Public Comment

City Councilmember Kate Harrison is a Champion for Affordable Housing

Marian Wolfe, Ph.D and Nico Calavita, Professor Emeritus, San Diego State University
Thursday October 18, 2018 - 03:13:00 PM

We were shocked when we read the October 10, 2018 Opinion piece on Berkeleyside.com claiming that Kate Harrison’s housing policies result in making housing less affordable We have known Kate since she was on the Housing Advisory Commission. We would never describe her in the way that this editorial did. We have continued to work with Kate on affordable housing policies once she was elected to the Council. Let us explain why we disagree.

First, the opinion piece implies that Councilmember Harrison’s position on community benefits is one of the reasons why there is not more downtown development. We have worked on and researched community benefits in many other contexts and we could not disagree more. These benefits have been carefully negotiated between the City and the development community over several years in Berkeley, following passage of the Downtown Area Plan in 2010 (Measure R). Kate has said repeatedly that she supported Measure R and was not in favor of later measures to amend it.

The concept of community benefits stems from the theory of “Land Value Recapture” which is explained in a White Paper we co-wrote: "When land is up-zoned or a plan updated to allow greater intensity of development, the value of the land generally increases. Most of this increase in value is the result of a public action (such as the approval of the downtown plan) and not the landowner’s. When understood in this light, a strong argument can be made for the public to receive a reasonable share of the increased land value, to be used for community benefits.” 

Since there are impacts on the existing community from high rise developments, public benefits are needed. One example of community impacts is to require that new projects either provide affordable housing units on-site or pay housing mitigation fees. Other benefit categories include arts and culture, street and open space improvements, environmentally friendly infrastructure, and social services. 

It is important to remember that before a development is required to provide public benefits, economic (or pro forma) analyses are conducted by a third party, so that the benefits will not impede development. This seems like a “win-win” for both the developer and the public. 

Once downtown projects are approved, it still takes many years to start construction. An example of such a project is Modara Acheson Commons. It is now under construction, five years after it was approved.. Also under construction is a high rise hotel. Given that there are two downtown buildings that are under construction and which are providing negotiated benefits, requiring public benefits by itself is not a public policy that renders a project infeasible. 

Secondly, another type of residential development referred to in the Opinion piece are new subsidized properties that contain only affordable housing units. Kate has championed for these types of developments by increasing the housing mitigation fee (required of market rate projects that do not provide affordable units on-site).  

Kate is also responsible for encouraging a transfer tax measure that is now on the November ballot (Measure P) that will raise taxes for services for the homeless, among other uses. ) Dr. Wolfe worked with Kate to do the background research on the transfer tax, which was suggested by her and the Mayor’s Housing Task Force as an important strategy.  

Although there is an affordable bond measure (Measure O) on the ballot that residents should support , funds from Measure P can be used for services and operations and not only for capital expenditures which is what Measure O would fund. 

It is absurd to declare that Kate Harrison is against affordable housing. What the writers of the opinion piece are really objecting to is that she does not rubber stamp any housing development that comes in front of City Council, regardless of the impact that the development might have on the City’s Quality of Life. Community benefits, parking ratios, height limits and other planning regulations are there to protect our communities in the face of growth and should not be sacrificed. And by the way, in the case of true affordable housing projects, Kate is certainly willing to reduce regulations, reasonably. 

Finally, the Opinion piece mentions two of the commissioners that Kate appointed and by association, the Opinion article assumes that their views are hers as well. Although commissioners are appointed by city councilmembers, commissioners are independent Berkeley residents and make their own choices. As commissioners, we may not always agree with the councilmember who appoints us, and this independence is one of the positive outcomes of a democracy. We should not “label” our councilmembers based on commissioners that they appoint. 

A decision-maker has to balance conflicting public goals. Kate has already demonstrated that she is a hard working leader who is excellent at relentlessly pushing for more affordable housing while protecting our “Quality of Life” in Berkeley. 


Marian Wolfe, Ph.D. is Acting Chair of Berkeley’s Housing Advisory Commission, an RCD Board Member, occasional lecturer at UC Berkeley, and an Affordable Housing Consultant. 

Nico Calavita, is Professor Emeritus, San Diego State University and a Berkeley resident.