Housing plan would help county's neediest
July 29, 2004
By Cameron Jahn -- Bee Staff Writer
The Sacramento Bee
Sacramento County's proposed affordable housing policy would set it apart from every other California county by promising housing to those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, people such as Yvette Wooten.
Wooten, a single mother who was formerly
homeless, spends more than half her $1,586 monthly income on
rent and utilities, which leaves $476 to feed, clothe,
educate and transport herself and three children.
"I'm fighting to survive now," said Wooten, who
works two jobs and seldom has money for what often are
extras, such as after-school sports programs for her two
teenage boys. "I just wish there was more affordable
housing, that way life would be better off for a whole lot of
people."
The county's new affordable housing policy would require that
15 percent of all housing built in the unincorporated county
be affordable to families that earn less than half the area's
median income - $57,700 a year for a family of three.
Developers complain that the county proposal is too
stringent, but advocates say it does not go far enough to
address an extreme lack of affordable housing.
More than 39 percent of the county's 453,000 households earn
less than $35,000 a year, according to figures from the 2000
U.S. census. The proposed policy would create as many as 318
affordable units a year at a cost of as much as $10 million a
year in subsidies from various sources.
With more than 23,000 "extremely low income"
households in the county, meeting current needs under the
proposed plan would take decades.
"I think the board is absolutely failing in its
obligation to build affordable housing," said Emanuel
Gale, professor emeritus of social work at California State
University, Sacramento. "I think 15 percent (affordable
housing) is totally inadequate; we should be talking about
30, 40 or 50 percent."
The county's proposal breaks low-income residents into three
categories. At the top end, 6 percent of construction would
be required to be affordable for a "low-income"
family of three earning no more than $46,150 a year. Another
6 percent of construction would be set aside for "very
low income" families who can earn no more than $28,850 a
year. For the first time in the state, 3 percent of new
housing units would be reserved for "extremely low
income" families who earn no more than $17,300 a year.
The proposed policy targets people such as Barbara
Ramey-Clark, a disabled former paramedic who cares for her
4-year-old granddaughter and disabled husband on $1,719 a
month.
"I sort of think it will be a good first step because
they need to do something, but I think what they're proposing
is like spitting in the ocean" since there is so much
demand for affordable housing, said Ramey-Clark, who rents a
two-bedroom home in Del Paso Heights for $525 a month.
Developers building in the unincorporated area of the county
have never been required to build affordable housing, and
they have largely ignored that section of the market. Between
1990 and 2001, 44,011 housing units were built in
unincorporated areas, but only 1,985 were affordable to those
earning less than $32,050 a year, according to numbers from
the Sacramento Housing Alliance, which has pushed the county
to provide adequate affordable housing.
Sacramento County currently has no policy to produce
affordable housing, and its latest plan to guide future
housing production - called a housing element - is two years
late. Officials hope to have a policy in place next year.
The county also is under the gun to have a housing plan in
place because doing so will lift a self-imposed moratorium on
some commercial building that has cost it badly needed sales
tax revenue from stores such as Kohl's, which have not been
allowed to build.
Meanwhile, record housing prices across the Sacramento region
continue to increase demand for affordable housing. New home
prices in Sacramento County have soared a record 22 percent
in the past year, breaking the $400,000 barrier for the first
time. The median price for a resale home in Sacramento County
jumped 24 percent last year to $291,500.
That leaves minimum-wage earners in Sacramento County to work
what amounts to more than two full-time jobs - 86 hours a
week - in order to afford basic shelter, according to
statistics compiled by the California Budget Project.
While pleased with the county's 15 percent commitment to
affordable housing, housing advocates have been pushing for 5
percent of new units to be "extremely low income"
units, instead of the county's proposed 3 percent.
Supervisors Muriel Johnson and Roger Niello said that idea
would be too costly to pursue without having a funding source
for the necessary subsidy identified up front.
"We have a supply problem, and we're trying to address a
symptom, but the county can't really deal with the root
problem of not enough houses," Niello said during a
workshop last month. "My quick conclusion is that at the
5 percent level, we simply can't afford it."
Thanks to a housing voucher from Section 8, a federal rent
subsidy program, Valinda Nelson can afford the rent on her
three-bedrooom Rancho Cordova home, but life is still a
struggle as the single mother of two takes home about $900 a
month from her job as a special education assistant in her
autistic daughter's classroom.
"I could see it wasn't the best place for us to be, but
at least it was a place," said Nelson, who spent more
than two years in homeless housing programs.
"Rents are just really, really high, so unless I made
gobs of money, especially with two children ... these are the
choices I'm faced with," she said.
While Nelson receives help from Section 8, others will not be
so lucky in the future, since the Sacramento Housing and
Redevelopment Agency has stopped taking names for the
four-year waiting list for subsidized housing vouchers.
Even with an affordable housing policies in place, other
jurisdictions have had trouble making sure the units get
built. But Sacramento County officials hope to avoid any
hurdles by giving developers the option to either build
affordable units themselves or set aside land. If the county
determines the property unsuitable for affordable housing,
developers will be allowed to pay fees instead of dedicating
land.
Urging her colleagues to support an even larger amount of
"extremely low income" housing, Supervisor Illa
Collin said the county needs to move forward.
"If we don't get units built, then this is just another
paper exercise," she said.
Developers, however, have balked at the cost of building
"extremely low income" units, calling it "free
housing" in meetings with county consultants.
A two-bedroom apartment that costs $164,000 to build, for
example, would require a county subsidy of $155,483 to make
it an "extremely low income" unit because the
residents would be expected to pay only $363 a month,
according to county documents.
Calling it a "major societal issue," Ardie
Zahedani, a lobbyist for the Building Industry Association of
Superior California, said developers are being asked to
shoulder too much of the affordable housing load.
After two years of debate, however, Zahedani said it's time
for the board to make a decision.
The Bee's Cameron Jahn can be reached at (916) 321-1038 or cjahn@sacbee.com.