Look beneath the surface on city housing issues
I’m responding to Kim Shanahan’s recent column, in which he criticized our neighborhood for standing together against a rezoning proposal at the Santa Fe Planning Commission meeting Jan. 3. No doubt the parcel’s developers appreciated his lone voice supporting rezoning for a proposed infill project. But it seems that Shanahan didn’t listen to what the neighbors actually said.
To set the record straight: Almost nobody spoke against the development itself; the neighborhood recognizes the right of landowners to build on their land. We came together for valid reasons (not mere “opinions”) including public safety, code violations, disregard for environmental concerns, lack of green space, drainage issues and, above all, serious traffic issues — that were
not addressed or even acknowledged by city staff. We spoke against the use of a narrow and already overcrowded street as a main entrance into the development, and we drew attention to traffic issues on the stretch of Agua Fría Street by Mandela International Magnet School, the driveway of which is a few yards away from the proposed development driveway and is not in the traffic report.
The commissioners listened attentively, and the meeting was run in an efficient and respectful manner by Commissioner Jack Hiatt. No one suggested “one-house-to-the-acre” zoning, by the way. Virtually everyone in the neighborhood would be thrilled to see a good development on that site, one that could serve as a shining example of how to do infill, both in process (that includes neighborhoods) and in end results (attractively designed, appropriate to the surroundings and environmentally progressive housing).
Yes, the housing situation in Santa Fe is tough. What is the answer? Shanahan focuses on “overcoming” neighbors who voice valid and specific concerns. But there are significant underlying problems. The land-use code is dysfunctional; it doesn’t meet Environmental Protection Agency regulations; it quotes an old general plan not even designed for Santa Fe; and it fails to follow “best practices.” It leaves the new land-use director and her understaffed department to focus their energies on putting out fires and not addressing the changes that would make us a more sustainable, healthy city.
We respectfully ask that the Santa Fe New Mexican dig deeper on the issues of housing in our city. For example, we’d like to know why 2,700 units already approved by the Planning Commission have not been built. Could the city help? We’d like to see an analysis that evaluates the people most affected by the housing shortage and looks at their income and their ability to afford market-priced houses and “affordable” homes. What is the Planning Commission’s definition of “affordable housing?”
We’d like to know how many people looking for housing are seeking rentals vs. homeownership, and whether current development projects are addressing these needs in the right proportion. Some developers pay a fee in lieu of building the required “affordable” housing; we’d like to know how much money is in that fund and whether it’s being used for affordable housing — and if so, where? In short, we’d like to know whether the development projects in Santa Fe match the needs of those seeking housing — those who need rentals, those who can’t pay cash for a house, those whose income limits their ability to pay a hefty mortgage.
These are all questions that need answers before we move forward on any infill or “affordable” housing projects, or Santa Fe will turn into any other big city. Let’s keep our city different!
John Pitts is part of the neighborhood affected by the proposed Dos Acequias development. He has lived in Santa Fe for 23 years. He worked many years for the U.S. Foreign Service mediating economic contracts and negotiating multilateral trade agreements.