaps? ... well paid city officials who favor big business? ... the development of monoculture, as in wineries above all else?

Are we becoming a county where only the rich need apply? ... and, if so, is that really the kind of place that you want to live in? ...

What once made Sonoma County special was it's diversity and co-operative live-and-let-live nature ... I mean who could have guessed that the ex-hippies from San Francisco could live side by side with the folks that frequent Bohemian Grove? ... or that the North Coast's largest gay population could break bread with mainstream American families? ... but we did it ... love and peace and all of that ...

Call me old fashioned, but what we've achieved here as a community is worth maintaining and fighting for ... I stand against wealthy take-overs, short sited mono-cultures, big business influences, social "correctness", and any other BS that you can throw out ... if we are indeed at capacity then it's the new comers who should look elsewhere instead of buying our homes from under our feet ... and that folks, will take commitment to principle from the majority of the population and active participation in county politics ...

Out of the way trailer parks and resident hotels or rooming houses could go a long way to alleviate the pressures of the lower income residents ... this is how civilized communities are structured ... our only resident hotel, the Petaluma Hotel, closed down ...

What I'm seeing here is what I see happening across the country as the oligarchy takes over ... I call it the "end of compassion" movement ...

Well, there's affordable and then there's affordable. Affordable for whom? Poor people? .Old people? Housing for people to buy, to rent or to merely occupy? Just for the struggling people of Sebastopol, or of West County or even more.
...

[tommy]

"Defunding code enforcement" and zoning is unrealistic, and favors only those who don't play by the rules. Favoring only those who can afford to live in a trailer is myopic - it doesn't consider everyone else. The guy who wants to park his trailer on someone else's property, probably doesn't want to pay his share of the cost of the sewer system, money to support local schools, government, police, parks and roads... as the landowner does.

The ability to afford good housing is a function of the money you have, your ability to earn money, and thus rent or buy good housing. Many homeless people don't want to or are unable to work, and many suffer from alcohol and drug use. The result is they lose out in finding good housing, to others who have more motivation and resources.

Zoning and code enforcement are basic functions of government. In Sebastopol, we don't want drive thru restaurants, people in Sonoma don't want franchised hamburger shops, we don't want a Medical Marijuana dispensary right next to a school, and most don't want a noisy manufacturing plant to move into a quiet neighborhood.

Ultimately, I think it's all about owning private property, and property rights. I copied this below from Wikipedia, because it sets the context of this aspect of our economic system:

"Economic liberals (defined as those who support a private sector-driven market economy) consider private property to be essential for the construction of a prosperous society. They believe private ownership of land ensures the land will be put to productive use and its value protected by the landowner. If the owners must pay property taxes, this forces the owners to maintain a productive output from the land to keep taxes current. Private property also attaches a monetary value to land, which can be used to trade or as collateral. Private property thus is an important part of capitalization within the economy.^[12]Socialist economists are critical of private property as socialism aims to substitute private property in the means of production for social ownership or public property. Socialists generally argue that private property relations limit the potential of the productive forces in the economy when productive activity becomes a collective activity, where the role of the capitalist becomes redundant (as a passive owner). Socialists generally favor social ownership either to eliminate the class distinctions between owners and workers, and as a component of the development of a post-capitalist economic system.^[13]"

Defund code enforcement. Zoning is a strategy for existing property owners to increase value, no zoning. Yes government spends more to make housing expensive than to increase affordability. Why is it illegal to live in a trailer on someone's property? Legalize it!

[Shandi]

Why isn't everyone moving to Texas? Why aren't other states adopting the policies that make Texas housing and jobs so enviable? Some facts about Texas: https://www.cbpp.org/research/the-te...t-all-it-seems

Some of my friends have moved to Mojave from Southern California. One of them is a 97 yr old senior who's renting a 4 bedroom apartment for $400 to house her 50 yr. old grand children and their children. But jobs are scarce. So, they get food stamps, but no supplemental income since they're too young for Social Security. It seems that most isolated places with cheap living may be best suited to seniors, but then how do they get much needed services? For them, it means a 26 mile drive to Lancaster.

Before the move to Mojave, the 50 yr old grand children tried living in Arkansas, but that didn't last long. It was cheaper, but jobs were scarce. Trying to live on welfare with children was barely surviving.

Those who can afford housing in Sebastopol or other wealthy communities have no reason to be concerned about affordable housing, which may equate to NIMBY. Only when some unexpected disaster hits them, do they realize that all their resources can be quickly eaten up. The wealthy are not above falling.....and that fall can be even more devastating, because they're not adapted to surviving without money. Survivors seem to find ways to survive unless they fall into using drugs to avoid the harsh realities of exposure to the elements, hunger, lack of hygiene, depression, and general fears of living among strangers who may be seriously mentally ill or violent.

Although I've been a survivor all my life, I don't think I could survive being homeless. I would definitely resort to drugs, but not the kind that would give me a "high", but more the kind that would bring a "release". These are now part of my first aid kit for myself and my kitty.

One interesting thing about Texas is there is no zoning, the towns and cities have similar layout as here and housing costs are lower than every other state.

[riverosprey]

The number one reason we lack affordable housing in Sonoma County, are the policies of Sonoma County and many of the cities. We make houses less affordable with punative affordable housing fees, and end up using the fees to create $400,000 one bedroom apartments in dense complexes. Retired friends of mine recently built a 300 sq.ft. 2nd dwelling unit on Florence Ave. in Sebastopol, the fees were $30,000! The mother and daughter that rented this space are contributing members of our society needing affordable housing.

With the continuing consequences, of our rural villages becoming "gentrifying gerontocracies", with increasing median age and declining average household size, we see a tremendous loss of young and old able to live within these communities, along with the children that used to go to now shuttering schools. One of the most exemplary volunteer fire departments in the area is the Graton Fire Dept; the volunteer chief Bill Bullard recently told me," We are losing our volunteers because they can't find places to live." Likewise in Guerneville, Bodega Bay and beyond, these departments used to have a robust number of volunteers but no more.

We have a tremendous amount of underutilized housing, that could be repurposed to allow Accessory Dwelling Units or as the gentleman above notes they are doing in Marin County with "Junior 2nd Dwelling units". I support an advocacy group in Marin County, Lily Pad Homes (https://lilypadhomes.org/). They have succeeded in getting Novato to allow these small units with zero impact fees and to waive requirements for sprinklering. We need more 2nd dwelling units and SRO (single room occupancy) rentals throughout our rural areas and communities.

Census data shows a decline in residents of Sebastopol from 2000-2010 of 5%, Bodega Bay 24%! Why not allow a homeowner (has to be owner occupied as they do in Santa Rosa), to supplement their income, by renting a small apartment that is part of their house. Other opportunities abound with groups setting up "congregate housing" with shared living, with as mentioned "caregiver units", and for the homeless supervised campgrounds near each community.

For thousands of years mankind survived in small tribal units, dare we work toward facilitating shared but separate spaces in single family dwellings?

Tom Lynch

[GinaWillis]

Some posts have pointed out the opposition to workforce housing that can arise from existing property owners, fear of outsiders or lower property values, and NIMBY-ism.

That's all true. But here in Sebastopol, I think the key to achieving the new housing we so desperately need is not an appeal to altruism, but an appeal to our common interest. From the well-housed affluent to the struggling teacher or firefighter, we all share something: a very special type of community. Think of all the things that make Sebastopol so appealing, distinctive, and even funky compared to, say, Healdsburg or Rohnert Park -- the progressive political climate, the rural bohemian vibe, Peacetown Concerts, Amiot sculptures, CERES Project, and all the caring & conscious people whose energy & effort make this the wonderful place it is. Chances are, people who live here now -- wealthy or poor -- are here because they love this special quality of life and want to see it continue.

But if we don't all act together now to create a lot more attainable housing, guess what? The population changes, and with it the politics and the community character changes, too. Watch as Republicans start getting elected to local office. Watch as LLCs and absentee owners turn formerly vibrant neighborhoods into wine country investment properties. A population like that won't care about the quality of local schools, and will likely vote against library hours or other things that matter to full-time working residents. So, even if you have a nice home now, you ought to fight just as hard for this housing as the people who are being forced out. It's everyone's issue because the community itself is at stake here.

[prowess88]

FYI To All Interested in Housing!!

There is a big march planned for tomorrow Sunday, March 20th at 2pm!!

~~SPRING WALK FOR COMPASSION~~
Starting Location: Dollar Tree parking lot at 777 Sebastopol Rd, Santa Rosa, CA 95407
Rain or Shine because the Homeless are still homeless, rain or shine!

"Why are people homeless?"
- Minimum wage
- Mental Illness
- College expenses/student debt
- Veterans
- Loss of job
- Discrimination against low-income hard working Americans!

Homeless People Matter!!

See you all there!!

[podfish]

I hear this often ... get out, get out, get out ! ...

maybe this is what they had in mind??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_City

[arthunter]

There's no reason that those folks who chose to live a frugal lifestyle which is not dependent on a huge income should be banished to some remote location without running water, etc. ... this would include our artists, our retired, and many others who have never had the benefit or desire for income-centered education ... low income people are not necessarily lazy, sloppy, chaotic personalities who are a burden on society ... often they are quite enlightened and focused on high minded pursuits which do not command a high salary, like our health care workers for instance, who are fighting for a measly $15./hr... up until recently, these people could afford to live here ... now they can't ....

I do not want this discussion to turn into yet another "divide and conquer" situation so I will say that I have absolutely no problem with wealth, in fact many of my very best friends in this county are millionaires ... they own software companies, and publishing firms, they're surgeons, and small business owners .... they are kind and generous and have been great allies ... they would never ever use their wealth for exploitation and have contributed to our community in magnificent ways ...

maybe this is what they had in mind??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_City

[Lilith Rogers]

Yes----I'll be there. Join us!

Lilith

There is a big march planned for tomorrow Sunday, March 20th at 2pm!!

[LyndaMcD]

Great article in Sunday's Press Democrat. Pete Golis does an excellent job of recapping roadblocks, progress, and a work list (rather than a "wish list") of what needs to happen--and why. Read article.

[rossmen]

Total bs. SR has been the worst location for anyone wanting to build for about two decades. Spending more money is not the solution. Over three decades ago the choice was made in West county, Marin not San jose. It took 10 or 20 years for the 101 corridor to follow. This is a false dicotomy. So all the naysayers to third eye solutions write pay it or move and politicos pander. Welcome to Marin north, not a bad place to live if you can afford it.

Great article in Sunday's Press Democrat. Pete Golis does an excellent job of recapping roadblocks, progress, and a work list (rather than a "wish list") of what needs to happen--and why. Read article.

[podfish]

Total bs. SR has been the worst location for anyone wanting to build for about two decades. ...

uh, that's kind of baffling. You seem to be saying there's no money involved, just go for a third eye solutions? Sounds intriguing anyway, whatever it means. I guess by dichotomy you mean Marin vs. San Jose and the third eye is some new housing paradigm?? By chaining some other posts of yours to this, I think you mean let/encourage people to create homes out of trailers or whatever else they like, with only current environmental-protection regulations used as a legal framework - no zoning, nothing else required.

So without any editorial comment from me implied, just checking if I get your premise: you're proposing solving the housing issues without any government encouragement/involvement but more importantly no governmental restraint other than enforcement of environmental laws. Attempts to control population density or availability of services, or specifying minimal acceptable services (beyond sanitation, which I bet is covered by environmental laws) are definitely not part of this vision. Matching housing sites to infrastructure like transportation, sewer or power availability isn't part of it. Noise control, current neighborhood conditions, and other (e.g. commercial) use of surrounding properties isn't considered relevant.

Like several of my solutions to social ills, I suspect you're finding this one has more trouble getting adherents than it might deserve. Assuming I've described it accurately...

[Ronaldo]

Eddie Murphy's solution to the housing problem:

[arthunter]

Can someone please explain how costs continue to rise with statistics like this? ...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/37-fac...milies/5309938

[rossmen]

Don't mean to confuse anyone. You seem to get it. I'm not here as an advocate for loosening the reins on the policies which choke the most vulnerable. Just pointing out the obvious. As a landowner who rents people homes I walk the razor between humane business and government regs. Not complaining, the system works good for me right now even with leaving money on the table and all the fines and fees paid to oblivious institutional authorities. I seem to play the game OK and know that I could be rich if I wanted.

Also I do understand infrastructure limits and could go on about that... the bottom line is we are getting more efficient in our power and water use including the environmental scourge of indoor cultivation. So the capacity is here for informal densification. The political will? Over the horizon: (

uh, that's kind of baffling. ...

[terijane]

I'm following this thread with avid interest as a future tiny house owner. I appologize if this has been referrenced before, but don't miss Lynda McDaniel's excellent article https://www.sonomaindependent.org/ca...sonoma-county/
Thanks, Lynda!

[terijane]

Tom, now that you're running for Supervisor (again!), would you support changing PRMD's policies re: permits for tiny houses on wheels (THOWs) in Sonoma County?

The number one reason we lack affordable housing in Sonoma County, are the policies of Sonoma County and many of the cities. ...
Tom Lynch

[riverosprey]

Tom, now that you're running for Supervisor (again!), would you support changing PRMD's policies re: permits for tiny houses on wheels (THOWs) in Sonoma County?

I remember years ago a former Sonoma County Planning Director Pranab Chakravarti, when asked the solution to affordable housing, said, "...legalise slums." :) a very controversial statement, but his intention was to say, our building codes and standards sometimes are at cross purposes with the goal of a roof over peoples head. Ken Kern's classic "The Owner Built Home" opined that much of the Building Codes are a conspiracy from bankers, insurance companies, material suppliers and contractors.

Terry, for you, I would certainly make an exception, given all of your years service to West County with childcare, and your perennial positiveness . Seriously, at this point with so many in need of shelter at reasonable prices, I think Tiny Homes are part of the solution. As well as other means of mobile transient housing stock.

We simply cannot tolerate unsupervised encampments along our waterways, with inadequate sanitation and garbage pick-up, but we have to provide humane alternatives. Maybe every community having something like a small supervised Slab City, is part of the solution.

I am grateful for your presence in our community Terri .

Tom Lynch

[riverosprey]

While we're at it, I would like to share a PD Obituary of Pranab Chakravarti:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/csp/me...id=555&fid=181 )

Obituary: Pranab K. Chakrawarti
May 1, 2012

Pranab K. Chakrawarti, a former Sonoma County planning director whose work transformed land development and triggered controversy that led to his departure, died April 21 at a board and care home north of Santa Rosa. He was 76.

Chakrawarti's six-year tenure as planning chief ended in 1983, when he resigned under pressure from the Board of Supervisors.

{snip}

Chakrawarti shepherded the adoption of Sonoma County's first general plan in 1978, hailed as a model for its "parcel specific" approach to planning, said Bill Kortum, a Petaluma environmentalist who served on the Board of Supervisors.

The plan overhauled zoning and blanketed the countryside with minimum lot sizes of five to 20 acres and larger. That halted the process of breaking rural property into small parcels, known as ranchettes, Kortum said.

Chakrawarti "revised the planning paradigm" by curbing suburban sprawl and channeling development into community centers, former Supervisor Ernie Carpenter said.

The approach upset farmers and rural landowners who were accustomed to minimal restrictions on what they could do with their land, Carpenter said.

Chakrawarti's demeanor also fomented political unrest. "He stood by his convictions more than he used tact," Carpenter said.

By 1983, Chakrawarti's position as planning director had become "untenable," Carpenter said, due to the level of opposition to his policies.

But if not for the regulations Chakrawarti established, Sonoma County would look more like Contra Costa County, Carpenter said.

The Environmental Forum of Sonoma County hailed Chakrawarti's work on the general plan and other planning documents in 1982, saying that his technical expertise was matched by "personal integrity and courage to resist compromising his professional standards or being unduly influenced by any segment of the community, no matter how powerful their resources or how popular their case."

{snip}

I remember years ago a former Sonoma County Planning Director Pranab Chakravarti, when asked the solution to affordable housing, said, "...legalise slums." :) a very controversial statement, ...

[podfish]

Can someone please explain how costs continue to rise with statistics like this? ...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/37-fac...milies/5309938

because there is a large population that doesn't fall into the groups in that article. Just to cherry-pick a couple:
10. In the United States today, more than 41 percent of all working age Americans are not working.
11. Since January 2009, the “labor force” in the United States has increased by 827,000, but “those not in the labor force” has increased by 8,208,000. This is how they have gotten the unemployment numbers to “come down”.


so.. 59 percent are working. More people are in the labor force, about a million more.
They're filling restaurants and other entertainment venues, they're travelling and buying up Sonoma real estate. The 1% may be getting the lion's share, but there are a lot of people in the next tier down. You see them all over the place, and they affect life for everyone.

Even in the 70s it was obvious that my friends who hung wallpaper for a living would do best by working for people living in Palo Alto, while they lived in Milpitas. The wealthier group can provide a good living for the 'middle class', depending on where you draw that line.

There's a lot of money sloshing around in a capitalist system like ours - it's just not a feature of it to make sure it's distributed all that widely. Forty percent participation is way enough to self-sustain, apparently. We may be on our way to finding out how small a percentage it really takes.