Blog Post < Previous | Next >
Marin Post
The Marin Post Affordable Housing Survey Results
On October 9th, the Marin Post published its first of a series of community opinion surveys. We received over 100 responses.
The “Affordable Housing in Marin” survey asked three questions: (1) What type of affordable housing is needed in the towns along the highway 101 corridor; (2) What is the best way to plan for affordable housing?; and (3) If affordable housing requires subsidy to be financially feasible, prioritize the methods you feel are best.
The survey takers were asked to make selections from a range of choices, from “Least needed” to “Most needed” or “Worst method” to “Best method.” You can view the final results by clicking here.
The results were revealing.
For Question #1, regarding the types of affordable housing needed, the vast majority ranked “Preserve existing affordable housing” and “Conversion of existing buildings to housing” as their top choices. 79% said preservation was either “most” or “more” needed and 64% said more conversion of existing buildings was needed.
The next two strongest categories were support for more senior housing and more multifamily infill projects. Strikingly, the most opposed form of affordable housing was large-scaled multifamily development, with over 88% of those polled naming it as the least desirable option.
For Question #2, regarding the best way to plan for affordable housing, almost 85% of survey takers said “Local bottom up control of zoning and planning” was the correct method, and tellingly, not a single person surveyed supported “Top down planning and zoning by state and regional agencies.” Approximately, 14% supported “A coordinated mix of both.”
Finally, for Question #3, regarding how to finance affordable housing development the survey takers resoundingly opposed “Property taxes and fees” (92%), “Sales taxes” (68%) and “Gas taxes” (76%). There was also strong opposition to “Federal and state subsidy to developers” (64%). The biggest support was for financing via “Federal and state funding to cities” (69%) and “Fees paid by developers” (58%). Other methods mostly fell somewhere in the middle, except for the use of “General Obligation bonds,” which was considered a “Less desirable” method by 44%.
These sentiments will come as no surprise to those who have been attending public hearings and workshops over the past few years. Unsurprisingly, many of our elected officials still seem hesitant to accept these results.
However, what this survey also shows is very strong support for the idea of providing affordable housing, just in different forms than state and regional agencies are envisioning.
For example, Marin has no lack of opportunities to preserve existing affordable housing (the most cost effective method available) or to provide incentives for conversion of existing buildings to housing uses. There are also many opportunities for appropriately scaled infill multifamily housing developments. But, all these need public policies that are conducive and incentives to enable their realization.