The shortage of housing and sky-high home prices are a widely acknowledged fact of life in San Diego — and across California. The heated debate over a planned residential tower in north Pacific Beach is a microcosm of the struggle to build adequate housing in such a climate.
The proposed development at 970 Turquoise Street would consist of 213 units (10 of which would be designated for very-low- to middle-income households), shops on the ground floor and 311 parking spaces. Adding to the rancor among opponents of the project is the fact that the building would have 22 stories and stand 239 feet tall. Developers would take advantage of California’s State Density Bonus Law, which would allow the project to bypass the city’s longstanding 30-foot height limit that has existed in the Coastal Zone, covering coastal areas west of Interstate 5, excluding the downtown area, since voters passed Proposition D in 1972.
This all led to dueling rallies in July where locals voiced their opinions on the development. Roughly 500 people showed up to a rally organized by local advocacy group Neighbors for a Better California to oppose the project. A much smaller group of about 15 housing advocates showed their support for the project and greater housing options in general.
There is no denying that more housing is badly needed in San Diego and throughout California. San Diego aims to build just over 108,000 new housing units by 2029, based on the state’s most recent Regional Housing Needs Assessment. As a recent 10News.com report from local ABC affiliate KGTV notes, however, the city would have to triple its current rate of housing production to meet the target.
“Telling people to move to East County if they want opportunity is not only dismissive but undermines the inclusive, forward-thinking vision our community deserves,” Henry Bubbins, lead organizer of local advocacy group Respect Bird Rock and board member of the La Jolla Community Planning Association, recently told the La Jolla Light.
“We need diverse housing options — not just luxury homes with four-car garages — to ensure families of all income levels can afford to live in coastal communities like Pacific Beach and La Jolla,” he added.
The “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) attitude has long been an obstacle to development in California. The term has always been a bit of a misnomer, however. If it was really just their backyards that locals were concerned about, they would be fully justified in controlling what was happening on their own property. The problem is that NIMBYs actually want to dictate what happens in other people’s backyards. But “not in my general vicinity” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, or the same moral clarity and implications.
Opponents of the project do raise some valid concerns about the development, particularly over traffic congestion, but that still does not mean that they should have veto power over someone else’s property.
This is not to say that there should be no limitations on development whatsoever. For example, the concept of nuisance, which has a long history in common law, protects the use and enjoyment of residents’ homes from indirect harms. So, for example, one cannot build a factory spewing noxious fumes in an existing residential area.
There are also voluntary arrangements that can be used to protect “the character of the community” that do not infringe upon the property rights of others. Homeowners associations are set up to enforce covenants, conditions and restrictions that establish architectural and home maintenance guidelines (like keeping yards free of large weeds or requiring home exteriors to be repainted every so often) and limit certain uses of properties in order to maintain higher property values and community character. This arrangement is a much better solution than imposing top-down, heavy-handed restrictions citywide, or over a large swath of the city, oftentimes against the wishes of many current and prospective property owners.
NIMBYism is just one obstacle to building anything in California. Local zoning laws, prevailing (union) wage mandates, unnecessary building codes, restrictive environmental regulations, lengthy project reviews and excessive development impact fees all serve to restrict the supply of housing and drive up prices, making housing less affordable than it would be in a truly free market. Coastal San Diego will always command a premium for its beauty, great weather and access to some of the nation’s best beaches. But government restrictions and regulations, and an “I got mine” attitude that dismisses the desires of others to live in such a place, unjustly dash the dreams of far too many who would otherwise call San Diego home.
Summers is a columnist, economist and public policy analyst, and a former editorial writer for the Orange County Register / Southern California News Group.