Housing decisions shouldn’t be compromised by beholden legislators

Does the ghost of 18thcentury Irish satirist Johnathon Swift walk the corridors of the California Legislature?

During a time of fire, drought and COVID-19 fraud with the Employment Development Department, the Legislature proposed, quite modestly, to concentrate on the homeless/affordable housing problem with the creation of housing bills like SB 9 and SB10. These bills seek to reanimate singlefamily housing into fourplexes (SB 9) and 10-plexes (SB 10) to somehow solve the housing crisis.

Just as Swift recommended solving the plight of Irish beggars in 1719 by allowing Irish parents to sell their children to wellheeled Britishers as a most delicious and nourishing food, the Legislature uses bills like SB 9 and SB 10 to solve the affordable housing problem without emphasizing the affordable part of the problem.

The legislative logic or lack thereof begs the question, what’s in it for the legislators? I worry that many of them have received campaign contributions from developers or real estate investment trusts like Blackstone. I am concerned our legislators are aping critical race theories by seeking highdensity housing rather than the so-called “racist” single-family residences.

It would be very interesting to audit the political contributions of the Legislature and governor to see if their campaign contributions are laden with goodies from developers and real estate investors. Especially onerous would be the introduction of any of the SB 9 or SB 10 bills by a member of the Assembly or Senate heavily into the campaign trough of developers and real estate investor interests.

Logically there is an elegant symmetry between the promotion of housing density and raising campaign funds. As many critics of politicians have said in the past, they are prone to never let a crisis go to waste.

If California’s drought continues, there will be lots of land to build once the farmers become tired of letting their land stay fallow. The state water plan through 2100 predicts that there will be less agricultural water usage due to the encroachment of urban areas on agriculture.

Every eight years, California’s attempts to solve the affordable housing crisis by assigning Regional Housing Assessment Numbers on all of California’s 58 counties. In the Bay Area, more than 414,000 living units have been assigned to be built by 2030.

However, developers have an escape clause from constructing affordable housing. They can pay a stipend to the county which allows them to build market rate housing.

If members of the Legislature and governor truly want to solve California’s affordable housing problem, they should underwrite former President Jimmy Carter and his Habitat for Humanity housing crews to come to California and build affordable housing.

Furthermore, all housing-allocation projects should be affordable — without exception. If developers want to build market-rate housing they should go ahead and do so. However, those houses should not be counted in the allocation numbers.

Real estate investors should be prohibited from purchasing any affordable housing through 2030. Only people earning a low to median income should be allowed to purchase the allocated housing. Low to median income residents of California should be eligible for the type home loan for the down payment that is similar to the GI Bill that allowed so many veterans to purchase homes.

Should a person default on the loan, that affordable housing unit would be held by the state to sell to someone meeting the low to median income levels. These units would not be allowed to be purchased by a real estate investor.

Is it really that tough to build affordable housing in California? The short answer is yes.

What makes it so tough? Simply put, a Legislature and governor who rail about an affordable housing crisis see that crisis as a means to satisfy both their campaign coffers and their critical race collegial training. Affordable housing becomes of secondary importance.