CityofGoletaSource: City of Goleta
The City hosted a virtual public meeting on August 24, 2021, regarding two ongoing Affordable Housing Fee Studies. Thank you to everyone who attended and participated in a robust discussion and Q&A about the affordable housing needs within the City. If you missed the meeting, a recording can be watched HERE.
At the meeting, the public was encouraged to provide input on the draft studies, which are available below. During the meeting, Planning staff and the consultant provided a presentation on the draft studies followed by an opportunity for questions and comments from those in attendance. The draft studies and reports will be taken to the Planning Commission on September 13, 2021, and City Council later this year.
The City of Goleta contracted with Keyser Marston Associates to prepare the two studies that will support adoption of affordable housing fees for new residential and non-residential development to implement policies established in the City’s General Plan Housing Element.
DRAFT STUDIES
- A link to the draft Non-Residential Affordable Housing Fee Report and required Commercial/Housing Nexus Analysis are available HERE.
- A link to the draft Residential Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Report and supplemental Nexus Analysis are available HERE.
If you have any questions, please contact the project manager, J. Ritterbeck, Senior Planner, at jritterbeck@cityofgoleta.org.
They may use the politically friendly name of “affordable housing fees” but it really is just new taxes.
Housing will be affordable once the city has reached the goal of making it an undesirable place to live.
Take a lesson from what some City of SB officials claim: if they flood the city with enough subsidized housing it will finally drive down the costs of market housing who are now in direct competition with the saturation of city subsidized housing. Why are we paying people with out tax dollars who actually think like this, plus actually doing this to us? In a free market, all housing is affordable. Otherwise it would not rent or sell. Subsidized housing is letting the government pick winners and losers, and like all social engineering is doomed to fail and be undermined by the law of unintended consequences and primarily by rampant insider croneyism. Let market forces breathe, and sort this out the old fashion way. Just enough brakes on it to stop private exploitation of the housing stock – no STR and put the emphasis on owner-occupied for a healthy community which may well be full of “rich people” who can afford this premium area and bring their flush pocketbooks with them. Why become a community where we are expected to pay other people to live here, at our expense? If we need low-income services either we go out of town for them, or we pay ourselves to bring them into town. But we don’t ask others to subsidize our cost-cutting needs. Montecito has plenty of room for gardeners and domestic services quarters on their own large estates. We don’t need to ruin out community to serve as their bedroom community. Take a look at each labor sector demanding subsidized housing and make sure those responsible for this population carry the burden of caring for it and not demand the rest of us share their demand for universal subsidies at the loss of our quality of life. This does need a spread sheet and flow chart analysis but with the government doing this watch out of junk in and junk out knowing they have their own hidden agendas – growth to pay for their own increasing benefits and perks.
In the name of helping provide more affordable housing, the city of goleta requires new developments be composed and of 20% affordable units. Instead of complying with that requirement, a fee can be paid. This policy approach discourages development. The housing affordability “crisis” would be over within a year if the city took a big step back and allowed property owners to develop their land however they wanted to. It’s a sad irony that government policy named after housing affordability actually helps make housing more expensive. This is just one more example of how government regulations always achieve the opposite of their stated purpose.
Yeah, these approaches are so misguided… albeit with good intentions. Take a look at the Bay Area. It’s almost looks like (shock!) the housing crisis is the product of government meddling … yet folks continue to drink the Kool-Aid and think the solution is (shock!) more government fees, processes, mandates. The obvious situation is that we’ve throttled supply and none of our leaders understand Econ 101.
Govt “meddling” in the housing market, of course, isn’t all bad. To some degree it is necessary for any city planning. For example, zoning, environmental protections, integration with public transit plans, and such make a lot of sense when taken in proper balance. But every town wants as little new stock as possible (can’t ruffle feathers among the “residentialist” owners who have made millions on the crisis) and hides behind zoning, past the point of reasonability. Every agency is a beast hungry for funds, fees, taxes… and discourages supply with crazy offsets, fees, and permitting costs. I wonder how far the crisis will have to go before my fellow democrats (yes, I am one!) realize our current approach it Pollyannaish.