Split' development could set poor precedent

Developer Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition has a sterling reputation for developing such properties including the much-heralded Rotary Floritas. But after years of struggle to eliminate this type of unit separation according to prices and people who can afford them, this proposal could set a poor precedent in an area the city envisioned as a model for new development.

It has been years since the city faced issues with such separated housing. The issue sparked years ago when low-income housing of all sorts was crammed into poorer neighborhoods. It took concerted effort to change the city’s way of planning, and in fact, the city’s below-market rate program originated with the passage of Measure H in the early 1990s. Measure H, since renewed with Measure P, not only limits building heights in certain areas of the city but also requires affordable units to be equally distributed throughout any new development.

The plan as proposed would show no real difference between the types of units, but there would be a stigma attached to the low-income units by both its residents and neighbors. The proposal is not without merit and is hamstrung by the myriad challenges facing the financial world and the city’s need for a variety of housing options for people currently priced out of the market. Using tax credits is not easy, but it is easier than obtaining bank financing in this current economic climate. Having one building would eliminate the ability to use tax credits and could cause the finances not to pencil out.

This proposal is in its early stages and has yet to have a public hearing on its merits though a council study session last year gave direction that a two-tower plan might be an acceptable compromise. A pre-application hearing late last month dealt with details like parking, sidewalks and access and there will be a council study session in the next few months to bring the current council up to speed.

This is not a perfect world and compromise is sometimes necessary for the larger good. But setting this precedent runs the risk of creating a new struggle for the people not only in this development but for its neighbors. The city will continue to own the land, and will likely entertain a long-term lease. That is a significant subsidy for a developer. The city needs housing of all types and this development is an effort to meet the city’s goals. But the city needs to decide if this compromise is worth the stigma such a project might create. We’ve come too far as a city to slip back to the old ways in which poor people are separated — even if the units are equal.