| Mackey Terrace in Novato, by EAH Housing is an example of local-serving affordable housing for seniors. |
The ramification of the imbalance of local jobs and housing for local jobholders can be seen every weekday on Highway 101. The high cost of housing — and home values and rents are rising — has forced local workers into longer commutes, both in time and distance.
The board’s approval of a seven-year plan to build 378 housing units, most of them affordable, is a sign that the county is prepared to address the imbalance. The political challenge is to make sure the sites detailed in the plan are appropriate and that projects are well-designed and the right size for the setting.
A man voices his opinion at a Board of
Supervisors meeting on Tuesday on the county housing plan. (Frankie
Frost — Marin Independent Journal)
Even the Association of Bay Area Governments, the state-created regional body that sets city and county housing quotas, has pinpointed WinCup as a poor example of local compliance with state housing plans.
Still, Marin has a regional responsibility to do its fair share to meet growing demand for housing.
Approval of the county housing element is an important step in meeting that responsibility.
The county has also agreed with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development that it will do more to provide housing opportunities to protected classes, among them people now priced out of Marin.
That settlement and the county’s state housing quotas were not going to change, whether Supervisor Susan Adams voted for the housing plan or whether the supervisors waited until her successor Damon Connolly was seated in January.
Connolly, it should be noted, has been the supervisor-elect since June and has, rightfully, had months to show leadership on this issue. He has kept a low profile. If he had problems with the 378-unit plan, he should have said something.
Supervisor Steve Kinsey, at Tuesday’s hearing, said “every single project” will be tested by exhaustive public review. Connolly will have a role during that review.
In past years, construction of the number of units detailed in city and county housing plans have fallen far short of the approved numbers. Often, the economics don’t work out for the builder, especially in Marin where the high cost of real estate raises pre-development costs and the need to build more units on that acreage.
Worries that the state is eroding local control over planning decisions are valid. Too many developer-friendly changes have been approved by the Legislature with little awareness of their possible ramifications beyond Sacramento. Our lawmakers and county leaders need to do a much better job of promoting local political awareness about such changes.
But those changes do not exempt Marin from good planning and finding potential sites for building much-needed affordable housing.
Critics of proposed housing plans are quick to draw a line of staunch opposition, without providing concrete alternatives. Much of their criticism has been pointed at design and densities, not necessarily numbers.
Supervisors have promised that design and environmental considerations won’t be short-cut.
Their approval of the new housing plan meets one important commitment. They should keep their promise that plans will be submitted to “exhaustive” public review.
