This past week, Q-line asked: “Was the City Council correct in its assertion that higher developer fees will equal more affordable housing or was the hike an unnecessary passing of the buck?”
Here are your responses: ✆ “As usual the city has come up with yet another quack way of trying to fix a problem which they have over time created. It won’t and will no doubt, as usual, create even more problems. Is there no end to their inept and lunatic way of attempting to deal with problems? Get them all out of there. We need fresh blood.” ✆ “For a good many years, the city of Santa Monica had a very good program that provided affordable housing for tenants at a fair price to both tenant and apartment owner. The program was known as rent control. Then came the decontrol, recontrol, rent control program that ended rent control as the tenants of Santa Monica knew it. Trust me, reasonable rent control is over in Santa Monica. Under the original rent control program, no original apartment house owner lost money when one considers that a 10-unit apartment house building built in the late 1960s and early 1970s only cost $200,000 to build, including the lot the building sits on. Under the original rent control program, the apartment house owner recaptured their investment in their building every two and a half years. Under the new decontrol, recontrol program of rent control, the apartment building owners recapture their investment every year. A 10-unit building will now rent for $200,000 every year. Now, with the original rent control program badly eroded and no room for affordable housing to be built, I say more power to the city of Santa Monica in charging an in lieu fee to the developers. It is a form of poetic justice.” ✆ “If developers have to pay more money that’s a good idea, they can afford it anyway. If they don’t want to build in Santa Monica so much the better, they have enough high rise buildings there as it is. As far as affordable housing is concerned, if they can build it and just keep out the garbage people, you know, the gang members and these rotten punks that cause all the trouble, then affordable housing would be good. Otherwise, there’s no point to it, it just turns into a gang area like the Pico area and we don’t want more of that, we have enough those kind of people already.” ✆ “This was the best decision the council could have made. The fees were too low and we weren’t producing enough housing. We need this money to add to other money. The thing about this money is it’s free of restrictions by the federal government or the state so it can be used for rental, it can be used for ownership, it can be used to buy property and rehab it and therefore protect the people who live on it, or it can be used to produce new housing. This has been established as the amount of money that is needed in order to produce low-income housing enough that it serves the needs of the market-rate housing that is going to be built. Your editorial said that the value of the property, that the cost of the property, say the condo units being built at the market rate, you think that that value will go up or down depending on the fee? No, no, no.
That’s determined by the market, so it has nothing to do with the new owners paying for this low-income housing, that doesn’t happen. The new owners of the condos don’t pay for that at all. So I hope you get it straight the next time you write some silly editorial.” ✆ “I think it’s unfair to increase just developer fees. Why not have everybody pay through an increase in our local taxes?” ✆ “The City Council of Santa Monica was absolutely right to pass the increase in fees. The fees we had for development here have been the lowest in the whole region and frankly it was disgraceful. We needed to raise the fees. It is not going to ever stop any developer from building, that is not the issue for developers. They like the space, they like the place, they like the sun, and they like the beach and they are not going to stop building here. Secondly, we must help create affordable housing for blue collar workers.” ✆ “Hey Ms. Mayor, I need a place to live. Well young man, you’ve come to the right town. Have you lived in Santa Monica? No. Have you worked here? No. Have you gone to school here? No, my friends said high school was to bourgeoisie, whatever that means. That’s OK young man, our school district can get you a worth-nothing diploma. Do you have a gun? I take the second. Do you belong to a gang? I take the fifth. Young man, you show aptitude for the law, we can register you in another fine institution, SMC, taking law classes and six months from now you can graduate and get a job in the legal department at City Hall. You know they just received a 4 percent raise. Do you have children? Yes, Ms. Mayor I have two with my current girlfriend and I think two more. Young man, getting you a four-bedroom, low-income apartment will be no problem. We need people like you. No discipline, no personal responsibility, no common sense, no education, and a free-lunch philosophy. That’s great Ms. Mayor, but who will pay for it? Glad, you asked young man. A wonderful organization spelled SMRR provides low-income housing. Well, technically it’s the taxpayers but they are such ingrates that you need to make sure you vote for SMRR. They are in every branch of city government. You are going to be a real credit to low-income housing. Thank you Ms. Mayor and City Council for everything you do in this town.” ✆ “I think the city was correct in the assertion that the higher developer fees could lead to more affordable housing. Of course, in Santa Monica with the prices so high it is important to have affordable housing for diversity and also to allow people who might have lower-wage jobs to live in the city. It’s a great place to live.” ✆ “Higher development fees will solve two problems. They might make more affordable housing and it will also discourage developers from over developing Santa Monica, which is the big root cause of a lot of unhappiness and problems.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 22, 2005. Read the original PDF.