Note: What is shown below is a copy of the original letter, made for this website. It is included here only so that the contents of the original letter can be searchable. (The PDF received from the City is in the form of an image, and so is not a searchable document.)

What is below is not the letter sent by the letter-writer. It may contain typographical errors and other departures from the original. The PDF displayed above is accurate. The text below is not accurate. It is printed here for indexing purposes, so that each word can be indexed and included in the search.

I am commenting as a private citizen, not as a member of the city’s TSC. I strongly support Gateway District development as a walkable, bikeable, mixed use area that increases the city’s supply of housing but am disappointed at the anemic inclusionary housing provisions which would make this new area an enclave for the privileged. A vibrant community requires mixed incomes as well as mixed uses.
I do support the plan’s requirement for a percentage of affordable units. This should not simply be an optional “community benefit” to be rewarded with additional building height because California’s Density Bonus Law already does that. But the requirement needs to be high enough to be more than a gesture. When I hear the word Gateway I imagine a grand archway open to everyone, but a comparison of the plan’s inclusionary requirements with those of other jurisdictions in the CA Inclusionary Housing Searchable Database makes me think more of a gated community.
According to the factsheet Meeting California’s Needs: Best Practices for Inclusionary Housing from the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the average percentage of affordable units required in city and county ordinances is 15%, compared with 3% in the current plan. Most jurisdictions start their requirements at project sizes greater than 5 units, not 30, so developers won’t develop 29 units to evade the rules. Alternative options like in lieu fees must be provided in accordance with state law and can be used by developers of small projects. If we can’t be leaders in this space, at least let’s not be laggers.
Over the years I’ve worked hard to help patients who are disabled and homeless obtain benefits and it’s been disheartening to see them still living in the bushes on SSI because they still can’t find housing within their means. I’ve also seen many talented young people who were contributing to our community leave because they couldn’t afford housing. COVID has made us aware of how essential essential workers really are. Low income, and certainly moderate income, as defined in the housing world, includes people who are essential to our community like teachers, bus drivers, people who work in our health facilities, and employees of nonprofits just to name a few.
With local developments like Cal Poly, offshore wind, the trans Pacific data cable, and other projects attracting and climate change driving people to our area, Arcata will not have to lowball its
affordable housing requirements to attract developers. While I don’t want to see the Gateway plan drag out, the affordability provisions need more community discussion and research.
Thanks,
Wendy Ring MD, MPH
Stories of climate action from the bottom up with Cool Solutions Podcast