In another thread, GinaWIlls said:
Anybody care to say more about that? What do you propose?? :waccosun:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GinaWillis:
Printable View
In another thread, GinaWIlls said:
Anybody care to say more about that? What do you propose?? :waccosun:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GinaWillis:
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 Currently, many good ideas are stymied by out-of-date and restrictive policies.
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!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
I just read that it is legal to live in a trailer if you're providing care to the owner.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by 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...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Since this is not something I am knowledgeable about, I would appreciate knowing how doing away with zoning etc might affect environmental safety.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
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
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by 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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gypsey:
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gypsey:
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.
:Yinyangv: :sorry: :crossfingers:
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 ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Ted Pole:
"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]"
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
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
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.
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!!
maybe this is what they had in mind??Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_City
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 ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Yes----I'll be there. Join us!
Lilith
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by prowess88:
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.
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by LyndaMcD:
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.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
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...
Eddie Murphy's solution to the housing problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ0up_MjsLk
Can someone please explain how costs continue to rise with statistics like this? ...
https://www.globalresearch.ca/37-fac...milies/5309938
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: (
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
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!
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? :wink:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:
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.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by terijane:
Terry, for you, I would certainly make an exception, given all of your years service to West County with childcare, and your perennial positiveness :wink:. 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 :thumbsup:.
Tom Lynch
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}
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:
because there is a large population that doesn't fall into the groups in that article. Just to cherry-pick a couple:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
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.
I have wondered why tiny homes and granny pods haven't been implemented? I myself have difficulty finding safe and affordable housing here. It is difficult to find places to live within an hour of intensive medical care when one's family needs it and also be in a safe environment. Some family members are more than uncomfortable in a city. The rural areas in Sonoma county seem to be calmer options.
Tiny homes with composting toilets and solar panels might be a start to help traveling workers, college students, aging out foster youth, homeless teens, Veterans, persons with disabilities, elders, and ecologically minded persons and young couples. It would also be a start for persons who lost homes in fires and to foreclosure. They can be moved if they are on a frame.
Could we think about it?
This article is pie in the sky thinking. Trying to be gentle because Tom [Lynch] is the most realistic politico in the run. Who cleaned up the scat spread in sr? Sr and then they cleaned up the sewer plant, now state of the art. Mr MM [Manure Man] was essential in initiating this transformation, we all owe him.
Housing prices are about supply and demand. Government regs (most of which are about protecting wealth), determine supply. Demand is about economics. And a significant economic driver in West county is indoor growing. Legalize weed so the price drops and there will be thousands more rental units available in Sonoma county, instead of being used for covert energy intensive environmentally unsustainable agriculture. This is the only significant political change on the horizon which will provide some relief.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by terijane:
3/20/16 Press Democrat
Close to Home: Why $42 million for affordable housing in Santa Rosa is missing
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/5399126-181/close-to-home-why-42?ref=menu&artslide=0
By HUGH FUTRELL
HUGH FUTRELL IS A SANTA ROSA-BASED DEVELOPER. | March 20, 2016
On Oct. 16, 1990, the Santa Rosa City Council, faced then as now with a housing affordability crisis, took courageous action.
To fund affordable housing the council tripled the tax paid when real property is sold. (As a result, a median-priced home now pays $1,700 in tax at close of escrow instead of $600.) I was there that evening. I had chaired the committee that developed the recommendation. As with others, I saw this funding as critical to protecting struggling families. That night we heard Mayor Jack Healy answer opponents’ criticism with a ringing statement of accountability: “I was elected to serve the public interest. The need is real. We need to do this now — not later. Now!” (Paraphrase from memory.)
Since then, $42 million has flowed into the city treasury from the tax increase, enough leveraged subsidy to have built 1,000 affordable-housing units. That’s $42 million that would have housed 1,000 families at affordable rents — $42 million that would have reduced rents for thousands of others, due to greater housing supply. The operative phrase is “would have.” The commitment made that evening was broken. The 1,000 units don’t exist.The $42 million was stolen — diverted by the city to other purposes. Why was it stolen? Because it could be. The tax increase in 1990 was technically not a specific tax for a restricted purpose. That would have required a public referendum. Without a separate referendum, the council action effectively put the new revenue into the general fund where it could be spent on anything. Everyone understood that the funds were for affordable housing. That was the whole point. (For clarity, 10 percent was to be used to pay county jail booking fees, a last minute tack-on.)
Continues here
I suspect there are wannabe airbnb hoteliers behind some of these suggestions (not anyone in particular).
We need solutions that actually provide housing.
I don't know about such motives on this thread but yes, the ease of airbnb has taken units out of the rental market. And it might be politically possible to do something about it, people are certainly trying. It would be a good question for Supervisor candidates.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:
I'd say Mr Manure Man owes us - we're the ones - the public - who paid for cleaning up his publicity stunt. I don't understand - he's run against Noreen several times, & lost. There is no reason to conclude this time will be any different.
Rossman... you tend to focus on one of many parts of the housing picture - last week it was Tiny Houses, this week it's growers - as being the major causal factor. Airbnb & other vacation rentals are constraining supply much more than growers. A holistic view of the housing demand would include Sonoma Co economic growth, the desirability of the area, the regional economic drivers of SF and Silicon Valley, vacation rentals, etc. The main driver of housing demand is the availability of employment.
The drivers of supply include the economy (low interest rates, available funding), govt rules (zoning, building codes, funding for affordable housing), availability of developers and workers, etc.
It takes a few years at least to build housing. Changing one law - whether permitting Tiny Houses or legalizing weed - will have only a minor effect - because there are bigger forces at work.
I just came across these two related stories and thought that they were worth sharing ... it would be nice if these problems lead us to an increased sense of "community" where we actually watch out for our most vulnerable residents ....
https://money.cnn.com/2016/03/11/rea...inkId=22170385
https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/0...ing-subsidies/
I remember from an early grade that an act of civil disobedience (which had property impacts), was important in the creation of our nation. The wastewater violations were on growing and getting massive. SR was content to pay the fines, so much less than the investment needed to upgrade, trying to keep cost down. Maybe you would have a different attitude if turds were floating by your house?
The devil lies in the details, what would you change and how possible is it? I know many people who grow and some who rent to travelers. The changes I say are possible would be a very difficult disruption to families with children. Would legalizing pot or restricting airbnb free up more long term rentals? Probably either and certainly both would mean more than the 42 mill futrell says would have created 1000 units in sr. When the world is working for you/I it is difficult to challenge the status quo... :. (
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tommy:
A couple of points regarding the efficiency of tiny houses:
In doing some research over the past couple of years, we have found that a great many tiny house designs utilize sleeping lofts. The steep steps required to get to your bedroom can be quite problematic for those with mobility issues. Imagine climbing up a ladder to get into bed.
The designs that keep the bedroom on the ground floor have a larger footprint, and point up the zoning difference between a Park RV residence (no more than 400 square feet) and the mobile home, which in most cases requires standardized hookups i.e.: sewage/septic.
There are exceptions to everything, and your comfort level may be more flexible, but those of us in advancing years must consider whether we can actually reside in these types of structures.
The other point is that of composting toilets versus incinerating toilets. We found the incinerating toilet to be much more desirable from a maintenance and residue issue. Especially in high population situations, a cup of ash every two weeks seems better than pounds of compost. And while there is an electricity aspect to the incinerating version, if it ran on solar panels I think many of us would be okay with it.
The problem with any of this, as we are all aware, is the glacial pace of the regulatory agencies in analyzing and approving new procedures (perhaps influenced by real estate interests?).
:secret::handshake::sickinbed:
I woke up to this news ...
HUD Wants to Make Living in a Tiny House or RV Illegal
one has to wonder about this ... I can understand safety concerns, etc., but are they not seeing the homeless problem in this country? ... would they rather that people are out on the streets? ... what's going on in our country? ... first, ridiculous laws passed about feeding the homeless and now this ... oh, and I also heard that it's illegal to live off of the grid in some places ... now how "sustainable" is that?
https://www.theorganicprepper.ca/hud...legal-03312016
This information comes just after I read in Sonoma Seniors Today about a Tiny House being constructed for a raffle on June 1, 2016. Tickets are $200 each, and will benefit COA's Meals on Wheels.
Tumbleweed Tiny House Co. donated the plans for the "Linden 20 Equator" model, which features a one bedroom, sleeping loft, a bathroom, a fully equipped kitchen, a great room, a storage loft and porch. And mounted on wheels.
Will wheels keep it legal? I do wonder about the feasibility of a "loft" for seniors. I had a bedroom loft in my 40's and it was a hassle to get up to pee in the middle of the night, until I rigged up a rope pull bucket. But most seniors probably can't squat to pee except the very agile ones. And some won't be able to climb the ladder. (As Ted Pole previously pointed out.)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
https://tomlynchforsupervisor.com/LI...county-issues/
I've lived in West County over 36 years and have never seen such a lack of affordable housing; nine years on Russian River Redevelopment (with 20% of the resources toward affordable housing), and last seven years on Sonoma County Planning Commission. The number one problem for affordable housing in Sonoma County is Sonoma County...our government is at cross purposes of the stated goal of creating housing by making it unaffordable and against allowing people to create it.
With a huge underutilized amount of housing in the West County, we should be allowing homeowners to create "second dwelling units" without $30,000 of impact fees, like they're doing in Novato (www.lilypadhomes.org) . I am in favor of allowing owner occupied homeowners the ability to create a second unit, provided the services are there. Period.
Last year in all of Sonoma County there were 103 affordable units created (60 alone at The Springs in Boyes Hot Springs), this is not near enough to house young and old alike. We take affordable housing fees to create $400,000 one bedroom apartments in Boyes Springs, why not leverage these resources incentivizing units among homes all over...build 13 units for the price of one.
https://tomlynchforsupervisor.com/LI...county-issues/
I think it's naive and simplistic to say the govt of Sonoma Co is the #1 problem for creating more affordable housing. The govt serves at the behest of the County Supervisors, who represent people, and various interests. The needs and wishes of the homeless, tiny house advocates, low income renters, etc ...play out with the needs and wishes of other voters, property owners, real estate interests, developers, etc. Sonoma County is a very beautiful and fragile place, that many want to preserve. I'm not against 2nd units like those permitted in Novato... but there are many who want to do whatever they can get away with ... damned be the laws and practices good for our land.
I am curious though, Tom, whether there aren't some more significant actions that could be taken to rein in pension costs, beyond your declining to take it?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:
When a private company negotiates with a private union, the private company has a goal to save as much money as possible, and deferred costs must be accounted for. So this keeps pensions (and wages) in line with income of a company.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tommy:
In the public sector, public unions also fund election campaigns for those they negotiate with, and governments have in the past exempted themselves from having to accrue expenses for future pension costs. In good year they vote raises and in the worst case, pension bumps etc (like what happened in the late 90's). That was the vote, and I believe Noreen Evans was responsible for voting yes, that cast our county into nearly endless deficits, and why we all will soon pay more to people not working (retirees) then to people currently working in the public sector. She should be held accountable for that bad judgement.
And depending upon high future rates of returns, as public pensions do, is a very dodgy proposition. Almost all companies de-risk now by only providing defined contributions, usually in the form of 401K. Thus the risk is all on the individual.
Thank you Joel and Tommy for your comments...
This is exactly right, as the Press Democrat article states in today's paper, we have seen a five-fold increase in pension costs since 2003. I am saying this was to the benefit of the first wave of retiring Boomers, and to the peril of the thousands of workers who retired before with no increase, and the Gen-xers and Millennials that come after . Noreen Evans on the Santa Rosa City Council and the Board of Supervisors, approved an unfunded, retroactive increase of 50% in retirement benefits. Noreen is the last of a generation of policy makers who voted this in, most everyone else has retired.
In turn we have seen a massive loss of new jobs for the next generation, as workers for Santa Rosa and Sonoma County retire, we can't afford to rehire, departments are gutted and we all lack the services once provided for generations. With corresponding cuts in education, homeless and mental health services, roads and infrastructure...and in today's paper Noreen dismisses her role in this debacle with the comment I am using this issue "As a scare tactic, people take that long-term cost and mush it all together.”
The article is here (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5...5th?artslide=3) , please disregard the bad photo of me in a new blue shirt :wink:.
I will respond to Tommy's question with a lot of ideas toward the solution a little later. I'm off to cook my family some chicken marsala :heart:.
kindly,
Tom Lynch
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
Let's revive and dust off this thread regarding affordable housing. At Friday nights debate in Bodega Bay, Noreen Evans said the solution to affordable housing in the Fifth District is "inclusionary housing", making developers create a certain percentage of affordable housing as part of the subdivision. I said a more experienced candidate who understands the demographics of the Fifth District, would know we're not going to have new subdivisions in our rural villages, and this will not bring back the young and old that once were part of our communities.
Noreen has also said "Junior second dwelling units" won't work and "you can't reduce fees." I used my final comments to propose a realistic way to create hundreds of affordable apartments, with government getting out of the way with zero impact fees, no additional hook-up costs and no affordability covenants.
We are in the midst of a housing crisis, we need experienced leaders who know the Fifth District and are able to understand what needs to be done to help put a roof over the head of the young and old who were once part of our rural villages. I want the people who work in our communities to be able to live in our communities, for their children to be able to go to school their, and for them to be part of the volunteers at the local fire department and participating in looking after our towns.
Tom Lynch
www.tomlynchforsupervisor.com
hi tom.
i certainly agree with you about finding every possible way for young and old and in-between-without-major-moolah to stay here in sonoma county. a few years back, when was fighting off foreclosure of my forestville home and looking everywhere for support, i called on you for help. you never got back to me. i called again and you said you were busy and couldn't really do anything anyway… maybe you recall? maybe not. i'd be more likely to attribute more sincerity to your stance if you'd come through with something. something.
jude
Judith I'm sorry I couldn't do anything to help you avoid losing your house. I remember your house at the end of Ferrell Drive in Forestville. And there was nothing I could do...very frustrating. Hope you are doing well...
kind regards, Tom Lynch
well, thanks for remembering, and your forthright reply.
at this point, there ARE means (sometimes) by which to avert the banks' "servicers" from foreclosing.
while it's not a slam-dunk, and the courts are not at all 'level playing fields', the banks' felonious methods are more widely known and sometimes can actually be stopped. i can be contacted for referrals. jude
Sometimes, people believe that nothing can be done, and once that belief takes over, it becomes reality. It's a standard answer, unless the person asking for help is a "friend" or "relative", or someone needing a favor repaid. Many times, it means that the person being asked for help, must become involved in a way that would take time and effort. Usually not something we want to do for strangers, or if it may put our own benefits on the line. At the very least, a response is expected. Being unresponsive to a request is a clue to future behavior.
When I've been confronted with this statement "There's nothing we can do." I ask "What if I was your mother, sister, or child?" Even if they don't budge, at least I've planted a seed in their minds. It can pay off to have friends in high places.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam: