|
| Channels |
News
Arts & Leisure
Sports
Business
Opinion
Dining
Gardening
Travel
Classifieds
Jobs
Community
Events
Forums
TV Listings
Community
 |
| Affordable housing in Sedona. |
The Fondamenta of Sedona
News Analysis
by Cyndy Hardy
SEDONA, Nov. 28, 2008 – At first, Sedona’s
dusty terra firma couldn’t seem more antipodal from
Venice, Italy’s fluid notoriety.
Some similarities are apparent: both cities depend
on a tourism economy; Venice has gondolas, Sedona
has Jeeps. But a striking similarity appeared in a
February 2008 article published on Drexel
University’s The Smart Set:
“As early as 1882 Henry James noted that the place
‘scarcely exists any more as a city at all…[but]
only as a battered peep-show and bazaar;’ ravaged by
the visitors who were nevertheless its sustenance.
And for a century the whole trick of Venetian life
lay in trying to contain the crowds, to funnel them
along a few streets … ,” Michael Gorra wrote.
“Few erstwhile Venetians can afford to live here,
like cops and schoolteachers in Westchester; the
rental market is too strong, the demand for second
homes as well. It is a city where the local life has
been trimmed away by the costs of its own pickled
beauty.”
‘Fondamenta’ is something of a sidewalk, in Venice.
The word also means ‘foundation.’
Cops and teachers can’t afford to live in Sedona,
either, according to a report from the Arizona
Governor’s 2008 Housing Forum. The median hourly
wage for Sedona police is $22; it takes more than
$67 per hour to afford a median-priced Sedona home,
according to the report.
The Sedona Housing Commission estimates that about
70 percent of Sedona’s workforce is in the service
industry. The commission also estimates that roughly
60 percent of the entire workforce commutes from
other communities.
More than 10 years ago, when tales of random acts of
kindness were commonplace and the city shut down its
main arterial road for the annual St. Patrick’s Day
parade, residents saw a need for affordable housing;
and wrote it into the city’s community plan.
The idealistic why-should-I-care is that ‘community’
is a common theme amongst city officials, civic
organizations, workers, businesses and residents.
Sedona simply hasn’t defined what it means.
To generalize, ‘community’ evokes an image of
camaraderie amongst neighbors; and sometimes means a
place where people of diverse social and economic
backgrounds can work, serve, play and live.
The practical why-should-I-care is that local
businesses are having a tough time finding
employees, because neighboring communities can offer
better rent prices along with jobs that don’t
require the commute, according to Housing Commission
Chairwoman Linda Martinez, at a joint meeting with
the Sedona City Council last week.
In past years, commission members thought the
practical reason would be an easier sell to affluent
residents who often associate ‘affordable’ with
blight. They even spun the pitch by calling it
‘workforce’ housing and targeting ‘essential’
workers like police, teachers and nurses.
‘Easier’ is a relative term.
Since its inception in late 2002, the Housing
Commission’s accomplishments have been formidable.
The city now has a study that shows the state of
housing affordability; a Housing Policy; and an
ordinance that allows mixed residential and
commercial uses.
The commission has also forged relationships with
neighboring communities, the state and some
nonprofit housing advocates.
But the attrition of affordable housing units has
eclipsed efforts to preserve or create new units,
partly because the state doesn’t allow cities to
pass laws that require developers to build them. The
best local governments can do is to dangle voluntary
carrots – such as waiving fees, easing building
restrictions, and negotiating for zone changes.
The commission took a beating in 2008 when the
public and the Sedona Planning & Zoning Commission
rejected a proposed text amendment to the community
plan, which would have allowed limited density
increases for commercial development projects that
include affordable housing. Officials said the
amendment probably wouldn’t work for many
development projects, but it would have been another
tool in the toolbox.
Public outcry against the measure was fueled by
misinformation – possibly intentional, Housing
Commission members hinted.
Ms. Martinez said that many employers and others
have stated support for the commission’s efforts,
yet they haven’t shown up at meetings, where the
political decision-makers are looking into the faces
of the opposition.
Maybe the public couldn’t get past the word
‘density.’ Maybe the proposed amendment wasn’t
fleshed out enough. Maybe the city didn’t explain it
well enough. Maybe they just didn’t have as good a
strategy as the naysayers dressed in watch-dog
clothing.
The set-back sent a weary, if not wary, commission
back to the table with the City Council last week
for its annual face-to-face to discuss next year’s
work plan.
There were two elephants in the room that night,
pardon the trendy buzz phrase. Do people who can’t
afford Sedona’s housing prices have a place in this
community beyond punching the time clock? And, what
does the commission have to do to get the proponents
to participant in the affordable housing discussion?
Dan Surber, who served on the commission before
being elected to the City Council this year, said
the commission’s role is to research and advise –
not to advocate. His frustration that housing
advocates are missing in action was shared by many.
Mayor Rob Adams said part of the problem may be that
the city often uses jargon that the public may not
understand. Ms. Martinez said many supporters simply
don’t have time, compared to many opponents who are
often retired and do have the time.
The video accompanying this article hopefully
illustrates some of the gaps between how officials
and the public see the issue.
Interestingly, William Schwab’s main request wasn’t
for more affordable housing. It was for some support
in dealing with property owners as a renter. Tyrell
Sweeten said he’d like to know how someone ‘like
him’ can get involved.
If the answer to the first ‘elephant’ question is
‘yes,’ then the city; the developers; the naysayers;
the “little people,” as Shonda Hulett puts it in the
video; and their silent supporters need to work
together on overcoming the significant obstacles and
find some solutions the community can live with.
Otherwise, the Housing Commission is wasting its
time. Let the free market take care of housing and
the eroding workforce.
Maybe Sedona can brand itself a ‘populated ghost
town’ and tourists can come watch history as it
happens.
Venice seems none the worse.
Copyright 2008. Cyndy Hardy. This article may not
be reproduced, reprinted or redistributed without
prior written permission from the author. Contact
the author at
cyndyhardy@msn.com.
#1 It is both
inappropriate and offensive for this issue to
still be on the table at this time of extreme
economic crisis. Many Sedona businesses are
shutting down. Tourism has rapidly declined.
City Council and staff needs to stop trying to
beat this dead horse and show that they are in
touch with reality. They should acknowledge that
they know gas prices have now declined
considerably since the Spring. They should get
serious about cutting their costs, rather than
inflating a currently non-issue of "affordable
housing" as a pressing problem.
"Affordable housing" occurs everywhere and not
just in Sedona. When most of us lived in
metropolitan areas, we were searching for either
rentals or places to purchase that we could
afford. We did not press our City Council's to
establish any kind of policy or law regarding
this, unless one could refer to "rent control"
as related to "affordable housing." Why is this
issue the only "social" concern? Why aren't the
following "social" issues addressed; public
transportation, recycling, garbage collection,
food and gas prices, etc.? Furthermore, why
isn't the City encouraging business owners to
pay their employees more?
The council member's assertion in the video that
if we don't have \"affordable housing" there
will be a plethora of million dollar houses is
nothing but pure drama. City staff should be
required to provide the exact breakdown of house
and rental prices in Sedona so that this matter
could be put into proper perspective. My house
is not a million dollar house and neither are
most of my neighbors.
If elected officials and City staff were
sincerely interested in serving the public, they
would stop acting like the emperor with no
clothes and openly acknowledge the recession and
address issues resulting from this hardship.
#2 Affordable housing is a problem in most attractive places in the US/world - not just Sedona. Many in the community feel the public discussion on workforce housing, means the community is subsidizing this housing by some means - subsidy, density, relaxed rules etc – many of which affect the community negatively as a whole. With the economy in a slump most people felt these issues were brought up as a ruse to make favorable changes for developers.
Maybe employers should be thinking of the housing issue in their competition for employees. They (not us) could provide these housing and transportation services themselves (as a group) or even pay better wages. Stop blaming residents and asking for handouts for developers or employers.
When my husband I went to work 30 years ago for a large company, they had assistance with finding rentals or housing purchases. The Housing Committee can do this service for Sedona. The Housing Committee should spend its time cataloging rentals (who said the employees had to buy??), be a go-between for housing and transportation information, and encourage employer responsibility here. The job fair for older workers was a great idea too; it brought out local people.
Most of us had to start this way at lower paid jobs, delay gratification or buy less home, and save our money to purchase better. The majority of housing in Sedona is not million dollar housing. In a free economy competition for good employees should mean higher wages or help with housing or some benefit. Subsidies are not a one-way street.
Only when a place is not attractive (whether industrial sites, next to landfills, far from places to work etc) is the housing really affordable for everyone. No one wants to live there either.
#3 The article was very
appropo (Venice), but the slide into the
affordable housing (AH) argument was not. I'm
sorry! Having listened to the Housing Commission
for 4 years, the invalid args at the start are
still invalid today.
(1) They use gee-whiz averages that sound good,
but if you pull the actual reports (theirs), the
data doesn't work for what they're selling.
Specifically the literal count of workers that
could afford the 'affordable' proposals is
minimal. It's fake benefits. That's why I and
Terry Trujillo and others kept asking 'who' is
the beneficiary?
(2) The commission uses policies that insure
poor results. The most obvious was when no limit
was placed on size of residential units over
commercial (which would later chew into the
city's density limit). The demand that
affordable housing be on-site is similar. I
asked a developer if he'd be willing to take his
$2 million in claimed AH benefit and simply help
build less expensive housing (twice the
benefit). He said no, citing the commission's
policy.
(3) The commission (though I suspect city staff)
decided to combine the second most sensitive
subject in Sedona (density) with the third most
sensitive subject (AH) thinking that somehow the
two together would sell in Sedona. As a former
exec for a large corporation, that is what you
do when you want to KILL programs. That's why I
suspected AH wasn't the goal of the proposal.
(4) The commission generally targets affordable
neighborhoods for its AH solutions. It argues
necessity. I don't agree, since it's false
logic, demanding that less well-off folks 'fund'
the problems of the better-off (general
community and business owners). On the recent
density bonus amendment, the cynicism was too
much, and I asked that residential areas be
removed.
(5) I generally credit 'the public' with more
wisdom than they're normally credited. High-end
communities are generally not where you solve
your AH problem. If Sedona was 'so' interested
in its workers, it would fund more appropriate
transportation for its workforce (the V-Valley
being more affordable, not just housing, but all
manner of livability issues).
(6) During the density amendment period, I heard
staff say often that opponents were mounting a
dis-information campaign. I disagree. Most of
the concerns of the opponents were correct, and
much of the answers by city staff and the
Housing Commission were not correct. I base that
on having asked the same questions and received
the same non-answers.
If you think I'm against AH, you'd be mistaken.
When in Dallas Tx during the years of
'white-flight', we refused to leave growing
minority neighborhoods, because it would hurt
the new minority residents. Others like us
agreed, and after about 15 years, we had a nice
mixed area and low crime. But when we sold to
retire, we lost over $100,000 in equity in a hot
market. At the time we thought it was worth it,
and we still do. People matter.
When we investigated living in Sedona, we
literally drove out here and researched AH
programs in the area, though we don't
need/qualify. But it tells you a lot about the
community. Both VOC (at the time) and Cottonwood
had good programs. Sedona none, and 4 years
later not much has changed (referring to
effective programs).
I really agree with Lin Ennis (not to misquote I
hope); much of the problem is in pursuing
programs, instead of actual results.
|
|
|
