Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceBy a vote of 6 to 1, the Santa Barbara City Council passed an ordinance that will require developers who build smaller housing projects-between two and nine units-or who convert the same numbers of apartments into condominiums to ensure that 5 percent of what’s built is affordable.
Developers seeking to opt out will be required to pay an $18,000 fee in lieu of actual housing units, a provision denounced by Councilmember Dale Francisco-who cast the sole dissenting vote-as “extortion.” The measure was championed by councilmembers Helene Schneider and Das Williams, who expressed alarm that the city’s existing ordinance-which was triggered by developments of 10 units or more-was missing most of the development or condo conversions being planned.
Currently, City Hall has either approved-or is processing applications for-77 conversions from apartment units to condominiums. Schneider and Williams argued that such conversions provide the owner a significant windfall in the form of appreciated property values, while removing much needed rental units from the South Coast housing market.
Previous Month
Comments
We are in a downward spiral - the city wants MORE affordable house, affordable house pays a fraction of the property taxes of regular housing, we do not have enough tax revenue to pay for teachers and safety, the city wants MORE money.
Why does the city want more affordable housing? Is it really for the essential workforce? If so we should only be putting essential workrers (teachers and safety personal )in the affordable housing. Could it be the city wants affordable housing so they do not lose this years state funding .. for fear they would not be able to give the city workers their pay increases and fund their retirements.
Simply kicking the can until next year.
loneranger (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Uh, does anyone think the "greedydeveloper" (a unique SB term) actually pays these fees out of pocket? They are paid by the buyers of the homes, fools. Which simply means that those buyers are forced to subsidize a corrupt program of so-called affordable housing that, as evidenced by recent investigation, benefits mostly those with good connections into the local political structure (like a certain councilperson, as reported in the local media).
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2009 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The $18K fee is not high enough to actually discourage conversions. Rather, it is a de-facto blessing for such conversions. Previously an apartment owner might be reluctant to spend money on the conversion process, fearing denial by the Planning Commission. But now a fig leaf has been provided; an owner can say "Hey, I'm ready to pay my conversion fees, just like you said I could - please approve my conversion". It will just make denial that much more difficult.
I don't have an opinion on whether condo conversions are good or bad for the community. But I'm fairly certain this ordinance makes the process easier. And it completely fails to address the larger problem: gentrification of the R-3 zone.
Steve_Johnson (anonymous profile)
May 15, 2009 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My vision for how to make Santa Barbara more livable a generation down the road (so my daughter might actually be able to live here) is quite different from our leaders':
1) We need to allow enough density along the "main street" corridor that one can live without a car. 3- and 4-story mixed use apartment/shops/offices in a 4-to-6 block wide central strip. Yes this might mean losing some views from State Street.
2) Address housing costs by increasing supply so the market can bring the price down. I would prefer to see this increased supply in the form of 2-bedroom apartments owned by public housing corporations, so that the "development profit" is captured by the community rather than given to [rivate developers.
These two elements are mutually supportive.
ljp93105 (anonymous profile)
May 15, 2009 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no profit in building apartments. Existing apartment buildings sell for below replacement cost. The only new apartments of any size (200 rentals, 34 affordable) build recently was by Towbes as a kind of 'donation' to the community but still needed $6.8M from Goleta to make it work.
But this is the type of projects we need -- with enough apartments the rents will go down and the section 8 waiting list will disappear.
We do not need affordable for sale 'lottery' homes nor do we need city/county owned complexes. Section 8 would be all we needed if there was enough units.
Time for the city/county to 'up zone' some parcels for apartments and to subsidize developers similar to Towbes.
We need more rental apartments, not high priced condo's with a sprinkle of for sale affordable units.
loneranger (anonymous profile)
May 16, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)