Jerry Roberts
By Jerry Roberts of Newsmakers
Sheila Lodge wrote the book — literally — about the history of planning policy in Santa Barbara, and she doesn’t mince words about the latest bright idea before City Council to address our alleged “housing crisis.”
The proposal, tagged with the beguiling name “Floor Area Ratio” (FAR), says the longtime Planning Commissioner and former Mayor, “should be dropped.”
As Josh Molina and Nick Welsh both have reported, the debate has been put on hold pending a ….wait for it…new consultant’s report about options for where and how to build apartments and condos that the middle class – think teachers, cops and firefighters – actually can afford.
Sheila, wielding Actual Facts, figures and the fundamentals of supply and demand, not to mention the laws of arithmetic, makes a persuasive case that substituting such a system — in which building size replaces the number of units as the key criteria in approval of multi-unit developments – not only would fail to meet the goals of churning out “affordable” housing but also pave the way for 60-foot buildings that might signal the end of Santa Barbara’s unique and carefully curated small town charm, design and aesthetic.
In our conversation, Lodge points to Santa Barbara’s high construction costs — three times the statewide per square foot average — provides a precise and favorable accounting of the current pro-rental development policy — that’s the AUD, not the ADU, for those trying to keep their acronyms straight — and offers historical perspective of how the city’s housing debate has been underway for over a century — her slim but indispensable volume “Santa Barbara: An Uncommonplace American Town/How Thoughtful Planning Shaped a City” should be required reading for anyone feeling the need to opine publicly on the issue.
Along the way, she also offers some intriguing political observations — including her endorsements for Mayor and Council (spoiler alert: it’s Randy and Kristen).
Watch our conversation with Sheila Lodge via YouTube below or by clicking through this link. The podcast version is here.
You guys are not watching the state legislation coming down the pipeline. They intend to supersede all local controls to spur building of housing supply in single-family neighborhoods. There’s a real estate boom here, and a lot of the buyers are real estate investment trusts. They’re not going to be your neighbors or community members. They’re going to buy a house, jam 8 units on it, and flip it for multiple times what they paid for it.
Sheila is right. Santa Barbara is unique and needs to protect it’s old town. Find another part of town to jam a megalopolis of high priced apartments into.
In a nut-shell, the State of California, in all their present wisdom says, “You can build an Accessory Unit Dwelling (a granny or rental unit) up to 1200 sq ft. anywhere on your property without local ordinances limiting any factors.
Not that complicated. Look at what our population growth is being caused by and start there .
Would one of the two people who thumbs downed my post care to share an alternate solution to this or point of view I’m missing?
The growth is not only coming from our birthrate.
There are a lot of limiting factors. The state made it easier, they didn’t make it easy.
hmmmm maybe the California Exodus will fix this…just in the last quarter of 2020, 3.5% or 1.4 million left California.
“The biggest problem is people want to limit development, limit building heights, and keep our town “small” while also wanting affordable housing for the working class all the while people keep making more and more people. You simply can’t have both.”
I think, for the most part, these are different groups, no? Don’t they almost have to be? If you employ common sense anyway.
Sheila Lodge has donned the mantle of the establishment Lodge’s of Boston fame. Adopting a better than thou air and style. She offers a Disneyland Santa Barbara that will please her well situated friends and acquaintances. This makes me uncomfortable. But the truth is more dire than her aesthetic pretense. We have too many people. Population limits are all that will protect our earth from ravage. I am always pleased to see reports of the alleged CA exodus (welcome to Texas folks). But the problem is more basic. Corporations want more customers and more labor at less cost. We need to honor labor, give people space to breathe and save our world. Whether CA can do this alone is doubtful (although Europe was moderately successful before the emigration crisis). So what to do” 1. Stop giving benefits for child birth. 2. Establish a guaranteed minimum income for all legal US residents. 3. Fund real reform in the Central American states which means no more US money to support military governments for a start. 4. Make businesses pay a fair wage and comply with environmental rules no matter where they do business. This is for a start. It is not that hard to figure out what to do but almost impossible to do it in the face of huge money opposition. Still I hope.
It’s state, not federal. We can vote to change the direction of the state which under Newsom and the San Francisco developer pimp, Scott Weiner are dragging us. They are using “low cost housing” as a smoke screen to densify middle class neighborhoods and our low profile cities so that investors can cram more units into their properties. Vote these bums out.
Not likely that Arcadia-born Sheila Lodge has “donned (any) mantle of Boston Lodges”, especially since her late husband, Joe Lodge, was from St. Paul, Minn., says Wikipedia, psychologically as far from Back Bay Boston as is California, if not further.
I agree there are too many people and it will be interesting to see the next Census figures, how much of a population growth there is in SB, if any at all.
“Santa Barbara’s high construction costs — three times the statewide per square foot average” this is why we will not be able to provide any significant increase in affordable housing in Santa Barbara. If a developer can’t pencil out a reasonable profit in exchange for risking considerable capital and lots of effort, then nothing will get built. The abnormally high cost to build here, combined with ever increasing affordability requirements and rent caps, only further discourages new projects from being built. In every debate on this issue in city council they need to ask themselves; “will this encourage or discourage developers from building new housing units”? If we want more affordable units we need to really incentivize developers to do so or simply have the city do it themselves. The biggest problem is people want to limit development, limit building heights, and keep our town “small” while also wanting affordable housing for the working class all the while people keep making more and more people. You simply can’t have both.
Why is it a “right” to live in the City of SB or even the county?
If you choose to move here but can’t afford it, why did you move here?
And this is a coastal issue all over the country, expensive housing that is.
Plenty of land in Bakersfield and Fresno and many other inland areas.
Those areas have jobs, housing, supermarkets, malls, etc…
so why are we trying to make SB a clown car?
And today our infrastructure might be able to handle the current demand, but what is being done to increase those if we are to add thousands of additional housing?
And why is it that if you can’t afford new construction the govt says don’t worry we’ll force the developer to take a pay cut. Why not let free market prevail. Those that can afford the new construction will leave their old housing opening it up to those that can afford “not new”.
It’s like giving a 16yr a new Mercedes. They have t earned it snd can’t afford it. But the govt says everyone should have a Mercedes!
What a joke!
We do NOT have a housing crisis no matter how much they are pushing it. What we have is an immigration crisis. Let’s call it by it’s correct name and then we can do something about it.
We can start by changing our representatives to the State Legislature.
Electing different state representatives should be our first step.
Haha your comments are so spot on that anyone with a down vote is probably working off their third grade education.
Need more affordable housing? Scrap the subsidized housing inventory and put it back out there at market rate. Make housing subsidies only available for the elderly and disabled.
RHS by far the best most intelligent comment on this thread. Thank you.
Voice, it’s oh so much easier to stand on the sidelines and hurl rocks and insults (or a downvote) than it is to offer a well-argued constructive suggestion.