Rethinking the moratorium

OPINION

The March 1 edition of the Guardian calls for a market-rate housing moratorium in the eastern neighborhoods as part of an attempt to slow the speed of gentrification and displacement. But it might not be the best solution to the problem. In the interest of furthering the debate, here's the "other side" — three reasons why the Guardian should rethink the moratorium.

1. SPRAWL IS AN IMPORTANT PROGRESSIVE ISSUE

A local moratorium on market-rate housing construction doesn't just affect San Francisco. Population growth in California will happen whether we want it or not; the only choice we have is where people will live. The best place to direct new growth that is destined for Northern California is into the central cities: Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco, and Sacramento. If we force the housing to the suburban fringe, we lose the Central Valley to sprawl, put people where they are forced to drive cars, keep demand for fossil fuels high, and reinforce global warming.

The consequences of sprawl are also deeply political — the exurban fringe tends to vote conservative, while the cities vote progressive. By shirking density in the city, we make our society more conservative and more oil-dependent. By embracing density, we have a chance to change the country in fundamental ways.

2. THE SUPPLY OF FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS FINITE

We need to be doing everything possible to increase the supply of below-market-rate housing. But we do not have nearly enough money to pay for the amount we need. It takes around $200,000 in subsidies to build each affordable housing unit. Helping just 10,000 families would cost $2 billion. Not very many people can be helped if this is our only strategy.

The other strategy is inclusionary housing, where market-rate developments are required to provide a certain number of affordable units. San Francisco's inclusionary housing program has already generated $18 million dollars of affordable housing funds. If the projects currently under planning review all move forward, an additional 1,325 inclusionary housing units will be created over the next few years. A moratorium on market-rate housing renders this successful program totally useless.

3. INCREASING THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING IS PART OF THE ANSWER

Slowing gentrification is a huge priority for our city. But the root cause of gentrification is the simple fact that a lot of people want to live here and are competing with each other for the available homes. A moratorium on new housing actually makes gentrification and displacement worse.

San Francisco might never construct enough housing to drive down the price of an average unit to a price that a low-income family can afford. But it is possible to fix the housing market enough so that moderate-income people can afford to live in a market-rate unit — saving San Francisco from becoming just a vacation land for trust funders and retirees. No one is arguing that the supply solution is the whole answer. But it is a part. *

Gabriel Metcalf

Gabriel Metcalf is executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.