In this final segment from our February conversation, we dive into difficult issues surrounding housing, the unhoused, public safety and the city's anti-racism and pro-diversity efforts
Something I think was left out of the low income housing discussion is that it’s not the job of the City to construct new housing. The City sets zoning rules, and may offer some incentives ... but developers build housing. And while every developer in California may not be Seeno, with his mansion on the hill above Clayton, I doubt if you can find any developers who live in the low income housing they claim it’s not profitable (enough) to build.
Those are good points, which is why I think that it's important that whatever plan the city adopts includes incentives and bonuses to make it more attractive for developers to build low-income housing (just like I think we need to give teachers incentives to teach in poor areas and doctors incentives to work in poor areas). I think the deferral of developer fees for low-income housing would be a good place to start, and such a program is included in the draft plan. Of course, Thousand Friends of Martinez has already voiced its disapproval of that idea (wonder if they'd feel differently it what was being developed was another park instead of the homes we desperately need), and given their political influence, we'll see if it survives. I think the other important thing to keep in mind is that simply building more homes, period, would address the supply-demand imbalance, which is the primary reason that home and rental costs have gotten so far out of reach for so many people. Being a lowly journalist, there's no way I would ever have been able to buy a home and raise a family in Martinez if I was 20 years younger than I am now. The only reason I can live here is pure luck that I was born when I was and able to buy a home in the 1990s instead of coming of age in the 2010s, when it would have been impossible. This is the reason you don't see this crisis in so many other states where NIMBYism isn't such a force. They've built plenty of housing over the years to keep up with the demand, while we in California have paid lip service to the notion that everyone deserves a place to live. I think we need to provide big incentives for developers to build low-income housing specifically and also make it much easier for high-density, multi-family housing to be built in general through zoning and streamlining approvals so that a group of NIMBYs can't just show up at a council meeting and scuttle a housing project simply because they don't want people living next to them.
NIMBYs are citizens too and, in a democracy, deserve a chance to express their points of view. To the extent economics allow, people choose to live in communities that “feel like home” to them ... so it’s understandable that they don’t want to see the character of the place changed. I moved to Martinez almost four years ago (and love the sense of community here!) because the character of my hometown, Walnut Creek, was so destroyed by sterile high-rise development that it no longer felt like home. I wouldn’t want to see that happen to Martinez.
I’m OK incentivizing developers with public funds ... as long as we can see what their profit margins actually are. In explaining how difficult the economics are for developers, Council member Ross once commented at a City Council Meeting that a developer might build 50 homes, but won’t see any profit at all until the last 7 are sold. (I hope I remember that right, I don’t recall which meeting it was). Wait a minute ... 7 homes ... that’s $7 million in profit!!!! How many people out there will see $7 million in their lifetimes, much less over the space of a couple of years?
I think the other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is how the issue of housing relates to our City Hall staffing crisis, most significantly in our police department. One of the reason cities like Martinez increasingly have trouble attracting and retaining quality staff is that people simply can't afford to live in the Bay Area, and unless that changes, key public services and public safety are going to be compromised. I work in Rossmoor, and some of our highest-paid managerial staff commute from as far away as Roseville and Windsor. That's becoming increasingly common. The City Council identified staff retention and recruitment as their No. 1 goal at their goal-setting workshop in February because the attrition has been so high and the workloads are getting so heavy. One way they can address that issue is getting more housing built so that the people who run the city and keep us safe can also afford to live here.
The mayor made clear in the interview that high rises aren't in the cards for Martinez, but I do think there needs to be a balance between NIMBY interests and the public interest, and to date, it's been a very one-sided affair in cities like ours. As the mayor acknowledged, our RHNA numbers have been atrocious for some time when it comes to low-income housing, and Rob Schroder also admitted as much in one of his last meetings when the Housing Element was discussed.
I don't quite get your distinction between NIMBYs and "the public". EVERYONE is “the public”, and everyone, collectively, decides what the public interest is. To the extent I can gauge public opinion, I would say that the public interest is most definitely in preserving the character of our downtown.
I define the public interest as advancing the rights and interests of all groups, including historically vulnerable and marginalized communities. That has to be part of the equation in making public policy; otherwise, the interests of the privileged and powerful will always come first (because they have the resources and time to engage directly in these issues and try to shape public opinion to fit their individual goals), and that will inevitably create problems around social inequality and social justice. Based on everything I've seen, NIMBYs are focused on what's best for them, not society as a whole. And society doesn't function properly when policy revolves only around what's desired by privileged groups. I don't think the character of the town is helped when homelessness grows because there's not enough housing or families can't afford to raise their children here or the city can't hire enough police officers or workers to make it function properly because workers can't afford to live here. Public policy can't just be a matter of public opinion (which is not easily defined or measured anyway), because history shows that public opinion sometimes elevates the interests of the powerful over the disadvantaged (see the Jim Crow era) and can trample on individual rights, as we've seen repeatedly in our nation's history. I don't see public "interest" and public "opinion" as at all synonymous, in fact history has shown they can be contradictory. Of course, that doesn't mean you can just discount public opinion, but there has to be a balance, and on this issue there hasn't been in my opinion.
Also, public opinion polls have consistently shown that most people do want more housing, and more affordable housing; it's just that the groups that are most outspoken and influential on a local level have tended to be anti-housing advocates. The people who show up at a council meeting to oppose something don't necessarily represent public opinion; they represent who's most organized and has the time to spend fighting these things, which is not the same. Gun laws are a perfect example. Public opinion polls show that the vast majority of Americans want common-sense gun laws, but it doesn't happen because those who are most outspoken and organized stop any action in its tracks.
Democracy is designed to be participatory. If you want to be represented ... show up! ... at the voting booth, at City Council meetings, at the school boards, on Martinez Rants and Raves, in the comment section of this blog or standing on a soap box on Main Street. Vote/advocate for what’s important to you. Unless there’s a direct monetary gain to be had, I see most people in the political arena as advocating for what they very honestly believe is in the best interests of the community ... whether I agree with them or not.
I still maintain that it is in these public debates that you gauge the public interest. For the people who don’t show up ... I find it highly presumptuous for you, or me, to claim to know where their interests lie. (Reminds me of Nixon invoking his “Silent Majority”.) It's harsh, maybe unfair, but the people who don’t show up get the society they deserve.
Something I think was left out of the low income housing discussion is that it’s not the job of the City to construct new housing. The City sets zoning rules, and may offer some incentives ... but developers build housing. And while every developer in California may not be Seeno, with his mansion on the hill above Clayton, I doubt if you can find any developers who live in the low income housing they claim it’s not profitable (enough) to build.
Those are good points, which is why I think that it's important that whatever plan the city adopts includes incentives and bonuses to make it more attractive for developers to build low-income housing (just like I think we need to give teachers incentives to teach in poor areas and doctors incentives to work in poor areas). I think the deferral of developer fees for low-income housing would be a good place to start, and such a program is included in the draft plan. Of course, Thousand Friends of Martinez has already voiced its disapproval of that idea (wonder if they'd feel differently it what was being developed was another park instead of the homes we desperately need), and given their political influence, we'll see if it survives. I think the other important thing to keep in mind is that simply building more homes, period, would address the supply-demand imbalance, which is the primary reason that home and rental costs have gotten so far out of reach for so many people. Being a lowly journalist, there's no way I would ever have been able to buy a home and raise a family in Martinez if I was 20 years younger than I am now. The only reason I can live here is pure luck that I was born when I was and able to buy a home in the 1990s instead of coming of age in the 2010s, when it would have been impossible. This is the reason you don't see this crisis in so many other states where NIMBYism isn't such a force. They've built plenty of housing over the years to keep up with the demand, while we in California have paid lip service to the notion that everyone deserves a place to live. I think we need to provide big incentives for developers to build low-income housing specifically and also make it much easier for high-density, multi-family housing to be built in general through zoning and streamlining approvals so that a group of NIMBYs can't just show up at a council meeting and scuttle a housing project simply because they don't want people living next to them.
NIMBYs are citizens too and, in a democracy, deserve a chance to express their points of view. To the extent economics allow, people choose to live in communities that “feel like home” to them ... so it’s understandable that they don’t want to see the character of the place changed. I moved to Martinez almost four years ago (and love the sense of community here!) because the character of my hometown, Walnut Creek, was so destroyed by sterile high-rise development that it no longer felt like home. I wouldn’t want to see that happen to Martinez.
I’m OK incentivizing developers with public funds ... as long as we can see what their profit margins actually are. In explaining how difficult the economics are for developers, Council member Ross once commented at a City Council Meeting that a developer might build 50 homes, but won’t see any profit at all until the last 7 are sold. (I hope I remember that right, I don’t recall which meeting it was). Wait a minute ... 7 homes ... that’s $7 million in profit!!!! How many people out there will see $7 million in their lifetimes, much less over the space of a couple of years?
I think the other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is how the issue of housing relates to our City Hall staffing crisis, most significantly in our police department. One of the reason cities like Martinez increasingly have trouble attracting and retaining quality staff is that people simply can't afford to live in the Bay Area, and unless that changes, key public services and public safety are going to be compromised. I work in Rossmoor, and some of our highest-paid managerial staff commute from as far away as Roseville and Windsor. That's becoming increasingly common. The City Council identified staff retention and recruitment as their No. 1 goal at their goal-setting workshop in February because the attrition has been so high and the workloads are getting so heavy. One way they can address that issue is getting more housing built so that the people who run the city and keep us safe can also afford to live here.
The mayor made clear in the interview that high rises aren't in the cards for Martinez, but I do think there needs to be a balance between NIMBY interests and the public interest, and to date, it's been a very one-sided affair in cities like ours. As the mayor acknowledged, our RHNA numbers have been atrocious for some time when it comes to low-income housing, and Rob Schroder also admitted as much in one of his last meetings when the Housing Element was discussed.
Here's a good podcast on the larger issue and how we got here: https://lemonadamedia.com/podcast/the-blue-state-homelessness-crisis/
I don't quite get your distinction between NIMBYs and "the public". EVERYONE is “the public”, and everyone, collectively, decides what the public interest is. To the extent I can gauge public opinion, I would say that the public interest is most definitely in preserving the character of our downtown.
I define the public interest as advancing the rights and interests of all groups, including historically vulnerable and marginalized communities. That has to be part of the equation in making public policy; otherwise, the interests of the privileged and powerful will always come first (because they have the resources and time to engage directly in these issues and try to shape public opinion to fit their individual goals), and that will inevitably create problems around social inequality and social justice. Based on everything I've seen, NIMBYs are focused on what's best for them, not society as a whole. And society doesn't function properly when policy revolves only around what's desired by privileged groups. I don't think the character of the town is helped when homelessness grows because there's not enough housing or families can't afford to raise their children here or the city can't hire enough police officers or workers to make it function properly because workers can't afford to live here. Public policy can't just be a matter of public opinion (which is not easily defined or measured anyway), because history shows that public opinion sometimes elevates the interests of the powerful over the disadvantaged (see the Jim Crow era) and can trample on individual rights, as we've seen repeatedly in our nation's history. I don't see public "interest" and public "opinion" as at all synonymous, in fact history has shown they can be contradictory. Of course, that doesn't mean you can just discount public opinion, but there has to be a balance, and on this issue there hasn't been in my opinion.
Also, public opinion polls have consistently shown that most people do want more housing, and more affordable housing; it's just that the groups that are most outspoken and influential on a local level have tended to be anti-housing advocates. The people who show up at a council meeting to oppose something don't necessarily represent public opinion; they represent who's most organized and has the time to spend fighting these things, which is not the same. Gun laws are a perfect example. Public opinion polls show that the vast majority of Americans want common-sense gun laws, but it doesn't happen because those who are most outspoken and organized stop any action in its tracks.
Democracy is designed to be participatory. If you want to be represented ... show up! ... at the voting booth, at City Council meetings, at the school boards, on Martinez Rants and Raves, in the comment section of this blog or standing on a soap box on Main Street. Vote/advocate for what’s important to you. Unless there’s a direct monetary gain to be had, I see most people in the political arena as advocating for what they very honestly believe is in the best interests of the community ... whether I agree with them or not.
I still maintain that it is in these public debates that you gauge the public interest. For the people who don’t show up ... I find it highly presumptuous for you, or me, to claim to know where their interests lie. (Reminds me of Nixon invoking his “Silent Majority”.) It's harsh, maybe unfair, but the people who don’t show up get the society they deserve.