Every eight years, California tells each city how much low-income housing they must build. The process is called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
Eureka, a coastal city of just over 25,000 in Humboldt County, was most recently with creating nearly 400 homes affordable to low- and very-low income residents .
And around four years ago, the city created a plan to do just that. The idea: build low-income housing on 14 city-owned parking lots.
鈥淩eally, to the city's credit, it did a good job in this whole process and the plan is actually going to produce housing, which a lot of other cities in the state can't really say,鈥� says Dylan Casey with the non-profit California Housing Defense Fund.
The parking-lot plan might seem like a no-brainer. Eureka gets more affordable housing and a denser, more walkable downtown 鈥� a step towards what鈥檚 sometimes called a 鈥�15-minute city鈥� where basic amenities are a short stroll away. It would be a small win against generations of car-focused building.
But things are more complicated down on the pavement.
鈥淚'm not opposed to a 15-minute city. I just don't know if that's the absolute best thing that can happen to Eureka,鈥� says Michael Munson, local business owner and co-sponsor of the Housing for All and Downtown Vitality Initiative, or , which goes to city voters next month. It says any new housing on those city-owned lots must also build space for parking, like a ground-floor garage, to make up for what would be lost plus whatever is needed for new residents. If passed, it would be a big red light for the city鈥檚 housing scheme.
鈥淲e believe that, yes, we need housing. We need it downtown. But we also need to do it smart and we need to provide parking for those units that are coming in,鈥� says Munson.
His campaign thinks getting rid of downtown parking will hurt businesses. Customers use that parking, he explains. After all, the car still reigns supreme in Eureka.
On an overcast day in September, Munson drove a tour of the properties at the center of this debate.
鈥淭his parking lot right here is 鈥�5th and D.鈥� This one's鈥� where the story really started as far as parking lots go,鈥� says Munson.
What鈥檚 so important about this parcel is that just down the street are offices for the real-estate company Security National Properties. The business provides a lot of well-paying jobs in Eureka, precious in an area where good timber and fishing careers have disappeared. Employees at Security National use the 鈥�5th and D鈥� parking lot.
And the company鈥檚 president, Rob Arkley, really cares about parking. His company has into the Measure F campaign.
Arkley, who declined an interview for this story, is someone that many have an opinion about in Eureka. He鈥檚 to the local high school, zoo and performing arts center. But he also kicked up controversy after vocally opposing a city plan to return land on the Tuluwat Island, site of a massacre of Native Americans in 1860, to the Wiyot Tribe. And he was a character in a Supreme Court ethics scandal involving Justice Samuel Alito. An investigation by Alito stayed free-of-charge at a luxury Alaskan fishing lodge owned by Arkley and didn't report the gift, as required.
Soloman Everta, a Eureka bookstore owner and member of the committee, has opinions about Arkley.
鈥淭his is some weird vendetta that a multi-millionaire has against the city doing anything that's progressive and moves our community forward,鈥� says Everta, whose group has only raised around $20,000.
Everta isn鈥檛 just against a multi-millionaire throwing his weight around in local politics. He thinks Measure F is designed to torpedo the city鈥檚 plan for low-income housing due to its burdensome requirement for new parking.
鈥淲hat it does is it makes the development of those parcels cost prohibitive for anyone to develop and so it keeps them being parking lots, which is not the best use of those parcels that the city has,鈥� says Everta.
He says there could be real consequences if Eureka doesn鈥檛 meet its housing goal mandated by that Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The California Housing Defense Fund, which is clear to not take sides on Measure F, saying that if the initiative passes then the city could fall out of compliance with that housing mandate. If that happens, Eureka could face fines and lose grant money.
鈥淎nybody that follows through the logic of this can see, on the face of it, it's going to be a bad deal,鈥� says Everta.
This whole debate around Measure F isn鈥檛 just about parking. It鈥檚 also about what kind of housing should go downtown, among the old Victorian-style buildings and boutique shops that attract tourists.
Michael Munson, the Measure F supporter, thinks low-income housing will change the character of the city鈥檚 old quarter. Those new residents that move into apartments stacked over former parking lots, he reasons, won鈥檛 have the money to stimulate the right kind of economy.
鈥淚 think there's some people who believe that, 鈥業f you build it, they will come.鈥� And I know this, if you build low-income housing, they will come as well,鈥� says Munson.
Measure F would also create new zoning overlays to allow high-density residential building on the other side of Eureka, not far from subsidized housing that already exists. The neighborhood Munson has in mind is decidedly less Victorian.
鈥淚 have a hard time believing they're gonna put really nice construction [in]. They're gonna do it as efficiently as possible. And you know, 50 years might just be the lifespan for that. What happens in 50 years when they're dilapidated? What do we have?鈥� says Munson.
There鈥檚 something else that may happen if Eureka fails to build more affordable housing as mandated by the state. That scenario could activate the 鈥渂uilder鈥檚 remedy鈥� which allows developers to ignore local zoning, like height restrictions, to build residential projects as long as at least 20% of those units are affordable. The loophole allowed, to the distress of local government, a developer to propose an 18-story complex in Santa Monica recently.
If the builder鈥檚 remedy kicks in, Eureka鈥檚 skyline could change regardless of Measure F or the city鈥檚 parking-lot plans 鈥� and that wouldn鈥檛 be up to a vote.
