Should We House People or Cars?

This post is sponsored and contributed by a Patch Community Partner. The views expressed in this post are the author's own, and the information presented has not been verified by Patch.

By Rick Longinotti

“When parking revenue can be used for affordable housing, the choice really is: House people or cars?”

The evolution of the Library-Garage-Mixed Use project says a lot about the City priorities regarding affordable housing. In December, 2016, City staff proposed a library and 640 space parking garage with no affordable housing. In September, 2018, the City Council approved the concept of a library with 600 space parking garage. Eliminating 40 parking spaces would leave space for a token amount of affordable housing. In June, 2020 the City Council approved a concept of a library and 400 space garage with minimum 50 units of low income housing. Fifty is more than a token, but far fewer affordable units than would be possible without the garage.

Designers tell us that the space needed for two parking spaces (including ramps) is equivalent to a one-bedroom apartment. If the proposed mixed-used project had 100 parking spaces instead of 400, there would be room for an additional 150 apartments.

Market rate units in this project compete with affordable units for space. The Council’s concept includes market rate residential units that would provide an additional $100,000/unit subsidy to raise $3 million additional funds for a larger library. That’s 30 market rate units that could otherwise be affordable units.

Worse than competition for space, parking competes with affordable housing for funds. Parking revenue can be used to build housing rather than parking. City staff estimate the bond debt on the garage at $2.9 million per year for 30 years. That amount of money dwarfs the $3 million that the City currently has in its Affordable Housing Trust Fund. When parking revenue can be used for affordable housing, the choice really is: House people or cars?

Promoters of the parking garage have claimed that it will enable new affordable housing projects to be built, by allowing the City to waive requirements that affordable housing developers build parking onsite. However, recent state legislation relieves parking requirements for affordable housing developments within a half-mile of a transit station.

Residents of Downtown are allowed to purchase permits for overnight parking in City garages. Check out the Downtown garages at night. Overnight there are approximately 1500 empty parking spaces. We don’t need to build another 400 spaces to allow residents to park overnight.

For years affordable housing developers such as First Community Housing in San Jose have been negotiating reduced parking requirements for their developments, while offering tenants free bus passes. According to their website, “A structured parking space costs approximately $50,000. FCH spends less than $65,000 for passes on our 13 properties in Santa Clara County!”

In the July 7th Santa Cruz Sentinel, I described how City staff misled the Council about the conclusions of the consultant, Nelson\Nygaard, and how the consultant’s final report has never been brought to the Council. In the May 18th Santa Cruz Sentinel, I described how taking on a 30-year debt to finance the parking structure would put Downtown business owners at risk at the worst possible time. For more info, see GarageAlternatives.org.

Do you want to bet whether the City Council will heed the consultants who recommend against garage construction, and the community members who are asking for fiscal responsibility, climate action, and letting the Farmers Market stay in place? I’m hedging my bet, working to re-elect Councilmember Sandy Brown and elect some inspiring women, Kayla Kumar and Kelsey Hill.

This is a sponsored post contributed by a Patch Community Partner, a local sponsor. To learn more, click here.