What ADUs can & can't do

A couple memos published by the Housing Department in the past week offer useful case studies in the tradeoffs to consider when we spend tax dollars on affordable housing.

Both memos were in response to City Council directives; Council asked city staff to explore some housing idea and come up with ways to implement it. And in both cases, I think Council is pursuing what Ezra Klein, co-author of Abundance, would describe as the "Everything Bagel" approach to policymaking. Personally I don't think the analogy works, since Everything Bagels work out fine. I think "hot sauce on a hot fudge sundae" better conveys the idea of trying to do too much.

Anyway, today I'm going to focus on the first one: Helping low/moderate income homeowners build ADUs. Tomorrow I'll focus on another that deals with creating affordable homeownership opportunities through community land trusts.

So, ADUs: The Council resolution asked staff to explore ways to help struggling homeowners build a second rent-generating unit on their property. This was pitched as an "anti-displacement" strategy. In theory a homeowner who is struggling to pay their monthly bill –– rising taxes, a drop in income –– may be able to stay in place if they're able to build a rental unit on their lot.

That is a tall order. Previous Council resolutions (there have been been at least three) had contemplated making it even taller by requiring the resulting ADU to be "affordable" to those at or below 60% of the area median income.