The clock is ticking on the biggest land rush Santa Monica has yet seen.

Gone may be our City's honored commitment to affordable housing side by side with new development, keeping our established neighborhoods diverse and vibrant.

Instead, Santa Monica's City Council is being asked to approve giving developers options that will, in effect, license them to tear down existing housing and absolve themselves of social responsibility by paying pittance "in-lieu fees," covering only a small part of building affordable housing... elsewhere.

Left on the street in a cruel game of money-driven musical chairs might be many of Santa Monica's existing residents. Could the City Council, elected by these same residents in safer, more secure times, let this happen?

Deliberate and honorable social goals, endorsed by Santa Monica voters and incorporated in our City Charter, are being side-stepped in a flurry of discussion over how much developer profit on new housing constitutes a fair return.

Does it comfort you to know that while you face eviction so luxury condos can go on your lot, that the proposed policies before the Council are based on guaranteeing developers a 40 to 50% return?

That's right, Santa Monica is being asked to make tearing down existing occupied housing an irresistable high-yield investment.

City voters mandated 30% on-site affordable housing by passing Proposition R in 1990. This not only guaranteed diversity within neighborhoods, but made speculation in oversized high-priced condos less attractive. The 90's were a slow decade for housing growth throughout the region, including Santa Monica, but now the market has begun to boom again.

Developer lawsuits are aimed at bullying our City into allowing affordable housing to be split off from market-rate development. With "in-lieu fees," builders will pay some specified amount per square foot to proceed unencumbered by the embarrassment of lower-income residents on-site.

If properly implemented, progressive in-lieu fees with incentives to build in currently non-residential neighborhoods, sparing existing homes, could be a creative and constructive solution to the challenge of affordable housing in Santa Monica.

So far, though, the suggested in-lieu fee is too low, the profit for tear-downs too high. Our neighborhoods will be razed, and if affordable housing is built it will have to be mostly out of public funds and mostly in parts of town where land costs are low.

The voters of Santa Monica cast their ballots decisively for affordable housing in economically mixed neighborhoods. Those same voters deserve and should expect protection of their homes from the City Council they elected.

Councilmembers must set aside partisanship and recognize that our residents, our diversity, and our neighborhoods are all at stake.

This is a moral and ethical question Santa Monica faces, not merely a matter of bookkeeping legerdemain or legalistic haggling. The Council's primary responsibility in considering these housing policies is fiduciary, not financial.

Caution, wisdom and foresight now can sustain stability in our community well into the next century.

Back to Kevin's home page?