Last Saturday the Contra Costa Times published a "Your Turn" commentary by John Hunter of Clayton with the provocative title – Housing Fees vs. Builder Greed.    He quotes my explanation of pricing relative to supply and demand, attacks Antioch Councilmember Arne Simonsen about failing to see the "urgency" and calls builders greedy. I have no doubt many residents see things exactly the way John does.  I started a response – counted to ten and then forgot about it as I got busy this week.

This morning David Dolter wrote an excellent response – Right Now, the Share Not Fair.

Here’s pdf versions of both commentaries:

Download Housingfeesvsbuildergreed.pdf (7.6K)

Download RightNowtheSharesNotFair.pdf (7.5K)

Urgency

The only charge in Mr. Hunter’s comments that hasn’t been answered is why Councilmember Simonsen didn’t see any "urgency".  Mr. Hunter’s reaction is understandable because the newspaper report he read didn’t fully explain the "urgency" issue before the Council.

There is a provision in state law that requires a 60 day delay between fee adoptions or increases and when those fees can be charged to the public seeking permits.  It’s designed to give everyone fair notice of a forthcoming fee increase so they can plan for it.

State law also provides that in cases of immediate threats to the publics’ health, safety or welfare (as defined) the Council can make specific urgency findings and vote by super-majority (4 of 5) to collect the fee or increase immediately.  Councilmember Simonsen is an ardent supporter of finishing Highway 4 as quickly as possible and supports the proposed fee increase.  He didn’t think the urgency findings could be made – as the threat to the public was no different today than yesterday.  Unfortunately the news report didn’t explain this and gave readers the wrong impression.

Last Tuesday the Antioch City Council adopted the urgency ordinance collecting the new $15,000 fee per house immediately.

"Hopefuls camp out for chance to buy townhomes"

Sandy Kleffman writes in today’s Contra Costa Times about people camping out to be first in line when new homes are released at DeNova Home’s Citrus Walk subdivision in Walnut Creek.  Here’s a key quote:

"In one respect, it’s sort of sad that it’s come to this," said Jim Croy, who took a day off work from a Pleasant Hill investment company to take the head of the line. "We put several offers on houses in Walnut Creek and got outbid.

"At least this way, you’re rewarded for putting in some effort and you don’t have to face a bidding war."

There’s another aspect to this story.  With the stock market providing paltry returns it appears that speculators are playing real estate.  The way home prices have increased over the past years can you blame them?  Between the lack of new housing construction, a low inventory of resale housing on the market and real estate speculators – it is difficult to win a bidding war for housing in especially desirable neighborhoods.

But new homebuilders also face the speculator issue.  In the late ’80s people would put a deposit on a new house and "flip-it" or sell their spot for a premium – sometimes before the house was even built.  Today, most builders include anti-speculation clauses in their sales contracts to discourage it.  It will be interesting to see how Citrus Walk plays out over time.

Katherine Conrad has a good profile of Save Mount Diablo’s Executive Director Ron Brown in last week’s East Bay Business Times.  I learned several things I didn’t know nor fully appreciate about Ron by reading it.  [Disclaimer:  I am mentioned in it – although Katherine never called me for a quote.]  I also think Ron is an effective advocate for the mountain.  We don’t always agree but I have never been given any reason to question his motives or integrity.

One thing I learned from the end of the article – Save Mount Diablo thinks they’re about half done in saving the mountain.  They have about 86,000 acres now.  And conventional wisdom – ask a man on the street – is the mountain has been largely saved.  One reason they "need" more is to create safe habitat/range for large animals like the mountain lion.  Understandable – but a little scary as my family lives adjacent to open space on Lime Ridge.  I thought the biggest problem I’d have is the red-headed woodpeckers that are currently attacking the soffits on the eaves of my house.   Mountain lions…hmm…

Link: Ron Brown – 2005-04-04 – East Bay Business Times.

Broderick Perkins of DeadlineNews.com has written a story about the Reason Institute’s critique of inclusionary zoning. It appears on the Realty Times website and can be found here.

Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub has written a column questioning inclusionary zoning policies after reading the Reason Institute’s study on the topic. That column can be found here.

Two quotes:

“The study, by San Jose State University professors Benjamin Powell and Edward Stringham, concludes that inclusionary zoning drives up the cost of housing, deprives government of tax revenue and might actually be making worse the problem it is intended to solve.”

“Even if you believe that inclusionary zoning comes at no cost to either the housing market or the treasury, it still appears that the policies are producing very little new housing.

Viewed under the best possible light, using inclusionary zoning to provide low-income housing is like fighting a forest fire with a garden hose. Under the harsh light this study shines on the policy, that hose might be spraying fuel, rather than water, on the fire.”

I couldn’t agree more.