Houses of worship in California are now in the position to take on the state’s largest social problem with the adaptation of new legislation that allows for housing development on plots that are, in almost every case, zoned exclusively for commercial use.
In July, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill that dropped a zoning requirement that mandated a certain number of parking spaces if the religious organization would build 100% affordable or workforce housing on its property. Obstacles remain, but case studies from Berkeley and other embattled communities have provided some examples of how the measure can positively stem the tide of displacement that has particularly affected people of color and other marginalized groups.
"Churches are some of the last, I think, property owners of color throughout Berkeley," local church leader Derrin Jourdan told KQED recently. "If we don't find ways of leveraging our support, we're going to find it enormously difficult to hold on to the property."
The movement has been propelled by a San Diego-based organization called Yes in God’s Back Yard (or YIGBY) which works with a consortium of local faith groups, community organizations such as the Urban Land Institute, and developers to erect modular housing in the hopes of realizing its stated goal of creating 3,000 units out of the areas 1,188 total land parcels zoned for religious use by the year 2025.
Pasadena, which was once considered a "city of churches," is likely the first Los Angeles County community to adopt the ordinance in the hopes of fulfilling its 9,400 unit requirement by 2029. Officials are still reluctant to allow development in the city's commercial district but will allow up to 36 units per acre with the stipulation that 80% be set aside as "affordable."
"This is a limited but important first step," shared Anthony Manousos with the Pasadena Star News. Manousos is the co-founder of the faith-rooted non-profit, Making Housing and Community Happen (MHCH), which focuses on housing and homelessness. "We at MHCH had advocated for something more comprehensive, but as Councilman John J. Kennedy texted us before he passed, 'Half a loaf is better than none.'"
30 Comments
The most liberal cities claim to be pro-housing, when in reality, they're the biggest NIMBY's out there.
Also, affordable housing and work-force housing limit development, favor the lucky few who win the housing lottery and would not help 99.9% of architects looking for a place.
Just build market rate - a lot of it. Open up zoning and limit design-review board powers in preventing density.
I don't think building more market rate housing would work. The cost would be too high for most people to afford. If you did build enough housing to flood the market the prices wouldn't drop that much. Finally building so much market rate housing would contribute to, if not exacerbate urban sprawl and all the problems associated with it.
Mass produced small homes would be a good solution, but zoning laws and limits on land division inhibit it from taking root. In my state for example, an average sized sfr is 2000 sf, sits in a 60x120’ lot, and costs around 500k. If we can subdivide such a lot into 4 60x30 lots, with 500 sf homes, at 150k a piece, the developer would be all in. Once again, the state is creating obstacles that inhibit markets from supplying for a demand that exists.
Small housing would be a good way to combat the problem.
We'd still need a diverse mix of housing sizes and types so that stagnate ghettos aren't created (see the American south).
I don't think 'the state' is creating obstacles that inhibit markets from supplying affordable housing. The major problem is that banks won't provide loans for small housing. This is due to the US capitalisms / free market economic system. The only way for small housing developments to get going is for it to be 100% privately funded without loans. That or have the government pay for it all. That's the actual reason developers don't do small housing developments. There are cities that have strict minimum size limitation on housing though. These policies are quickly being changed though to allow small housing. Especially ADU's.
The market for "market rate" is investors from overseas hiding their wealth from the tax man.
Chad, we don’t have a free market system in the US. In a true free market, there is no such thing as too big to fail.
In a true free market the markets create monopolies which control the populace.
In the absence of a free market the government creates monopolies which control the populace.
Allows, not creates. They can also choose to break them as they have in the past, it's just that the political will isn't there.
x-jla wrote:
"Chad, we don’t have a free market system in the US. In a true free market, there is no such thing as too big to fail."
Oh but we do have a free market economy. Throughout the history of our country there have always been business 'too big to fail'. In the past huge billionaires bailed out those businesses with money from citizens. Those same billionaires controlled the government Now the government bails out businesses and are still controlled by billionaires and paid for by citizens.
That’s not a free market Chad. You are describing fascism - a merger between state and corporation. When a libertarian uses the term free markets, we are talking about laissez faire capitalism. Libertarianism is just as against corporatism and fascism as it is against communism.
There is a lot of agreement between the left and the libertarians on this issue. You are making a divergence where it hasn’t historically existed. Take most problems that we attribute to corporations, and you will see a helpful hand by the government in one way or another. Big developers! Bad! Yea, but it’s the zoning that creates the enclaves that they rely upon. Big oil! Who do you think supports and protects their resources? Big pharma! They have the FDA on payroll essentially. Corporations are being empowered by the state. The bigger we allow that state to become, the more power we give to the corporations, because they are entangled. The way that we empower the population is to ensure decentralization.
.
And the order of society will better reflect the will of the people when that order emerges spontaneously. Centrally planned economies and cities will always concentrate power to the elite and disenfranchise the masses. Have you ever been to a open food market in Asia or South America or Africa? That’s what spontaneous order looks like- where demand and supply is harmonized in real time. It’s a feedback loop. Compare that to a heavily planned and centralized American grocery store.
Think about how that grocery store could exist in a stateless society….it can’t.
Libertarianism as you describe it is not what it is in practice, which makes it as much a utopian fantasy as anything else. It's a straw man. Not worth arguing with.
x-jla You have no idea what the definition of fascism and free market mean.
Fascism:
a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Free Market (economy):
an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control. It is a summary description of all voluntary exchanges that take place in a given economic environment. Free markets are characterized by a spontaneous and decentralized order of arrangements through which individuals make economic decisions.
I’m not sure what you are disagreeing about. My definition of free markets aligns almost exactly with yours. Your definition of fascism is just a broader definition that includes the social dynamics. I was speaking specifically to the economics of fascism - where state and corporate interests often merge. That system often includes the things that you point out.
You seem to suggest that we have your definition of “free markets” in the US. We don’t. Free markets may exist somewhat at a lower level in the US, like on esty, or in the small business domain, but at the higher corporate and financial levels it doesn’t. State capitalism, corporatism, fascism, oligarchy, potato potato…Economically, fascism is part capitalism and part socialism, and usually designed to protect and enrich a small elite group of corporate and state actors
. Sound familiar?
During occupy, many ideologies were United…that’s why all the woke shit started around that time. Can’t have that unity shit!
But you are correct that the US is not a true fascist country in totality. It’s economic system is similar though, but it’s something uniquely different.
More like a big ship of corporatism with free market barnacle holding on for dear life.
The merging of corporate and government interests doesn't make it a fascist economic system. For a fascist economic system to occur the government would have to control all means of production, distribution, and pricing.
On a related note you also don't seem to understand what socialism, capitalisms, and an oligarchy are. You can keep typing your librarian BS though. Just know you'll be talking to yourself as I'm not going to debate this with you if you can't understand the definitions of topics we're discussing. Bye.
Again, no one said any of that. Read better Chad.
I did read what you said though.
x-jla wrote: “You seem to suggest that we have your definition of “free markets” in the US. We don’t. Free markets may exist somewhat at a lower level in the US, like on esty, or in the small business domain, but at the higher corporate and financial levels it doesn’t. State capitalism, corporatism, fascism, oligarchy, potato potato…Economically, fascism is part capitalism and part socialism, and usually designed to protect and enrich a small elite group of corporate and state actors . Sound familiar?”
Sounds like you’re saying that you equate capitalism, corporatism, fascism, oligarchy as meaning the same thing.
My comments still stand. You don’t know the actual meaning of capitalism, fascism, free market, or an oligarchy.
Understand that words have meaning and learn to write in a clear and coherent fashion. You're like the Ricky of libratarism.
State capitalism, corporatism, fascism, oligarchy, are not all the same thing, but they have many similarities
Not really. If yo think so then you're proving that you don't know the definitions of those words.
That or you're trying to use confirmation bias and dishonesty to reinforce your libertarian views. Either way you're incorrect.
You are being dishonest in suggesting that I said that these things were synonymous. The grouping of the terms was to suggest that they are all similar in effect, which they are. It’s been said that “Fascism is socialism with the veneer of capitalism”. Much of what we have in the us, at least within certain factions and industries, is pretty much corporate socialism. The military industrial complex for example, is not definable by the same terms as the restaurant industry in downtown Miami. My point is, within the US we have overlapping systems with different rules and levels of “welfare” and political control. It’s not a singular thing. That’s all said, laissez faire capitalism is not the system that governs the big corporations. The real mf’ers are operating under completely different rules and on a completely different playing field.
What happened recent idea/news of big tech companies building affordable housing instead of subsidizing available units for their geniuses in the rental market and driving prices two or three fold up? If they go ahead and build housing for their own employees, the housing market have a lot of vacancies available to other folks at affordable prices because of the competition.
Governing also covered this movement last year, highlighting how across county some municipalities"have rolled up their sleeves and embarked on initiatives to smooth out the kinks and actively transform empty faith properties into affordable housing". More locally, here in Denver, Radian (a nonprofit architecture and urban design group) has been working on their "Congregational Land Campaign".
The biggest problem with affordable housing issue is that people aren't paid well enough to afford housing unless it's basically a dog house that people live in. New construction can not possibly even be built for that low of cost and meet building codes. For affordable housing, you need MFRs that are built 25+ years ago where the original ROI had or would have been paid off. Generally, you would be looking at closer to 50+ year old MFRs. You would have to make modest work of finishes and mostly electrical systems upgrades to accommodate contemporary lifestyle. So it would be 50-70 year old buildings. In the old days of the 1850s, affordable housing was basically one-room cabins and built by the people who are living in them... case example: homesteads. However, those structures like some that I have worked on and studied would not meet contemporary code but they would be more affordable. New construction that is code compliant is too costly in material and labor to build it. It's like cars. If you are low income, you don't buy a brand new car. If you were to buy a car, it's a used one. Poor people buy second hand stuff. That has been the way things are for the last 200 years and not going to change any time soon.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.