We hear a lot about the housing crisis. We are told that if we just build more, the problem will be solved. There is no doubt we need to build more housing, but just increasing housing supply without accompanying actions to temper rapidly escalating rents does nothing to confront the problem of affordability. Moreover, San Mateo County is projected to add close to 95,000 jobs in the next 25 years. Without countervailing management of the intense job growth fueling the housing demand, supply has little chance of ever catching up.
If we continue down this narrow road thinking that building more is all we need to do, it will lead us to ever-widening income disparity and ever-decreasing diversity. Building more housing for high-income earners does little for those who earn moderate and low incomes. People who live here are being priced out and only the well-off can afford to move here. Hard-working families are being displaced by exorbitant rents and face increasing instability that impacts their family, their health and their livelihood. Ultimately, it undermines the health and diversity of the city itself.
This crisis of affordability demands more of us than the simple “build more, build higher” mantra we hear so often. A fair and responsible approach must be comprehensive, taking into consideration the imbalance between income and housing costs. As of June 2015, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, 61 percent of San Mateo County workers were employed in jobs earning less than $70,000 per year. Yet in 2017, according to Urban Analytics Lab at UC Berkeley, the annual income needed to afford the median asking rent in the county is $140,000.
If we are to address this crisis at all, we must come to grips with this untenable and growing discrepancy between income and housing costs. To help mitigate this imbalance, the California Housing Partnership recommends that local jurisdictions regulate rent increases to reasonable cost of living adjustments (over and above standard maintenance and operating expenses), and adopt laws to prevent evictions without justification.
Those of us lucky enough to own a home enjoy monthly payment stability due to fixed-rate mortgages. We get a very generous federal subsidy known as the mortgage interest deduction. What’s more, there is no threat of being evicted for no cause. Renters are no less productive members of our community than homeowners. Don’t they too, deserve some level of stability and predictability in their housing costs and some protection from unjust eviction?
Addressing the affordability crisis is going to take more than accommodating the wishes of the “build more” boosters. It is going to take some serious listening to those outside the inner circle. It means reaching out to a different group of stakeholders and developing a deeper understanding of housing justice. It may be uncomfortable, and it will require some tough, even painful decisions. It will take courage and leadership.
Keith Weber is a community activist. He recently retired after a 30 year career in the affordable multi-family housing business. He lives in San Mateo.
What would happen to the millions of homeowners if they lost their own housing security in the form of mortgage interest tax deductions and Prop. 13 property tax protections? Renters need similar protections so they are able to save to buy homes.
Homeowners take a huge risk when they buy a house. The mortgage, property taxes are enough to eat you alive. All it takes is a loss of job and homeowners can go under and lose their home pretty fast.
Homeowners have very little security, despite what you think. Renters on the other hand are free to walk away when they lose their jobs, and in fact, some just not pay rent and squat, and it's almost impossible to remove them without legal help.
What have you been doing for the last 45 years given you are now 67!!!! Is this now the responsibility of a property owner because of your adult decisions?
Renters don't deserve the advantages of home ownership. If they want the benefits of ownership, then they should "buy" and not "rent." And if you disagree, then owners need the advantages of renting like being able to walk away with 30 days notice.
While I share much of Mr. Weber's concerns about the high cost of housing I can not support rent control despite however "reasonable" he characterizes it. In the short-run rent control and just cause eviction ordinances benefit a handful of renters in the long-run it creates as more problems as it purportedly solves. Also, with a move afoot in Sacramento to repeal Costa-Hawkins rent control could soon be applied to single family homes, a public policy nightmare if there every was one in the making. Those of us concerned about the high cost of housing need to focus on cities continuing to permit development that adds too many jobs to a region that has insufficient housing to support these projects - case in point being the project being proposed in Redwood City on former Malibu Grand Prix site. I hope Mr. Weber and his supporters will be out in force to let their collective voices be heard concerning this project. Better mass transit systems to allow people to live in less expensive areas while working on the Peninsula is another solution that needs to be explored. Let's focus on solutions for the entire community not just for a few.
We absolutely need to protect renters. At the same time, we need to build more affordable and market-rate housing. We can do both; don't be convinced that we have to choose one or the other.
You want subsidized housing AND market rate housing.
So you want people to pay for their homes, then pay for yours as well? When is Peter Pan BMW going to provide me with "affordable" BMWs that taxpayers pay for?
Mr. Weber seems like a thoughtful man and means well, however, if he is familiar with San Mateo and Burlingame, both cities showed clearly they are not interested in rent control. Mr. Weber is just one of many who have tried the rent control avenue and have been thoroughly shot down by voters. We have no appetite for a government takeover of private assets through regulations. Rent control is unconstitutional.
I agree with Leora we have to do both. And all Peninsula cities need to do their fair share. San Mateo is way ahead of most. But we do not have to exceed our current high zoning standards, that allow 5 story buildings, to build more housing. We need balance - jobs/housing as well as infrastructure/growth.
The MID and Prop 13 are both forms of reverse welfare that should be eliminated and reformed, respectively. Leora is right that we can both protect renters and build more - a dichotomy is false. The lowest hanging fruit is approving Transit Oriented Developments such as what is proposed at the Millbrae BART station
Mr. Weber's viewpoint raises the ire of many in this community and for good reason. He advocates that the government commandeer a huge section of our economy. Even though he knows this approach was recently rejected by the voters, he is advocating it anyway. Mr. Weber, and those who support his views, essentially believe that massive goverment control of this part of the private sector will magically make everything okay. There is no evidence that relinquishing more liberty to a bureaucrat does any positive for the greater good. It will, however, drive up taxes, cause the creation of more government boards and give folks a false security.
The just cause eviction clauses that activists push are pure and simple property control that strip property owners of their rights to manage their units without costly legal proceedings and even remove the approval of who can occupy their property. Just a complete disregard of the risk capital an owner has invested. Too bad Costa Hawkins doesn't reach back far enough to 1955. What about a movement to expand the coverage years......much better than now-- !!!
Rent control does not and cannot solve the supply vs. demand imbalance which is the direct cause of the housing affordability crisis. It merely creates a lottery of the lucky few, who, regardless or needs or means, manage to get lucky and get a rent-controlled housing unit.
There is fundamentally a basic math problem here, which no amount of social justice, subsidies or tenant protection laws can or will address.
The ONLY truly sustainable long-term real solution is to either increase supply (build more) or reduce demand (cut jobs and/or population). Which is it going to be?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(18) comments
If renters want the same stability as homeowners, then they should buy a home! There are reasons why the government promotes home ownership.
What would happen to the millions of homeowners if they lost their own housing security in the form of mortgage interest tax deductions and Prop. 13 property tax protections? Renters need similar protections so they are able to save to buy homes.
Homeowners take a huge risk when they buy a house. The mortgage, property taxes are enough to eat you alive. All it takes is a loss of job and homeowners can go under and lose their home pretty fast.
Homeowners have very little security, despite what you think. Renters on the other hand are free to walk away when they lose their jobs, and in fact, some just not pay rent and squat, and it's almost impossible to remove them without legal help.
What have you been doing for the last 45 years given you are now 67!!!! Is this now the responsibility of a property owner because of your adult decisions?
Renters don't deserve the advantages of home ownership. If they want the benefits of ownership, then they should "buy" and not "rent." And if you disagree, then owners need the advantages of renting like being able to walk away with 30 days notice.
Well, no. They want you to buy them their home.
While I share much of Mr. Weber's concerns about the high cost of housing I can not support rent control despite however "reasonable" he characterizes it. In the short-run rent control and just cause eviction ordinances benefit a handful of renters in the long-run it creates as more problems as it purportedly solves. Also, with a move afoot in Sacramento to repeal Costa-Hawkins rent control could soon be applied to single family homes, a public policy nightmare if there every was one in the making. Those of us concerned about the high cost of housing need to focus on cities continuing to permit development that adds too many jobs to a region that has insufficient housing to support these projects - case in point being the project being proposed in Redwood City on former Malibu Grand Prix site. I hope Mr. Weber and his supporters will be out in force to let their collective voices be heard concerning this project. Better mass transit systems to allow people to live in less expensive areas while working on the Peninsula is another solution that needs to be explored. Let's focus on solutions for the entire community not just for a few.
We absolutely need to protect renters. At the same time, we need to build more affordable and market-rate housing. We can do both; don't be convinced that we have to choose one or the other.
You want subsidized housing AND market rate housing.
So you want people to pay for their homes, then pay for yours as well? When is Peter Pan BMW going to provide me with "affordable" BMWs that taxpayers pay for?
Mr. Weber seems like a thoughtful man and means well, however, if he is familiar with San Mateo and Burlingame, both cities showed clearly they are not interested in rent control. Mr. Weber is just one of many who have tried the rent control avenue and have been thoroughly shot down by voters. We have no appetite for a government takeover of private assets through regulations. Rent control is unconstitutional.
[thumbup]
I agree with Leora we have to do both. And all Peninsula cities need to do their fair share. San Mateo is way ahead of most. But we do not have to exceed our current high zoning standards, that allow 5 story buildings, to build more housing. We need balance - jobs/housing as well as infrastructure/growth.
The MID and Prop 13 are both forms of reverse welfare that should be eliminated and reformed, respectively. Leora is right that we can both protect renters and build more - a dichotomy is false. The lowest hanging fruit is approving Transit Oriented Developments such as what is proposed at the Millbrae BART station
Mr. Weber's viewpoint raises the ire of many in this community and for good reason. He advocates that the government commandeer a huge section of our economy. Even though he knows this approach was recently rejected by the voters, he is advocating it anyway.
Mr. Weber, and those who support his views, essentially believe that massive goverment control of this part of the private sector will magically make everything okay. There is no evidence that relinquishing more liberty to a bureaucrat does any positive for the greater good. It will, however, drive up taxes, cause the creation of more government boards and give folks a false security.
What else did you expect from a community activist?
Affordable housing is just a buzzword for subsidized housing. In other words, we pay plenty to live here, but he wants us to pay for others as well.
What I don't understand is the continuing desire for massive job growth here. Isn't this the reason for all the housing and infrastructure problems?
The just cause eviction clauses that activists push are pure and simple property control that strip property owners of their rights to manage their units without costly legal proceedings and even remove the approval of who can occupy their property. Just a complete disregard of the risk capital an owner has invested. Too bad Costa Hawkins doesn't reach back far enough to 1955. What about a movement to expand the coverage years......much better than now-- !!!
Rent control does not and cannot solve the supply vs. demand imbalance which is the direct cause of the housing affordability crisis. It merely creates a lottery of the lucky few, who, regardless or needs or means, manage to get lucky and get a rent-controlled housing unit.
There is fundamentally a basic math problem here, which no amount of social justice, subsidies or tenant protection laws can or will address.
The ONLY truly sustainable long-term real solution is to either increase supply (build more) or reduce demand (cut jobs and/or population). Which is it going to be?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.