New Shopping Area(s) (Sacramento, Santa Barbara: homes, employment, neighborhoods)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The mixed income ordinances are a floor, not a cap of how many low income folks are going to be in a neighborhood.
If you compare the mixed income ordinances in Roseville vs Natomas. The mixed income ordinance in Natomas is much stronger. It both sets aside more homes 15% instead of 10% but it also mandates that 10% of new construction go to very low income folks and 5% go to very low income folks. Whereas in Roseville it allocates homes by a lottery to open to both groups.
Both that is not the only source of low income housing in a neighborhood. There are federal programs like section 8, that also come into play.
In Natomas master plan, the goal was to increase the density of housing to achieve smart growth objectives. The easiest way to do that is put in a bunch of multi-unit projects. Some of those were apartments and some of those were condos. Of the condos, a lot of them are not owner-occupied.
As a population, the people renting are less wealthy and less educated than the owner occupants. New rental units also face the least amount of scrutiny from HUD to be used as section 8 units.
At Natomas high 51% of the students are eligible to participate in free or reduced price lunchs. At Roseville high 22% of the students are eligible to participate in free or reduced prices lunches.
Here is the income eligibility to get free or reduced priced lunches. What you will notice is that it is more difficult to get free or reduced price lunches than it is to get housing under the mixed income ordinance.
What is unique about Natomas is that we are building new neighborhoods were the majority of the population is poor.
Wburg criticized me for advocating policies which shuffled the poor into exclusively poor ghettos where there misery can be concentrated and the wealthy can pretend that it doesn't exist. But when the city of Sacramento is building new neighborhoods where 50% of the students are on free or reduced price lunches, aren't you sort of achieving the policy failure you hoped to remedy?
Why this matters is that this region is going to be building a lot more places that look like Natomas. The Sacramento Regional Blueprint is based upon expanding what was done in Natomas to other regions. It both demands the adoption of mixed income ordinances but it also demands increases in the density of housing, meaning a lot more condos and apartments in the region as well.
By the same logic, we should stop building hospitals, because they only fill up with sick people!
The 15% is a floor, but if what zen_klown says is true, there isn't much reason to build more than 15% low-income housing--which is, again, a category that 40% of the population fit into. And programs like Housing Choice Vouchers (aka "section 8") can typically only utilize housing below a "fair market value" rent--which means that they take up some of that 15%, not housing stock above and beyond that 15%.
And remember that "low-income" is far, far above "poverty level"--the top level of low-income housing is for people who have jobs, sometimes professional careers, that just aren't all that high-paying. zen_klown lumps these people in with welfare recipients, and that's why I have a problem with him.
Growth is a choice. There is no compelling reason that this area needs to add more people. If we don't permit it here, it will happen some place else. For the sake of the enviroment, for the sake of air quality, to preserve existing farm land, to limit the growth of green house gasses, to prevent additional congestion on streets and roads or to just generally preserve the quality of life, this area like Marin, or the pennisula, or Davis we could just clamp down on additional growth.
Natomas is a relatively new neighborhood. In many respects that neighborhood right now is probably as good as its going to get. Right now 51% of the students at Natomas High are eligible to participate in free or reduced priced lunch programs. That number probably under-estimates the true poverty in the neighborhood because the high school dropouts at the school are probably disproportionately coming for the most economically distressed families in the school and as they leave the school, it probably makes the school seem less poor.
In effect in Natomas they aren't setting aside 15% of the housing for 40% of the population that is poor. In effect the policy is setting aside 51%+ of the new housing for the bottom 40% of the population.
The more neighborhoods you build like Natomas, the poorer this region gets. This policy is concentrating poverty in new neighborhoods. It is creating the problem that it seeks to remedy. It isn't creating mixed income neighborhoods, it just adding another new poor neighborhood to go along with the existing poor neighborhoods.
Wburg says he has a problem with me because he says that I am lumping welfare recipients with people who have jobs and sometimes professional careers. What do call someone who is recieving free or reduced price lunches at school if not a welfare recipient? When the government is subsidizing your housing, why is that inaccurate to label that welfare? Is there a euphemism here that Wburg finds more appropiate?
51%+ of the students at Natomas high are recieving free or reduced priced lunches. Only 18% of the parents at Natomas High graduated from college or went to Grad school. Before we start assuming that the college and grad school graduates are lining up for government benefits, I think we should see some evidence to back that claim up because there is really good chance that when you tailor your policy to fix them, that you might miss the the parents of the 55% of the parents at Natomas High whose parents either didn't graduate from high school or who are just high school graduates.
Again if there are any disputes about the data, look at the source.
By the same logic, we should stop building hospitals, because they only fill up with sick people!
The 15% is a floor, but if what zen_klown says is true, there isn't much reason to build more than 15% low-income housing--which is, again, a category that 40% of the population fit into. And programs like Housing Choice Vouchers (aka "section 8") can typically only utilize housing below a "fair market value" rent--which means that they take up some of that 15%, not housing stock above and beyond that 15%.
And remember that "low-income" is far, far above "poverty level"--the top level of low-income housing is for people who have jobs, sometimes professional careers, that just aren't all that high-paying. zen_klown lumps these people in with welfare recipients, and that's why I have a problem with him.
I think your statistical view is incorrect, I don't believe it takes into account all of the multiple income family units existing in the area.
Growth is a choice. There is no compelling reason that this area needs to add more people. If we don't permit it here, it will happen some place else. For the sake of the enviroment, for the sake of air quality, to preserve existing farm land, to limit the growth of green house gasses, to prevent additional congestion on streets and roads or to just generally preserve the quality of life, this area like Marin, or the pennisula, or Davis we could just clamp down on additional growth.
There is a compelling reason to add more people: the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, which is part of state law. The population of California is going to grow, whether we plan for it or not, and California cities' general plans have to accommodate a certain amount of growth. Because, as you say, if it doesn't happen here, it has to go someplace else. Short of mandating zero population growth through sterilization (talk about your "social engineering!") you're just not going to be able to stop total population growth, and California state law requires that cities make some accommodation for it. And because I know you like links, here are a few:
I think your statistical view is incorrect, I don't believe it takes into account all of the multiple income family units existing in the area.
Income thresholds are based on the total number of people in the household. The "low income" threshold is based on 80% of median household income for the region, and based on total number of people in the household and total incomes of the household. So, while one person making $35,000 a year is technically low-income, two people making $35,000 a year and living together are not, because their total income is $70,000 a year.
Interesting. So the rule is that you have to zone for it, but you don't have to build it.
I still think Davis, Marin and the pennisula are onto the right idea. Along the 280, there is plenty of space for new development but they just aren't going to build there. Marin again has lots of open space. These areas could grow much faster and larger, but see no reason to do so. Instead these regions are doing everything they can to clamp down on new development.
That model seems to work.
Through 2030, per capita income is going to grow by 30k in Marin and SF and by 15k in San Mateo.
Now compare that with the areas of the state that are growing the fastest in population. Riverside (1.5k in per capita income growth) and San Bernadino Counties (3k in per capita income growth).
The high growth model doesn't seem to work nearly so well.
Sacramento County will be adding people at as faster pace than the bay area but they forecast that incomes will be growing much slower here, up only by 5k and if the Sac Blueprint continues to follow the Natomas model, I suspect it will be lower than that.
Right now Caltrans is forecasting that incomes will be up by $10k in that period in Placer County and 15k in El Dorado. But I think the modelers are underestimating the impact of the Sacramento Regional Blueprint and the consequences of Natomas style growth it demands, so we may be seeing more Inland Empire style income growth numbers.
In Yolo incomes should grow by 3k. Yolo is a bit of a data outlier. If you clamp down on growth but add more students at Davis, that is going to pull down your per capita income numbers because students aren't working. Additional growth in West Sac probably isn't pushing up Yolo per capita income numbers either.
If you want to see the data for the other counties look here.
California Department of Transportation - Division of Transportation Planning (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio-economic.html - broken link)
Well, that isn't exactly the case: the municipality isn't directly responsible for building the housing, but they do have to zone land to allow for population growth, and it is up to developers to actually produce the housing. And cities can't put unnecessary obstacles in the path of housing developers who wish to build new housing, at least up to the point of the city's fair-share requirements.
In most cases, cities don't build housing, developers do--the city plans and zones for the land use and approves the plans, but they aren't land developers.
Open space requirements are a totally separate part of the General Plan process. There are a lot of places where cities can't or don't want to build, for safety, conservation, environmental protection, aesthetic, or other reasons. Cities can meet their growth requirements without expanding their geographic residential areas by increasing density in existing residential areas or promoting infill projects.
But please, zen_klown, humor me. In your anti-growth stance, are you saying that we should stop residential growth here so it can go to some unspecified Somewhere Else, or are you advocating an end to population growth, through sterilization, euthanasia or other means?
Well, that isn't exactly the case: the municipality isn't directly responsible for building the housing, but they do have to zone land to allow for population growth, and it is up to developers to actually produce the housing. And cities can't put unnecessary obstacles in the path of housing developers who wish to build new housing, at least up to the point of the city's fair-share requirements.
In most cases, cities don't build housing, developers do--the city plans and zones for the land use and approves the plans, but they aren't land developers.
Open space requirements are a totally separate part of the General Plan process. There are a lot of places where cities can't or don't want to build, for safety, conservation, environmental protection, aesthetic, or other reasons. Cities can meet their growth requirements without expanding their geographic residential areas by increasing density in existing residential areas or promoting infill projects.
But look at how the state calculates fair share growth requirements. It looks at past growth rates. So the more you enanct policies to clamp down on growth, the less you have to grow in the future.
More over there is a lot of wiggle room in what constitutes an unnecessary impediment to growth. The city of Sacramento could mandate all new growth go into high rises with in a quarter mile of the light rail station in Meadowview, is that an unnecessary impediment to growth or just smart growth? The city could argue such growth encourages mass transit usage, creates pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, adds economic development to a blighted neighborhood, preserves open space etc. But it also may not be economical yet to build high rises in Meadowview so while the area is zone for growth, the growth doesn't occur.
Alternatively the city could add growth impact fees that are high enough where growth just goes elsewhere. Again what are the costs of new development that is a gray area that is hard to ascertain. So assume the worst and drive impact fees up high enough where growth goes elsewhere.
Add carbon impact fees, sewage and water capacity impact fees, fees for congestion, fire, police and library services. If the fees are high enough in the region, the growth goes elsewhere. There are cities in Texas and around Atlanta where its still feasible to build housing cheaply. If the spread between the cost of new growth here and Texas is large enough the growth will go to those type of places.
So while the city zoned for it, the developers just won't build it. As the growth rate of your region slows down, the state reduces your future growth quotas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
But please, zen_klown, humor me. In your anti-growth stance, are you saying that we should stop residential growth here so it can go to some unspecified Somewhere Else, or are you advocating an end to population growth, through sterilization, euthanasia or other means?
While I appreciate intellectually the arguments of the zero population growth folks, I wouldn't want to live in a country where the government was strong enough to implement those types of policies.
The land-use approaches you mention are basically all ways to obfuscate and provide obstacles to new growth, and would open the city up to litigation by anyone who, quite rightly, would construe those kinds of limitations as unreasonable obstacles to development and a failure of the city of Sacramento to meet its state-mandated growth requirements. You can't get around the state laws just by being a jerk about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zen_klown
While I appreciate intellectually the arguments of the zero population growth folks, I wouldn't want to live in a country where the government was strong enough to implement those types of policies.
I'll take that to mean that you think that growth, much like poor people, should go to some unspecified Somewhere Else, as long as it isn't in your backyard.
The land-use approaches you mention are basically all ways to obfuscate and provide obstacles to new growth, and would open the city up to litigation by anyone who, quite rightly, would construe those kinds of limitations as unreasonable obstacles to development and a failure of the city of Sacramento to meet its state-mandated growth requirements. You can't get around the state laws just by being a jerk about it.
I see the advantages in protracted litigation. The longer it takes to get a deal approved, the more it drives up the cost of new development which drives development elsewhere. Moreover there is precedence for setting and getting pretty high fees on new development. Back in 2005, Chris Daly negociated impact fees of $25 a sqft in SF. Apply that in addition to a mixed income ordinance, drag out the approval process and you really are starting to make new development cost prohibitive.
Demonize your opponents as not caring about the poor or the enviroment if they aren't willing to be as strident in demanding increasing higher fees on new developments. The public thinks developers are evil, this isn't a tough sell to a jury. This is how they do it in SF. It works.
If there is local political support for a policy, local governments regularly can and do avoid ignoring policies that are illegal under the supremacy clause.
Federal law clearly prohibits the use and distribution of Marijuana. Yet Sacramento has several Marijuana dispensaries.
The City of Sacramento permitted a needle exchange program which again violates federal law. But try getting a jury to convict people trying to limit the spread of aids.
Is all of that technically illegal? Yes. Is there any enforcement of that no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
I'll take that to mean that you think that growth, much like poor people, should go to some unspecified Somewhere Else, as long as it isn't in your backyard.
Between now and 2030, Marin County is only going to allow an additional 15,000 people instead of the 500,000 that Sacramento County is expected to add during that time. By doing so, Marin will end up having the highest per capita income in the state and probably the country. It will be substantially more than twice the per capita income in Sacramento. Yet I am not sensing a lot of righteous indigination on your part about that. Why not? There is plenty of space to have them there. Why should the poor be shuffled off to Natomas and not there? If they were in Marin they would probably have better access to jobs, employment and better schools. If there is any county that has money for social services its Marin.
Under the status quo, the wealthy live in their enclaves in the bay area that keep getting increasing wealthier and better educated whereas the poor get shuffled off to inland areas like the inland empire or the valley. Why should economic opportunity keep being driven off to the bay area? Why should poverty keep being concentrated in the inland areas? Why is it about this status quo that needs to be so vigorously defended?
I favor policies that will encourage the locals to get ahead too. If clamping down tightly on growth will make the area wealthier, I see the merits of that. If the region can grow and get wealthier at the same time like the old Placer/El Dorado County model before the Sacramento Blueprint, I can get behind that too.
But I do reject the model where this region becomes a bigger version of Stockton or Bakersfield, a place that stays poor and continues to suffer from the brain drain as the best and brightest feel the need to leave the area for better prospects elsewhere.
That offends me.
51% of the students at Natomas High are recieving either free or reduced price lunches. That is a new neigbhorhood. Why does this region need to keep being the dumping ground for the poor?
Why doesn't that offend you?
Last edited by zen_klown; 12-05-2008 at 12:41 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
