Proposed rewrite of housing law draws fire

Affordable housing advocates Wednesday packed the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors chambers to protest what they portrayed as a backroom deal by Sacramento County and the building industry to gut the county's affordable housing policy.

County officials, meanwhile, sought to characterize the outcry by housing groups and low-income residents as much ado about nothing.

"We feel the changes are reasonable and don't weaken the ordinance," said Leighann Moffitt, the county planner in charge of the effort.

Supervisors did not take any action Wednesday. They scheduled another hearing for Aug. 29. In the meantime, the county will begin conducting an environmental review of the proposed changes. Supervisors said they would welcome input from any interested parties.

The proposed changes to the county's landmark affordable housing ordinance are aimed at settling a lawsuit by the North State Building Industry Association that challenges the policy. Housing advocates were not included in these settlement talks.

Ardie Zahedani, political director for the building industry group, Wednesday characterized the housing policy -- adopted after two years of intense debate -- as an "ordinance that was adopted at the last minute by some supervisors who are no longer on this board."

Housing advocates don't see it that way, however.

The original policy was adopted in 2004 after an extensive public debate, they argued Wednesday, and any changes should be subjected to similar scrutiny.

They noted that the BIA has over the years strenuously resisted any affordable housing requirement.

"The supervisors don't just represent rich people," said Joan Burke, director of advocacy for homeless services provider Loaves & Fishes. "It's not OK to make a decision like this without input from poor people."

At a rally before the supervisors' meeting, the Sacramento Housing Alliance distributed copies of a letter to supervisors signed by more than 100 social service organizations, churches and civic organizations urging the county not to adopt the changes. Many more individuals also had signed.

"We are the people who see what happens when there is not enough housing; that's why we're here," Burke said.

The county received kudos when it adopted the housing policy. The policy called for 15 percent of all new housing to be affordable to low-income residents.

The most groundbreaking portion was the requirement that 3 percent of this affordable housing be within reach of extremely low-income residents, the poorest of the poor.

It's that portion of the policy that housing advocates guard most dearly, and that portion that they assert is at risk. These are people "on the brink of homelessness," Burke said.

As of June, when the county completed a biennial report, there were 4,006 units of affordable housing in the development pipeline because of the ordinance.

The builders group filed its court challenge in 2005. Last year, a trial court judge threw out the case as without merit. The Building Industry Association appealed, and a hearing is scheduled for September.

County officials are seeking to settle the case before that date arrives. They characterized the proposed changes as relatively minor and said they could increase the number of affordable units built.

The proposed changes to the ordinance include a provision under which the county would "buy down" a developer's cost of building the units targeted for extremely low income residents. The money would come from existing fees charged to developers as part of the affordable housing program. The subsidy would start out at $35,000 to $65,000 a unit and would be adjusted annually.

Affordable housing advocates say this change would shift responsibility for making sure such units are built from developers to the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. They worry that the fee money won't cover the full cost.

The proposed changes say that if the money isn't available, developers could opt out of building the extremely low income housing.

County officials say this approach will actually save the county money, however, because most large landowners now opt to dedicate land rather than build affordable housing themselves. In these cases, the county is responsible for getting the housing built, and the subsidy needed is much higher than it would be under the new proposal.

"It is not insignificant that the developers would take on responsibility for building these units," said Cindy Cavanaugh, assistant director of housing policy for SHRA.

She said builders were attracted to the idea because they could control when the housing was built and move on to the rest of their project.

The ordinance does not allow developers who dedicate land to begin building regular units until the affordable units are under way.

Housing advocates also object to a county proposal that would allow developers to get credit for building more units than required and use those credits on other properties or transfer them to other developers.

"That makes it possible to put all the poor people in one place, and let's say it would be the least desirable place," Burke said.

Moffitt proposed that the county impose a cap on the credit at 20 percent above the units required in order to avoid grouping low-income people in one place.

About the writer:

• The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@sacbee.com.