‘Central planning’ or civic compassion?

Central planning’ or civic compassion?

How things have changed.

Back in 2003, when the Chico City Council considered a proposal to require developers to include housing for poor people in their plans—called inclusionary zoning—a conservative, free-market ideology held sway, and the proposal was defeated, 4-3. Even liberal Councilwoman Maureen Kirk, now a county supervisor, voted against it.

This week, on Tuesday (Aug. 4), the council handily approved, 6-1, an update to the housing element in the general plan that calls for development of an inclusionary zoning ordinance by 2012.

At this point, the only council member still fighting to keep the city out of the housing business and let the market decide what should be built is Larry Wahl, the lone dissenter on the vote.

Wahl knew he would lose going in. Back on March 17, in a joint meeting with the Planning Commission, the council approved—5-1, with Councilwoman Mary Flynn absent—a draft update of the same housing element. Since then only minor revisions have been made, and the council was sure to approve the final plan at Tuesday’s meeting.

That didn’t stop Wahl from making his objections, however. Why, he wanted to know, is it the city’s job to provide housing for low-income people?

As Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Sherry Morgado explained, state law requires cities’ housing elements to show that sufficient land is available for anticipated growth and that the city is taking steps to provide a balanced housing mix that includes housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income residents. In addition, redevelopment law requires that cities spend 20 percent of their RDA funds on low-income housing.

This doesn’t sit well with Wahl. At one point he referred to the requirements as coming “straight from the functionaries of central planning, in the tradition of … well, you decide.”

But the other council members have not only accepted the reality of state mandates, but also welcomed them. Developers, they believe, build houses for people with the money to pay market value for them. As a result, poor people end up renting older, shabbier dwellings, often clustered in poverty pockets, that have become affordable only because they have declined greatly in value.

The city, working with such agencies as the Community Housing Improvement Project, has long been in the business of facilitating the development of new housing stock meant for low-income residents. Such subsidized projects as Murphy Commons, East of Eaton, Jarvis Gardens and Campbell Commons are scattered about the city.

Councilman Andy Holcombe called this “the Chico way,” meaning civic policy designed not only to support business generally, but also to try to help the least fortunate in the community.

In addition to inclusionary zoning, the updated housing element calls for creation of a housing trust fund that will be used to build affordable housing outside state and federal programs; setting up an employer-assisted housing fund; developing an infill incentive program to encourage development on existing close-in lots; and creation of an affordable-housing resource guide for both builders and buyers.

Three people addressed the council in support of the updated housing element.

Emily Fisher, an attorney with Legal Services of Northern California, praised the council for its efforts on behalf of low-income people, saying they were much needed.

Debbie Villaseñor, a housing consultant who works with agencies serving the mentally disabled, lauded the inclusionary zoning and expressed confidence the city would “work well with the development community.”

And Robert Preston, a formerly homeless man who turned his life around while living at the Avenida Apartments, a transitional housing facility for troubled people, thanked the council for “giving people that basically have been pushed aside a place to live.”

Only Evelyn Smith, a landlady, spoke against the housing element, saying, “I’m in the rental business, and I resent the idea that the government is competing with me.” Smith is locally famous as the landlady who several years ago, for religious reasons, refused to rent to an unmarried couple. The couple’s lawsuit went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Smith prevailed.

No builders stood up to oppose the inclusionary zoning, presumably figuring it was a lost cause. At the March 17 meeting, Jason Bougie, director of the Butte Community Builders Association, argued that inclusionary zoning drives up the cost of a project’s noninclusionary homes, making housing ultimately less affordable.

In the end, the council voted 5-1, with Tom Nickell absent and Wahl vigorously opposed to the end, to give final approval of the housing element update.