We don’t know how old the Chinese proverb is, that says, “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago and the second best time is now.” We don’t know if its truly an authentic ancient parable or not, but we’ll accept it as great advice for how we should be thinking about our current affordable housing crisis in Sonoma County and California.
Sonoma County lost 5,600 houses in the October 2017 wildfires and it is estimated we need 30,000 more homes over the next decade to fulfill our local housing needs. Gov. Gavin Newsom says California needs to build 3.5 million houses by 2025. If we had started “planting” houses 20 years ago, we’d still be millions behind.
So what should we do? Wisdom that is more modern than a Chinese proverb tells us we cannot tackle our housing crisis without government assistance. Our local communities, and the companies, men and women who will build all these added homes, will need more relaxed fee schedules, less land use restrictions and more welcoming neighborhood attitudes. There is no Chinese proverb about NIMBYS because older civilizations came before suburbs, cul de sacs and zero-lot-lines.
Look at our county and our Bay Area. Santa Rosa lost one-fifth of its housing stock in a single 24-hour period. Almost 200 homes were just damaged or red-tagged in the February Russian River floods. Over the last two years, some 3.3 million acres were blackened by 17,600 California wildfires. So far, our mobilized response under #SonomaStrong and other banners has been about recovery, rebuild and resilience.
We have another suggestion to add to all these, also starting with the letter “R.” And that is Redevelopment. Any successful effort to build 30,000 local homes or 3.5 million California homes will take a historical (or Herculean) feat, akin to the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II or the Apollo moonshot mission.
Such a redevelopment plan for California already existed once before and it could be the governmental approach most available to start “planting” millions of houses right now and not 20 years later. Yes, we are advocating for reinstituting the California Redevelopment Act, but with several improvements over the version that former Gov. Jerry Brown eliminated in 2012.
The California Redevelopment Act (CRA) was created in 1945 to provide a state-led tax structure for local governments to attack urban blight, refurbish failing neighborhoods and develop under-utilized urban lands. Between 2001 and 2008, local redevelopment agencies supported the construction of 63,600 affordable housing units. Brown shut down the CRA agencies because they had become too top heavy in administrative costs. He used their leftover funds to plug a state budget hole left after the 2008 Great Recession.
The basic formula of a CRA allows local county or municipal agencies to sell housing construction bonds to underwrite private developments or public housing projects. The bonds are repaid with “tax incremental financing,” where new developments, added economic activity and an improved property tax base enriches local governments’ general funds. This formula does not raise tax bills for current residences or wannabe NIMBYS. However, local government spending on non-housing items would be impacted.
There are current debates in the state legislature to bring back redevelopment agencies. The new agencies should only fund affordable housing efforts and not the previous “blight” or commercial uses that were abused in the past. Local governments should be required to adopt a set of “housing friendly” zoning, fee and city-centered growth policies to qualify. Stronger public oversight and transparency should be added. Just like the old CRA agencies, local redevelopment maps would be adopted to steer new housing to best-suited locations.
We need billions of dollars to build the houses Sonoma County needs today. No single housing bond, no bank loan, no private developer and no Chinese proverb will produce the billions we need. Revived redevelopment agencies might work and they could provide the deep roots needed for a 20-year housing plan.
— Rollie Atkinson
