Editor,
On review of Councilmember Dugan’s guest perspective published in the Jan. 29-30 edition, I believe there is an absence, in the public square, of a serious discussion on truly “affordable housing” for our workforce.
Editor,
On review of Councilmember Dugan’s guest perspective published in the Jan. 29-30 edition, I believe there is an absence, in the public square, of a serious discussion on truly “affordable housing” for our workforce.
To begin, commercial developers are not building any affordable housing for our workforce and city councils typically pay little time addressing the true issue. My challenge to the councilmember is to show me an assessment of what housing stock exists that rents out between $800 to $1,800 per month while also providing adequate profitability to the builder/homeowner? On my analysis, only small ADUs having an area between a 150 square feet minimum and about 450 square feet can meet this critical housing need in our communities.
Paying homage to an “affordable housing” paradigm does not provide the housing of the workforce that serves us within our communities. The state has finally empowered homeowners to develop their parcel after decades of neglect and abuse of property rights. Homeowners need to own the problem, assess their community housing needs and demand incentives to develop their parcels while pushing back on those councilmembers that obstruct workforce housing with unnecessary reviews and an enforcement of ordinances that are inconsistent with the state’s ADU laws.
Our taxes are far too high to continue supporting deadpan governance on the Peninsula.
Robert Miller
Belmont
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!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(2) comments
Robert, I beg to differ. We elect council members to sort out these problems. If they don't, why have them in office? Homeowners are not the guilty party. The actions by a city council such as in San Carlos clearly indicates that it is responding to their constituents who oppose, by a large margin, the housing bills forced upon us by detached, duplicitous legislators. There is plenty of land available for low income housing. Where I do agree with you is that we need to revamp the permitting and environmental regulations to make it viable for developers to build affordable housing. All our councils need to do is ask developers how it can be done and leave politics out of it.
Mr. Miller – interesting points. We have plenty of folks expending hot air about “affordable housing” but as you said, there isn’t a serious discussion. For instance, how much does it cost for developers to build? If hundreds of thousands of dollars are required for fees and assessments and other graft, how can a developer afford to make money building “affordable housing”? They probably can’t, and so they don’t. And who can blame them?
What are the costs associated with an “empowered” homeowner who decides to add on another unit, or two? Will their property taxes be reassessed? I’m betting they will be, and to a much higher base rate – so where’s the incentive for a homeowner to modify their existing home. And if these homeowners rent to folks, who’s to say these new renters won’t become squatters, forcing homeowners to lose out on income? Out of the number of folks that are taking advantage of SB9 or SB10, how many are homeowners? Or are folks taking advantage SB9 or SB10 mostly developers - who won’t care about property tax assessments, as they’re not living in any unit?
I’d disagree that homeowners need to own the problem. Homeowners are where they want to be, and bought their locations based upon the community they wanted to live in. Perhaps that’s why there’s so much opposition to these new bills.
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.