<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=0QVy1O_1DyhO5vU00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=0QVy1O_1DyhO5vU00" width="1560" height="699" ><figcaption>Carpinteria’s housing needs vs. reality: The table compares our state-mandated housing goals (RHNA) with housing actually being considered to be built. It shows we are creating a surplus of expensive, market-rate housing while falling short on homes for moderate-, low- and very low-income residents. Mike Wondolowski</figcaption></figure>In a recent Carpinteria City Council meeting, there was discussion of a proposal to convert a vacant office complex into 31 residential units, with every one of those units having market-rate rent. It was an interesting concept, but in a moment that is emblematic of one of the biggest planning issues this city faces, a city council member stated, “We’ve got an empty building sitting there, and we need housing. It makes a lot of sense.”Does it really? Let’s look at this issue a little more closely.As is true across the country, housing affordability is a serious issue in Carpinteria. But to state that the problem is that “we need more housing” misses the most important point: We do not lack housing in general, but rather, we lack housing that is affordable to most people who pay their rent or mortgage with their paychecks without the benefit of additional wealth.As I posed in this column last July (tinyurl.com/HousingProblem), what if I said we have a “shortage of buildings?” That statement is sort of true since reasonably priced apartments, townhomes, condominiums and houses are all buildings. But so are car dealerships, department stores, shopping centers, fast food joints and tourist souvenir shops. If we want to identify housing that is affordable as lacking, it is not helpful to say we have a “shortage of buildings.”For the same reason, trying to express our lack of housing that is affordable to most people by saying simply “we need more housing” is dangerous since it can lead us to identify “solutions” that don’t actually help solve the problem. In fact, they may make the real problem even worse (such as suggesting that building more market-rate units somehow helps our shortage of housing that is affordable to most people).That column last July goes into details from our recently adopted Housing Element about exactly how many housing units our community needs in different price ranges. It also explains the problems created by overbuilding high-cost housing. The summary is that addressing a shortage of affordable housing by building mostly market-rate housing just flat out misses the point.You don’t have to take my word for it — the city’s own data tells the story. The graphic with today’s column compares our state-mandated housing goals, defined as Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), with what is actually being considered to be built. It shows we are creating a surplus of expensive, market-rate housing while falling desperately short on homes for moderate-, low- and very low-income residents.Behind these numbers are the essential workers of our community — teachers, retail staff, restaurant employees and farmworkers — who are being priced out of the town they help support. Building more market-rate housing is a “solution” that not only addresses the wrong problem but makes the real problem even worse.Other council members and some public speakers at that recent city council meeting expressed concern about the lack of even a single affordable unit in the proposal being discussed. But not a single one of them highlighted the fundamental truth that to get out of our affordable housing hole, the first thing we have to do is stop digging that hole deeper!Some people confidently declare that building more homes will naturally lead to declining rents and prices. However, this has been repeatedly disproven.This is shown in the studies referenced in this “Lay of the Land” column from last September: tinyurl.com/JustBuildMore. It is further proven by the two studies discussed in this New York Times article: tinyurl.com/NYT-housing.Unfortunately, it is not easy to secure the funding necessary to build below-market-rate housing — if it were easy, we would not have a problem to solve!There are plenty of investors and speculators willing to back a market-rate housing project in our town. As we have seen, they sometimes even hire public relations firms to convince the community we want and even need what they are proposing, while the actual result would be profits for the developer and Carpinteria left with a deeper affordable housing hole.Identifying paths to building affordable housing is complicated and takes time, but the first step is simple: Stop digging the hole deeper. As a community, we must resist the lure of slick pitches for luxury developments and demand that new projects address our actual, documented need for affordable homes.</div></body>

Block Source: Coastal View

Misinformation

Clickbait

Old or repetitive news

Explicit content

Location not relevant

In a recent Carpinteria City Council meeting, there was discussion of a proposal to convert a vacant office complex into 31 residential units, with every one of those units having market-rate rent. It was an interesting concept, but in a moment that is emblematic of one of the biggest planning issues this city faces, a city council member stated, “We’ve got an empty building sitting there, and we need housing. It makes a lot of sense.”

What type of housing do we need?

NewsBreak

In a recent Carpinteria City Council meeting, there was discussion of a proposal to convert a vacant office complex into 31 residential units, with every o

What type of housing do we need?

Comments