4e) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff to Prepare Action to Repeal the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
(Sponsor: Supervisor Williams)
As we are aware, the Rural Housing and Community Development Commission (RHCDC) has done an exemplary job of building low income, subsidized housing in Mendocino County. However, because of an attitude of no growth and excessive building requirements, including the inclusionary housing ordinance, over the past 20 years, our County has seen no substantial housing projects built for above low/middle income buyers. Let's be blunt: Mendocino County regulations have constrained the building of all market rate housing. California regulations require that all jurisdictions adequately plan to meet the housing needs of EVERYONE in the community. If our Housing Element of the General Plan was scrutinized and an economic impact review completed today, it would show the detriment that the inclusionary zoning (IZ) has laid on our County. Not every community is well suited for IZ. What may work in higher density areas is not effective in our rural, economically depressed area. Every part of the IZ is contradictory to encouraging a builder to even propose a project in Mendocino County. It is unfair to ask median income buyers to pay more for his home in order to subsidize lower income housing within a development. SOLUTION: If government believes low-income buyers/renters should be subsidized, then funding for such should come directly from governmental funds rather than the already cash strapped home or rental buyer.
The Inclusionary Ordnance resulted in a ten-year experiment that is a total failure for many reasons. First, many thousands of dollars were collected, and no low-income housing was ever built. Second, some jurisdictions have "built-out conditions." which is not present in our County. Many property owners consider paying for public needs that are not directly caused by development need if necessary, be paid for by the broadest spectrum of taxpayers. The many studies that investigate mitigation measures including this type of ordnance, clearly explain the prediction of failure in rural areas like ours. Please expedite the repeal and condition the Staff response to 30 days for board action if possible.
As we are aware, the Rural Housing and Community Development Commission (RHCDC) has done an exemplary job of building low income, subsidized housing in Mendocino County. However, because of an attitude of no growth and excessive building requirements, including the inclusionary housing ordinance, over the past 20 years, our County has seen no substantial housing projects built for above low/middle income buyers. Let's be blunt: Mendocino County regulations have constrained the building of all market rate housing. California regulations require that all jurisdictions adequately plan to meet the housing needs of EVERYONE in the community. If our Housing Element of the General Plan was scrutinized and an economic impact review completed today, it would show the detriment that the inclusionary zoning (IZ) has laid on our County. Not every community is well suited for IZ. What may work in higher density areas is not effective in our rural, economically depressed area. Every part of the IZ is contradictory to encouraging a builder to even propose a project in Mendocino County. It is unfair to ask median income buyers to pay more for his home in order to subsidize lower income housing within a development. SOLUTION: If government believes low-income buyers/renters should be subsidized, then funding for such should come directly from governmental funds rather than the already cash strapped home or rental buyer.
The Inclusionary Ordnance resulted in a ten-year experiment that is a total failure for many reasons. First, many thousands of dollars were collected, and no low-income housing was ever built. Second, some jurisdictions have "built-out conditions." which is not present in our County. Many property owners consider paying for public needs that are not directly caused by development need if necessary, be paid for by the broadest spectrum of taxpayers. The many studies that investigate mitigation measures including this type of ordnance, clearly explain the prediction of failure in rural areas like ours. Please expedite the repeal and condition the Staff response to 30 days for board action if possible.