Monday, May 16, 2016

Silicon Valley's housing crisis: Why we have it and what it costs us

Bob Dylan said you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Likewise, you don't need a degree in political science to know that the controlling majority on the Santa Clara City Council is making a u-turn on housing development -- surrendering public policy to the anti-development faction because that's the one that yells the loudest. By micro-managing Irvine's Mission Town Center proposal into a risky venture as far as the developer was concerned, the Council all but assured that our housing crisis will get worse. Now instead of 400 new apartments -- not much compared to the dimensions of the problem, I grant, but it was something -- we have ... nothing.

And this, I've been told without sarcasm, is responsive government in action.

Our children, young educated professionals, aren't here to yell. They took jobs in Dallas, Portland or Pittsburgh where they can afford to buy a house, according to Carson Bruno at Real Clear Markets. So they don't care if Silicon Valley slowly fades into the economic sunset. They're willing to pay higher property taxes (and they do) for a decent home rather than share a $3,000/month one-bedroom apartment with four people to pay the rent.

Council Members would strenuously deny the charge of being anti-development and say they're all for the right development. The beauty of the "right development" is like J.K. Rowling's wizarding world -- it's development that's invisible to the rest of the world.

As that's an impossibility here in the reality-based world, we continue -- and will continue for the foreseeable future, I'm betting -- to enjoy the quaint charm of mid-century strip malls and used car lots on El Camino.

But I wander.

As we know, Silicon Valley has a housing crisis. And the reason is pretty simple: we haven't built enough housing. Not only that, we're make things worse by building even less housing than we did as recently as a year ago.

Joint Venture Silicon Valley's 2016 "Silicon Valley Index" reports that the number of new residential construction permits dropped more than 50 percent between 2014 and 2015 -- from 11,000 to slightly less than 6,000. The percentage of multifamily construction dropped 20 percent. In that time, Silicon Valley built only 22 percent of the needed moderate income housing but 130 percent of the high income housing target, according to the Assoc. of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

This isn't some kind of inevitable catastrophe like a tsunami or an earthquake. It's  largely of our own making. Only one factor, limited land, has passed out of our control. The rest are in our power to change.

First, there's the California Environmental Quality Act -- an equal opportunity tool for obstructing development and a lucrative revenue source for specialist attorneys with no end of tricks up their sleeves for using CEQA to the advantage of developers, unions and NIMBYs.

In a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences, CEQA is most effective at obstructing its ostensible goal of improving environmental quality.

The most frequently challenged projects are transit-oriented, urban infill, those using renewable energy and housing, according to Elana Eden at Panetizen. Then there's local governments' preference for commercial development with its higher revenues and lower service needs. And last but not least, are vociferous self-absorbed NIMBYs who, quite simply, want to freeze time in an imagined past -- agriculture is very picturesque to those who never had to do the backbreaking work and face the financial risk.

The cost of obstructionism is our economy.

In a 2015 California Legislative Office report, the LAO laid out the causes and costs of California's stratospheric real estate prices and rents in this infographic.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/Infographics/californias-high-housing-costs


There's a simple answer: build more housing. In won't be politically easy, now that the opponents of development have captured the spotlight. But what's worse: the noise from 100 complainers now or being judged 'guilty' by history for smothering the goose that laid the golden silicon eggs? 

2 comments:

  1. What a one-sided, misguided crock. Screw new housing. And screw the developers of your precious high-density ugly housing initiatives. If you don't like the situation Ms. Schuk, you're welcome to move out of the city.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've lived in Santa Clara 35 years and it was urban when I got here. In fact. I like the present "situation" - you seem to be the dissatisfied one. 35 years ago the El Camino was the same ugly strip it is now and likely will continue to be, thanks to obstructionists' efforts -- perhaps they like the quaint mid-centry "slurban" sprawl and car exhaust. Maybe we can bring back leaded gasoline to really get that old-timey feel.

    Most of the U.S. and Canada is wide open space, where the real estate is cheap and one can live without seeing another person for weeks. Nothing is stopping people from moving to those places. I lived in a 250 year-old upstate NY town with plenty of history and beautiful Victorian houses -- and no jobs, except in hospitals, nursing homes, home care, and operating student rentals for the growing state university. Life in a dying town has its inconveniences, like deteriorating infrastructure -- two of early 20th century bridges connecting the two sides of the town across a river have been closed for decades because there's no money to repair them. Ditto parks, playgrounds, pools, athletic fields and community centers.

    ReplyDelete