June 2005

San Diego Council Member Jim Madaffer chairs the Housing Task Force that the League established with representatives of the building industry. The group is working on a variety of solutions to the challenges of housing and affordable housing. In this interview, Madaffer discusses the work of the Housing Task Force and explains how it interfaces with the League’s policy committees.

The League’s Housing Task Force has been meeting for several months now, working hard to find common ground between builders and city officials. What are some of the areas where it’s been relatively easy to reach agreement? Where has it been harder?

Madaffer: We came together very easily on the idea that we need to work together to do something significant to address the state’s housing problems. But after that, we quickly run out of easy options.

For example, the builders’ concern is that they can go through the planning and approval processes but still see their project rejected because of neighborhood or environmental or zoning concerns. They would like to mandate one approach across the state that shortcuts local planning and environmental requirements.

Even if we agreed, with 478 cities in 58 counties throughout the state, it’s very difficult to come up with that one-size-fits-all solution that really works to build houses where they are most needed.

How can the task force craft a bill that provides the builders with certainty but still respects the local diversity issues?

Madaffer: One way is that you examine the specific issues that constitute certainty. We’re talking about the length of time a plan will be in effect, as well as streamlining local decision-making processes: public participation, environmental review, council adoption of a plan, opportunities for people to challenge the plan and
other issues.

You need these processes to gain community acceptance for housing projects. But where and how can they be streamlined to provide greater certainty for someone who wants to build the housing that the city and the region badly need?

What about cities’ need for funding to pay for services and infrastructure?

Madaffer: City officials see the urgent need for housing but many can’t afford to pay for the services and infrastructure needs of their current residents.

The success of this process will be mea sured by whether we can make new housing attractive for areas that would not otherwise want it, by providing incentives for housing in both greenfields and infill areas. The most attractive incentives are likely to be transportation and other infrastructure, and funding to pay for local services.

I’m a strong proponent of creating fiscal incentives for those jurisdictions that step up and commit to building more housing. I’m also receptive to the idea that we create fiscal disincentives for those jurisdictions that choose not to step up.

It sounds like you’re having productive discussions, but more time is needed to work through these issues.

Madaffer: I understand and appreciate the skepticism of some of my colleagues among city officials, who question whether the state can really come up with ap proaches that will solve their concerns about services and infrastructure.

It takes time to find solutions that work for all 478 cities. We need solutions that respect the diversity of our membership and their concerns. We just can’t get agreement on a package that takes a cookie cutter approach.

This is why we have the League’s policy making processes in place. We need to take recommendations to the appropriate League policy committees. If they approve an approach or a package, we must then seek approval from the League board of directors. And the board could send a package back to the task force for more work.

How will the work of the task force fit into the housing proposals introduced by other legislators?

Madaffer: That remains to be seen. Right now we understand that the Legislature may move only one or two housing bills. We will continue to keep legislators and the administration informed of our progress. It’s in everyone’s best interest to build a package that enjoys broad support from all stakeholders, including the environmental groups and housing advocates. That’s what we achieved with Prop. 1A, and that’s why we were so successful.

Is it easier to work on other issues, now that cities and their local coalition partners were able to pass Prop. 1A?

Madaffer: Prop. 1A was really step one in a multistep process. Prop. 1A restored fiscal stability to local budgets. That was huge.

But we still have structural problems in both the state and local fiscal systems. If you work on housing, you quickly realize that you cannot solve the housing crisis without also talking about fiscal reform. You have to find a way to pay for the services and infrastructure, and the current funding systems don’t do that.

The current emphasis on housing - something we all want to solve - could become the incentive for us all to make progress on fiscal reform, because we can’t solve one problem without solving the other.

This issue is vitally important to California. We can’t get to solutions if we’re not all working together. That’s why the League will do everything we can to build the partnerships with other stakeholders we need to respond to California’s crisis.