Determining the cost of city’s workforce
MAIN LIBRARY If City Hall were to invest millions in the creation of affordable, work-force housing, who should qualify?
Are police officers and nurses more valuable to the community than grocery store workers and janitors? What about teachers and architects? Car salesmen and dog walkers?
A community-based committee charged with investigating the needs, financing options and land available for workforce housing tried to answer those questions on Monday, with minimal success.
Many of the participants still disagreed on what income levels should allow someone to qualify for affordable two-or three-bedrooms flats. Others wondered what the need is for this type of housing and whether or not workers would participate in home ownership if they could not put their place on the market and sell it for a significant profit.
“We have to find out what does our work-force want out of this,” said Councilman Kevin McKeown, a member of the Workforce Housing Committee. “Is it stability or some intangible sense of being part of the owning gentry?
“We have to be careful about this because we may end up with housing that not many people want.”
Without conducting a survey of public and private sector employees from various fields it is difficult to give “big picture” suggestions, said land-use attorney Chris Harding, who called on the city manager’s office to come up with serious funding for the effort.
At least one sub-committee was against conducting a survey to determine the scope of the problem because members felt it could be discouraging if there was only a relatively small supply of such housing available.
The committee was formed by City Manager Lamont Ewell earlier this year to address calls he heard from employers and workers about the lack of affordable housing options in town. With nearly 80 percent of Santa Monica’s core workforce living outside the city limits, Ewell felt compelled to address the issue.
By offering opportunities to live near one’s work, experts say a city can cut down on traffic, business can better attract and retain workers, employees become more passionate about their jobs and their community, and more first responders are available in the event of an emergency.
WANTED: WHITE-PICKET FENCES But would police and firefighters choose to live where they work? City Attorney Marsha Moutrie raised the question, pointing out that many officers choose not to live in the same city they work because they could be put in awkward situations, such as arresting their neighbor.
Other city employees may prefer living elsewhere because land is more affordable. One member of the committee said some employees have a dream of owning their own home with a backyard and the white picket fence, and will drive hours on the freeway each day to have it. In Santa Monica, having a large backyard would most likely be out of the question if one were to buy into a city-funded project that must sacrifice open space for more units.
There was also some discussion about who should be offered units first. Should it be public employees, medical professionals, educators or those who work in the hospitality/tourism industry, an important source of revenue for Santa Monica?
Jeanne Dodson, president of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition was adamant that the priority be given to residents displaced by condo conversions or other changes in their living situation.
“Residents are more important, even if they don’t work here,” Dodson said. “Residents should have the top spot.”
The subcommittee in charge of defining the targeted workforce agreed that there be four priority categories: Low-income workers; public safety workers, including police, fire and nurses; helping professionals, like teachers, non-profit and city employees; and employees who need help in recruiting and retaining their workers.
There was no agreement on how to rank or prioritize the categories, according to Patricia Hoffman, a member of the subcommittee.
That same committee said there should be resale restrictions on the hosing created because of the large amount of financial assistance that would be provided to families. Restrictions could either be based on shared appreciation or tied to the affordabil-ity of the original buyer. Basically, one would sell their home below market rate so that it would remain affordable to moderate to low-income workers.
A survey conducted by Community Corp. of Santa Monica, a non-profit, affordable housing developer, found that residents living in the Pico Neighborhood would be open to purchasing a home that was publicly-financed even if they could not resell it for a profit. Residents seemed to just want to own something and not pay rent, said Joan Ling, executive director of Community Corp.
The non-profit is now working on a 45-unit development in the neighborhood that would be part of an affordable homeowner-ship program.
“You will need deep subsidies to make this work,” Ling said.
Subcommittees will continue to meet over the coming months to more finely tune recommendations to the City Council. The meetings are open to the public and agendas posted online at smgov.net/cmo/workforce-housing.
The next full committee meeting is scheduled for July 16.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 22, 2007. Read the original PDF.