by Bob Pinzler
Homelessness may be one of the most powerful political issues facing local officials today. As with inflation, it is one of those “third rails” that, on the surface, seems like a simple problem to solve. Yet, as the eminently quotable H. L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”
One of the brainstorms from the California Legislature on this issue was the concept of Accessory Housing Units (ADUs). According to the legislatures, these additional dwellings on existing single family lots would increase the supply of housing, reduce prices and enable people on the streets to become housed.
Well, it hasn’t quite worked out that way. The South Bay Council of Governments released a study last week regarding the way ADUs have been implemented in its eight member cities.
The report indicates that by no means are ADUs achieving the purpose of the State lawmakers who saw this as a panacea.
The cost for these rental ADUs averages 50% higher than the cost of what would be considered a “low income” three-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles. These ADUs are not nearly that size, so the affordability goal hoped for is not being achieved.
Another substantial use of ADUs is for family members. (Remember, the original name for these properties was “granny flats.”) Generally, these are being used at no cost. And while it may be nice to offer a relative a place to stay, the study reveals that having these additional units has exacerbated another problem: parking. Ninety five percent of all ADU occupants have a car. But only 23% of those landlords offer a parking space. This is adding to a severe problem of crowded street parking on already narrow residential streets.
A concomitant issue is that use of public transit has not increased due to the expansion of ADUs. This was another key element in the legislature’s considerations when authorizing these housing units.
The lofty goals of Sacramento often produce results other than hoped for when implemented at the local level. Other highly disruptive concepts being newly enacted into law could easily see the same fate, while forever changing the “quality of life” people have come to expect from the place they chose to put down roots.
It is a difficult challenge for both Sacramento and the local officials being forced to implement those new rules. More communication and flexibility by both parties would be helpful, Whether that will happen is, of course, problematic. ER