Councilors shouldn’t weigh down housing fixes
Aproposed amendment to our regulation of accessory dwelling units is scheduled for a City Council vote in June. Should it pass, it will be a smart, modest tool for increasing our housing supply. It will be one of a number of solutions needed to meet this pressing issue. But in advance of this public meeting, conservative anti-housing activists are privately lobbying city councilors to add provisions that defeat its effectiveness.
“Accessory dwelling units” is bureaucrat-speak for “casitas.” Having a guesthouse is as traditional here as adobe. Over the last few years, city and state governments around the country have realized how smart it is to encourage more casitas and have changed laws to do so.
Casitas are a win for everyone. Housing supply is added throughout our neighborhoods without costly new infrastructure. The new units create value and provide rental income for homeowners. Renters have more diverse options and additional supply lowers prices. Local craftspeople and retailers get business, which means jobs and higher gross receipts. Property taxes increase and schools benefit. Casitas can be rentals, age-in-place strategies and lodging for kids or caretakers.
Cities from Portland, Ore., and Los Angeles to Missoula, Mont., and Durango, Colo., have turned to casitas to be part of their housing solutions. Based on research from reputable sources such as the University of California, Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation and Seattle-based Sightline Institute, we know casitas have a low per-unit cost and that “invisible infill” strengthens neighborhoods while being environmentally responsible.
Research also tells us that for casitas to be an effective part of our housing ecosystem, we need to remove barriers to construction. In fact, we should be incentivizing casitas by removing impact fees and streamlining permits.
Progressive cities all across the country are doing this. In Santa Fe, we at least need to encourage this traditional form of land use and not make homeowners jump through costly hoops or encumber their property.
The proposed changes do this — remove inequitable restrictions so it’s easier to permit and build a casita. But city councilors are being asked to insert new barriers, and actions to date indicate some councilors intend to. In fact, tweaks to the language around parking already have pushed the amendment toward unequal application among neighborhoods. If these efforts continue to succeed, our councilors will have taken an amendment intended to simplify and hamstrung it with a new set of complications. Talk about missing the point.
We desperately need to amend our land-use policy to have clean and consistent regulations that help to add housing supply in an equitable fashion. It’s taken over four years of hard work from dozens of people just to get this amendment in front of our elected representatives. That’s too long. Worse, now that it’s here, the work by experts, volunteers and diverse community members is at risk of being dismembered by councilors attracted to short-term political points.
Our representatives are being pressured by people armed with privilege and misinformation to reinforce outmoded prejudices left over from the same segregationist policies that created single-use zoning in the first place. It’s a feast of red herrings, but the end result may well be Santa Fe once again failing to move forward progressive and equitable housing policies because of selective political optics.
We can’t allow this policy myopia to continue. Our councilors can’t pretend to stand for equity and justice while sabotaging good housing policy. It’s well past time to tell them they will be held accountable at the ballot box for failing to address our housing crisis and for pandering to special interests rather than fighting for the rights of all citizens.