Understanding the Housing Fee Crisis in California
California's housing crisis is a pervasive issue, and recent findings from the UC Berkeley's Terner Center highlight the significant role local fees play in exacerbating this problem. Shockingly, these local impact fees have stifled the construction of over 5,000 new homes for low-income Californians between 2020 and 2023 alone. The fees, which total around $1.2 billion for just 691 projects studied, have stacked nearly $20,000 onto the price of building each unit. This raises an essential question: are these fees truly necessary for infrastructure, or are they more about generating revenue for local governments?
The Role of Local Fees in Housing Delays
Local governments argue that impact fees are essential for funding necessary infrastructure like roads and schools, especially following the limitations imposed by Proposition 13, which passed in 1978. This measure restricted property tax growth, leading to local officials feeling they have no choice but to raise fees elsewhere. However, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, points out that California is not among the states with low property tax rates, ranking 18th in per capita property tax collections. Ironically, the lack of housing development caused by high local fees contributes to lower property tax revenue due to a shrinking tax base.
Reimagining Housing Fees: A Call for Change
To address the housing shortage effectively, experts advocate for a reevaluation of these local fees. As stated by Nolan Gray of California YIMBY, one vital step would be rooting impact fees in actual fiscal impacts rather than just using them to pad local budgets. The Terner Center's findings propose fee waivers for affordable housing developments coupled with state reimbursement for actual costs incurred by local governments. This approach aims to balance the need for infrastructure funding with the pressing demand for affordable housing.
Looking Ahead: The Importance of Infrastructure Investment
The Terner study also emphasizes the importance of investing in infrastructure over merely adding fees. Current state subsidies often focus on funding individual housing units. However, shifting that focus towards infrastructure development could promote a more favorable environment for affordable housing construction without burdening developers with insurmountable fees. A strategic approach to infrastructure could catalyze far more housing at a significantly lower cost.
The Urgency of Constructing Market-Rate Housing
While affordable housing is a priority, it is equally essential to increase the availability of market-rate housing for middle-income families. The construction of such housing has also faltered under the weight of high local fees. This lack of market-rate units can lead to increased demand for older, lower-priced housing, escalating costs across the board. The urgency for a mature conversation that focuses on adjusting housing fees cannot be overstated.
A Call to Action: Conversations for Change
The conversations around housing fees and regulations need to be front and center in the upcoming gubernatorial and state legislative races. As California faces an undeniable housing shortage, sensible reforms can pave the way to greater housing abundance. While the editorial board supports a path towards housing deregulation, understanding the nuances of subsidized affordable units is also crucial. Ultimately, every effort should contribute to maximizing the number of housing units available in a cost-effective manner.
As residents of Bakersfield and surrounding areas consider the implications of these discussions, it is vital to stay engaged and informed. The future of housing in California depends on active participation and advocacy for policies that balance the need for local infrastructure with the pressing requirement for more affordable and market-rate housing.
Add Row
Add
Write A Comment