Oct. 25, 2009
Almost every time I write about development, I get asked why more subdivisions are being approved when we’re awash in excess housing already.
And that excess includes not just houses that are built. We have a huge backlog of approved housing that has yet to break ground.
How much consideration does “inventory” play in the decision-making process? How much weight should it have?
Acute property rights activists would say that’s none of a public official’s concern. If it’s properly zoned and he’s paid all his fees, a landowner should be able to develop however he wants.
According to that line of thinking, it’s the market that should dictate whether homes are needed. Shrewd developers win and others suck eggs. Either way, it’s capitalism in action.
Indeed, several elected officials I spoke with had that same mindset.
“Approving development isn’t harmful,” said City Councilwoman Jacquie Sullivan. “Because developers won’t build until the timing is right.
“They wouldn’t be that foolish.”
Hmm.
As of September, we had more than 1,200 existing homes on the market; half of those were “distressed sales.”
City tentative tract maps showed 35,400 lots approved but not built and the county has about 4,000 approved-but-not-built lots in the metro area.
That’s down from a high of 89,000 because a number of developments (some really big ones) went belly up.
“It’s silly to build more,” said Gordon Nipp, who represents the Kern-Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club and is a regular critic of Kern County’s and Bakersfield’s growth decisions.
“All of us who own a house, we all have a stake in this, because when they build too many houses, that lowers the value of existing homes.”
Interestingly, property rights activists are mum on that side of the development sword.
“I don’t think government needs to limit and dictate and control everything,” County Supervisor Mike Maggard told me.
OK, but the act of approving a development is, by its nature, a form of control. So, really, we’re talking about degrees.
Maggard saw my line of thinking and quickly got in front of it, saying he agreed that government has a responsibility to make sure development is orderly, but having a set inventory number is akin to a growth boundary — and he isn’t in favor of that.
He likes the idea of development zones as proposed in the General Plan update. Under that scenario, you could develop further out, but you’d have to pay more.
City Councilman David Couch and I had a long rambling, somewhat esoteric talk about whether housing inventory should be a factor in development decisions.
“What’s your criteria? Approved and vested? Approved only? Zoning only? Do you include types of housing? Location? What if a developer is in financial trouble? Do we still count those lots even though he may be upside down? What if someone isn’t planning to build for 5 years? Ten? Twenty?” he mused.
It’s not just an issue for the free market, he said. But formulas that try and establish a “how much is enough” level are like alchemy.
The Local Agency Formation Commission tried years ago and failed, he said.
Then he told me my questions are never as simple as they seem.
Both City Councilwoman Sue Benham and Supervisor Don Maben said straight up that, yes, housing inventory should be a part of the equation.
“If it’s all up to the developer, why even go through the (review) process?” Maben asked.
Benham agreed.
“Looking at inventory is one of the many things maybe we could have done differently to prevent things spiraling so high and falling so hard,” she said of the real estate collapse.
Support for some kind of inventory control came from, ironically, a local developer, Bruce Freeman, CEO of Castle & Cooke.
“I think it’s a fair question,” he said.
Instead of a blanket formula, though, he advocated that planning staff, commissioners and electeds look at each neighborhood, the type of housing being proposed and whether it is contiguous with existing development (which he strongly urged).
“It has to be case by case,” he told me.
But ultimately, elected officials respond to constituents and, so far, the Bakersfield community has been relatively silent on what we want, where we want it and what kind of development we want.
So, how much is enough?
You tell me.
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MEETING
Kern County planning staff will present an update to the board Monday evening on the current state of the pending update to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
Supervisors will discuss some of the more controversial concepts in the plan — including tiers of restricted development on the edge of the city. The public is encouraged to attend and share their thoughts.
General Plan update documents can be viewed at
http://www.bakersfieldcity....
The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. Monday in the Board of Supervisor's chambers at 1115 Truxtun Avenue.
0 comments:
Post a Comment