Santa Cruz, CA – A recent investigation has triggered concerns about Santa Cruz’s handling of its affordable housing resources, particularly questioning whether the city is ensuring that inclusionary housing units are occupied by those they were intended to serve – local residents. This scrutiny comes at a time when Santa ragaz, California.
In response to a surge in its general housing market, Santa Cruz has mandated private developers to allocate 20% of units in new projects as affordable housing. However, a report by the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury reveals a significant oversight: there’s no clear record of who occupies these units, despite regulations that prioritize housing for local citizens and workers of over a year.
According to the report, the city does not maintain any systematic data collection or tracking methods to verify whether these inclusionary units are being rented to the intended demographic. This gap raises transparency and policy adherence issues, relating to an ordinance that aims to give preference to locals, including city residents and workers.
The Grand Jury report’s findings are especially troubling considering Santa Cruz’s status as having one of the most expensive rental markets in the country. A two-bedroom apartment in the city is reportedly the nation’s most expensive when adjusted for average income.
Currently, there are 240 below-market rate inclusionary housing units in Santa Cruz, split between rental and owned apartments. As the city plans for future residential projects, over 600 additional affordable units will potentially be developed, contingent on sustained funding.
The term ‘affordable’ varies by income levels, categorized generally into segments like extremely-low, very low, low, and moderate incomes, with the latter defined as earning 80%-120% of the median income, which is about $92,950 in Santa Cruz County. This makes individuals earning up to $111,550 eligible for affordable housing.
Yet, ambiguity remains regarding whether moderate incomes qualify under the city’s inclusionary housing guidelines. Local regulations appear contradictory. On one hand, it’s stated that only extremely-low to low-income households are eligible for inclusionary housing. On the other hand, the city’s website indicates that moderate income households also qualify, suggesting inconsistencies in policy application.
This problem seems amplified by California’s pro-housing initiatives that encourage higher densities, visible in local developments where moderate income units are counted towards fulfilling affordable housing quotas. Here, city practices appear to adapt, possibly due to state influences rather than a straightforward interpretation of local laws.
This leads to a broader definition of affordable housing within city codes that encompass a variety of funding and development scenarios, whereas inclusionary housing strictly refers to the mandatory 20% set-aside by local developments.
In terms of recommendations, the Grand Jury report suggests that the city needs a better system to monitor occupancy of inclusionary units, clarify whether moderate income categories are included under the inclusionary requirements, and track how many inclusionary units are occupied by verified income UC Santa Cruz students.
The city’s Economic Development and Housing Departments are reportedly preparing responses to these recommendations, expected to address these issues in their upcoming reviews in September. This response will not only clarify the city’s position but also determine the future management of one of its crucial resources in tackling housing affordability.