As we debate “affordable” housing locally, perhaps it would be a good idea if we stepped back and looked at how one state is faring in what is unquestionably the most unaffordable single family housing market in America - California.

To set the stage, a brief comparative analysis as to where California stands compared to Sarasota. In Sarasota County almost 80% of homes are owner occupied. Nationally the figure is fast approaching 70%, while in California only 57% of homes are owned by their occupants. It is deemed that only 18% of California residents can afford to buy the median-priced home, which is $400,000. A statewide short fall in housing production that began in the 90’s, has the state facing a housing deficit of nearly 1 million units. In fact, it seems that public policy is increasingly working against the production of affordable housing. In one community in the San Francisco area governmental fees charged on each new home are $118.000!

In 2004 the California Building Industry Association published a report entitled “California Housing Striking a Balance.” Granted this group has a vested interest in the legislation of state and local government concerning housing, but the long term problems of affordability in California might shed some light on some of Sarasota County’s “tool kit” ideas. Rather than just relying on our paraphrasing of this report, we would encourage you to read it in it’s entirety, at www.cbia.org or we will be happy to supply a copy to all who care to receive one. For those who do not have the inclination nor the time, we will highlight the study.

• Long demand and short supply have “plagued California’s housing status for thirteen consecutive years. An average sized subdivision takes nearly a decade to get approved, and, there is only a six percent probability that a subdivision proposed in California will be approved without modifications. By contrast, in Texas and Arizona, there is already a 75% chance of such desirable housing outcomes.”
  
  
• “Land is the basic raw material necessary for California’s new home construction. Only 5% of the state’s 100 million-acre land mass is developed and occupied—it is the costliest component in new housing development. A 10% reduction in the supply of available land in a community can add 20 to 30 percent to the price of a new home.”
  
  
• “Inclusionary zoning is not a solution. It’s unfair, taxing, and unproductive as it does the following:
  
  
  1. Unfairly ascribes to homebuilders and their customers responsibility for covering government’s unmet social obligations.
     
     
  2. Distorts housing markets by forcing market-rate home prices up and fixing similar homes at below-market prices.
     
     
  3. Punishes middle-income homebuyers who don’t qualify for programs and can’t afford inflated higher prices.
     
     
  4. Has a poor record of producing housing - a mere 34,000 units in 30 years.
     
     
  5. A study by San Jose State University shows the direct cost of inclusionary zoning to market-rate homebuyers ranges from $7,000 to $50,000 per home.”
     
     
• Now, some recommendations made by the California Homebuilders in order to reverse the trend in being able to provide affordable housing:
  
  
  1. “The solution is good planning and zoning. Local governments should look out 20 years and designate an adequate supply of land for housing. And, importantly, no state or local law should be permitted to overturn that policy, period.”
     
     
  2. “Open up infill markets with overlooked or underutilized tracts in urban centers. Infill development can help meet the state’s housing need. Environmental benefits grow out of this efficient land use, reducing development pressures on urban fringes and increasing chances for open space preservation. Transportation economies and efficiencies can be created by infill development. More concentrated, urban-centeric development can reduce commuting distances and even create economics for more transit. Forgotten urban neighborhoods can be revitalized. Private investment is the most effective weapon against blight. Infill development is the ultimate conquest.” (Sounds familiar to Argus support for an overlay district for “villages” along major corridors in underutilized shopping centers.)
     
     
  3. “Retreats rough road” — While Californian’s population has increased by more than 50% over the past 20 years, highway capacity has increased by only 7%! From 1990 to 1999 new lane mileage grew by only 1.6%. According to the California Transportation Commission, the state’s transportation needs over the next decade will exceed $110 billion. The result of this woeful transportation policy is unhappy Californians. This unhappiness feeds on itself, generating more disdain for government - for not solving problems - and inspiring opposition to new housing, particularly higher density housing. Thirty-five years ago 20% of the state budget was spent on infrastructure; today it’s less than 5%!

As Floridians and Sarasotans we can see ourselves in the same mirror as that of California if we continue down the tried and failed path that they followed. It is time that we all work together to focus on how we can encourage private sector investment to give us what we want for our entire community. Designated higher density housing near major employment centers, coupled with residential density increases as an overlay on land currently occupied by economically unsustainable commercial and industrial lands in a “new village” configuration would give Sarasota a greater positive start to conquering the challenge of housing affordability than regulatory controls that have not proven to be effective with the test of time. Affordable housing is a mulit-dimensional problem. As we have seen in the City of Sarasota the granting of 200 units per acre does not necessarily make for affordable development. Those who complain that the result is a “give away” that does not accomplish anything and only results in token contributions to an affordable housing fund, should note that this is an example of “government regulation” well intended, but not accomplishing the task. It is time that we put aside the simplistic approach of “regulatory” zoning, and instead move in to the 21st Century of “performance” based zoning. The development of sprawl and high land costs, have been brought to us by stringent adherence to rules and regulations that have put us in a community straight jacket here in Sarasota. Granting “bonuses” for preferred development, for real affordable housing, are not only what the development community seeks, but the community at large wants. Why is it so difficult to bring together our elected officials in partnership with the development community to build to the vision of our community? 2050 was a start, but due to the land assemblage and magnitude of the projects it is going to take years before we see the results. In affordable housing we can take a few baby steps to be creative, and start to get the job done. Let us be the first community in the nation that steers a different course from the failed policies of other localities and states. Let this be for us a lesson learned of how we can work together.