I remember the first time a teacher mentioned to me that they worked a second job in the evenings and weekends to afford rent. Unfortunately, this has become a reality for many faculty and staff living in San Mateo County.
A 2017 survey of Jefferson Union High School District faculty and staff found that 16.5% of employees intended to leave the district in less than five years for a different geographic location, yet planned to stay in their same profession. We were facing a 20% annual turnover rate, with no sign that this would slow down. We were also faced with an irrefutable truth: The people who are taking care of our children and the future of our community should not have to work several jobs to get by.
The Jefferson Union High School District Board of Trustees and superintendent determined that workforce housing could alleviate some of the pressure. The path to breaking ground has not been easy. Board President Andy Lie and I serve on the district Facilities Subcommittee, which oversees construction projects across the district, including workforce housing. Mr. Lie and I were tasked with making recommendations to the Board of Trustees, which was a huge responsibility requiring some tough decisions.
One of the most difficult decisions was determining the number of units to build. Based on the 2017 staff survey, we needed 65 housing units. We anticipated that this need will grow, and recommended that the district build at least 120 units.
Recommended for you
Building such a large complex meant that we needed to pass a bond to finance the initial cost. At the same time, we could not wait for the bond to pass to start planning, because the need for housing is so urgent. This meant that we had to take a risk by dedicating time and resources to a 120-unit plan in hopes that we had done enough to educate the community to vote “yes” on the housing bond. It was one of the most difficult decisions I have made as a board member. It was a close vote, and it took two long weeks for the official ballots to be counted.
In June 2018, we became the first school district in the nation to pass a bond measure supporting the development of affordable housing for faculty and staff. The current district office in Daly City is now the site of future homes for more than a hundred faculty and staff. The four-story development will have more than 100 apartments. The first residents may move in as early as fall 2021.
Now, I am quickly trying to learn the language of a land developer because I know those decisions are on the way. As we move closer to the move-in date of fall 2021, we will develop a nonprofit corporation and Housing Board to provide oversight. The Housing Board will develop bylaws to manage details including how apartments will be rented, who will receive priority and how long tenants can stay.
Faculty and staff housing is one part of a multi-pronged approach to retain our faculty and staff. Some people feel that we should put money directly into salary increases rather than investing in housing. We are hoping to do both. Building workforce housing is more attainable at this moment because the district has the unique advantage of owning surplus land. Construction can be funded by using bond money, while salary increases require either a funding increase from the state of California, or an increase in local taxes. As you can imagine, it is much easier to pass a bond for construction than a property tax increase. Of course, our board understands that workforce housing is not the total solution to our district's employee retention woes. However, affordable housing is one piece of the puzzle.
Kalimah Salahuddin is a member of the Jefferson Union High School District Board of Trustees and is in the seventh year of her second term. In 2014, Kalimah was elected as a member of the California School Boards Association’s Delegate Assembly to represent her board and region, serves as president for the San Mateo County School Boards Association and was also a board member for Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco where she has been a regular volunteer for 11 years. She is an executive coordinator at Exelixis Pharmaceutical and is a single mother to three wonderful young adults.
I am not sure why we should have special considerations for folks who have to commute 3 hours or more per day. I have had positions in Santa Rosa (at least 4 hours daily round trip) and my last in Oakland, that took at least 3 hours door-to-door every day. Providing housing for such employees reminds me of the Tennessee Williams song 'Sixteen Tons, I owe my life to the Company Store'. Why would these teachers, and other well-paid employees, want to be anchored to housing provided by their employers? Wouldn't it be less expensive to give them a raise? There are thousands of folks in the Bay Area who commute for many more hours than the bench marked 3 hours. Are they all demanding that their employers provide subsidized housing? Give me a break! Lady, get back to teaching, instead of trying to solve issues beyond your pay grade and capacity.
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!
(1) comment
I am not sure why we should have special considerations for folks who have to commute 3 hours or more per day. I have had positions in Santa Rosa (at least 4 hours daily round trip) and my last in Oakland, that took at least 3 hours door-to-door every day. Providing housing for such employees reminds me of the Tennessee Williams song 'Sixteen Tons, I owe my life to the Company Store'. Why would these teachers, and other well-paid employees, want to be anchored to housing provided by their employers? Wouldn't it be less expensive to give them a raise? There are thousands of folks in the Bay Area who commute for many more hours than the bench marked 3 hours. Are they all demanding that their employers provide subsidized housing? Give me a break! Lady, get back to teaching, instead of trying to solve issues beyond your pay grade and capacity.
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.