Work Force Housing

Monterey has changed in the thirty years I have lived here - very much for the better. Growth has been limited, hotel construction curtailed, parks built, downtown redeveloped, historic buildings and districts preserved, and the coast opened up to residents and visitors. The list of improvements is very long, by any measure. But one insidious change is not so welcome, and threatens to irrevocably change the character of the City.

I am informed that Monterey was once a city where most of the people who worked here, lived here. We had an integrated community, with a place for families of all income levels. Cannery workers lived up the hill in New Monterey. Fisherman lived up the hill in Old Town. Many could walk to work and to shopping, and traffic and "circulation" was not a problem. Schools were filled with Monterey children, and expanding. One did not have to have two upper middle class incomes to afford housing here.

With the exception of more cars, it is my perception that this was substantially the way it was when I arrived in 1974. Monterey was an economic center, with the character of a working town. It was a beautiful, historic city, but very livable and relatively inexpensive compared to Carmel and Pacific Grove. We have been very successful in limiting growth, expansion, and increased density since then, but the character of Monterey has changed.

Now many, if not the majority, of those who work here no longer live here. Conversely, some good income earners who live here commute to Salinas. Walk into your bank or grocery store and ask how many employees live here. In my suite of offices, only 3 out of 11 permanent workers live here. I don't think the city has accurate statistics on this, but it seems that Monterey has become an upper income community that needs workers from out of town to make the city work. We are more like a Beverly Hills enclave than we think.

One thing is certain - we are no longer an integrated community. Our population nearly doubles during the workday, and with all those people coming in or out during rush hour, traffic backs up. We can't blame tourists for this. We must blame ourselves for pursuing policies that have increasingly made Monterey a bedroom community.

A high priority of the City Council for many years has been to foster the creation of ownership units. New ownership units have been created on an infill basis or, for example, apartment units have been converted to condos. The City recently (June) approved the conversion of 10 two-bedroom apartment units in New Monterey, renting for around $2000 per month, to condo units selling for $600,000 to $700,000 each. The application was consistent with Council Policy. Is this a good idea? Will these condos be owner-occupied 5 years from now?

Yet despite this policy, the population of Monterey has declined in the past decade (by 6%) and the percent of owner-occupied homes in Monterey has declined from 52% in 1950 to an estimated 39% in 2000. Projections under present policies are that the percent of owner-occupied units will further decline to 25% in the future.

This is not a favorable trend. There are many reasons for the failure of this policy, but the bottom-line is that new ownership units are being bought up by investors, for appreciation. The supply cannot meet the demand, and never will as long as we correctly limit our boundaries and urban sprawl. But our limited growth policies have ignored the high growth in jobs in Monterey. Until we find a way to house our workforce, these trends will continue and the character and quality of life in Monterey will continue to deteriorate. Traffic will continue to get worse. School enrollment will continue to drop.

That is why we must get serious about creating housing for our work force. This is not a "regional problem" or one imposed upon us by an arbitrary allocation from AMBAG. It is a Monterey problem.

The best mitigation is higher density mixed-use development in selective areas of the city - already zoned "commercial" and not presenting view impacts to neighbors. With higher density, cost per unit comes down and rents become more affordable. By locating them in downtown or along arterial routes, access to public transportation is available to reduce parking requirements. And by granting density bonuses, and use permit height up to 35 feet, we can require a higher percentage of affordable units, and family accommodations.

The east downtown is the best site for these incentives, but other commercial areas of the city should have their fair share too. The architecture and feel of Alvarado Street could be extended down Franklin or Pearl to Lake El Estero. This would have a number of beneficial effects for the downtown. Pedestrian scale would dominate, with the Sports Center, Jacks Park, and the Tennis Center in the middle of this residential area. First floor retail could serve immediate residents. Old European cities of our size have been developed this way for centuries, as they have built to 3 or 4 floors, and resisted urban sprawl.

We cannot ignore the growth of our workforce any longer, nor the declining number of young families. We must change policies that have not worked, and move forward to returning Monterey to its historic status as an integrated community. Unless we do so, our quality of life will decline and we will eventually become a community of absentee investors, retirees and vacation home owners.