This
weekend I had the opportunity to introduce to the public a family that had
worked very hard to gain equity in a property they were about to purchase—a
Habitat for Humanity home in Fullerton. In presenting the keys for the home to
this Mexican-American family of five, I was struck by the irony of the
situation; while something like one in ten of their peer group was either
behind in mortgage payments, or facing foreclosure outright, this clan was
about to enter the precious heart of the American dream—a home of their own.
But the
descriptor “their own” bears some scrutiny. Many, many people were involved in
bringing this particular dream to reality. The Vasquez family, or course, spent
substantial hours on site, where they learned to measure and cut, drive nails,
finish dry wall, and whatever else may have come across their path as they
literally labored to make their dream come true. I was there because my firm,
over the last decade, has staged golf tournaments to raise funds for Habitat. A
substantial portion went into the funding of these homes.
A
colleague, William Hezmalhalch, prepared the plans for the houses pro bono; all the engineering, from civil
to structural, was accomplished in a similar manner. Countless other volunteers
poured love and labor into this enterprise, all of them believing in the
ultimate vision of helping a struggling family achieve a home of their own.
Too bad
the Habitat phenomenon can’t be scaled up dramatically. Each iteration of a
family obtaining a place to call home is a wonderful accomplishment, but in the
overall picture of housing, it’s such a tiny fragment. We all wish the program
could be scaled up dramatically, but that would involve more than just a village—it would tiptoe to the threshold
of the “social contract,” and probably barge in the front door.
Like it
or not, we are all involved in housing those less able to accomplish this
significant milestone on their own. Some cases are obvious to see. The fully
civic supported SROs on Skid Row, for example. Everyone can agree on this need
and be at peace with a portion of their tax dollars going to make it possible.
Beyond question, the true “down-and-outers” need a hand to ease their
suffering.
But as we
climb the “ability” ladder, the choices grow progressively more difficult to
make. I’m already participating in providing at least some kind of shelter for the most
egregiously down and out, but at what income level does [the need for]
assistance become murkier? Should we aid folks earning 120% of AMI? 150%? 180%? There are colleagues in my office, college
graduates,
earning below 180% AMI. My instinctive reaction to them is [to recall] what I
experienced: “Work long enough and
control your lifestyle so that you can save for a down payment on a modest
property.” Or, (and there’s no easy way to say this) get help from a
parent—either while living, or (less pleasantly) through an estate.
It’s a
sticky wicket. While the homes that Habitat orchestrates for deeply fortunate
owners attack one tiny aspect of the problem, and do it wonderfully, and with
integrity, it is clear that multifamily projects will be required to house the
vast backlog of working people who need shelter. In this place, at this time,
with these resources, how in heaven’s name are we going to do it?
(Daniel Gehman is principal at Thomas Cox Architects)
The question of how or who to subsidize will always be open to passionate debates as long as those in need exceed available resources. I’d like to concentrate my comments on the delivery of housing rather than divulging my views on equitable distribution. In a perfect world, compassion and generosity of individuals in spirit of charity would result in a symbiotic relationship and provide all the housing necessary – the needy get help with housing and those who give feel a sense of self fulfillment for voluntarily helping others in need. Unfortunately, this is not the country we live in. To fill the need for housing, we need to figure out how to achieve ‘fair share’ of this burden as citizens, government, and businesses.
Delivering adequate amount of affordable housing is a daunting task that will take the efforts of many in various forms – from individuals who donate sweat equity and professional services such as Habitat for Humanity as mentioned in this blog, private funding through donations and charities, public funding though our tax dollars and exactions, tax credit for corporations, density increase for affordable housing, inclusionary zoning, etc. People may have different ideology on the notion of ‘social contract’ but everybody must do their share.
In Los Angeles, the hotly debated topic of ‘mixed income housing ordinance’ has the developers up in arms and vowing to fight this unfair burden. But if the current carrot on a stick does not lead the horse to adequately delivering affordable housing, do you dangle a sweeter carrot or start swinging the stick? Much like the Green Building Ordinance, the city needs to mandate a baseline amount of affordable units to be provided as a requirement and provide incentives for established levels exceeding the bare minimum such as expedited approvals, increased density, reduction or reallocation of parking requirements, waived exactions, or other sweeter carrots, or maybe apples.
I think it’ll be foolish for the city to swing the stick without providing mechanisms for economic viability of housing developments, especially in the current economic environment. If development costs rise, the cost of housing and rents will go up to offset the subsidy and production of housing will slow down. No matter how you dice it, someone will have to pay and it’ll most likely be the consumers who are paying market rate.