Everyone agrees it’s a problem, but no one’s doing anything about it: Article 34 of the California Constitution is widely viewed today as a stain on the state’s history, and for good reason — the ballot measure was championed by the real estate industry in 1950 as a tool to “combat socialism” at the height of McCarthyism and approved by voters fearful of racial integration.
Article 34 banned the use of public funds to construct “low-rent housing” without the consent of city voters in an attempt to stop people of color and poor people from moving into white neighborhoods. Media outlets have reported that no other state constitution in the country requires the same voter approval for public housing.
Opinion
That’s why we were dismayed to read recently that state lawmakers will not be putting Article 34 up for voter consideration in 2024. State Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, said the presidential ballot was already too crowded and the repeal measure he authored didn’t seem to be anyone’s top priority.
“It just doesn’t feel like the right time,” he told the Los Angeles Times in June .
But if not now, then when? Article 34 has stymied the production of affordable homes in California for decades, and the disparity between affordable and market rate housing is now reaching a crisis point. There are few issues as urgent as this one.
In 2021, the California Housing Partnership concluded that the state needs to build 1.2 million affordable homes to meet the needs of low-income renters. The state has made progress since then, tripling the production of affordable homes. But it’s still only meeting 20% of its long-term affordable housing goals.
When confronted with these numbers, officials have been quick to note that there are workarounds to building affordable housing. There are, for example, federal and state tax credits that can be showered on developers. But the workarounds are inadequate, as evidenced by the growing deficit in affordable housing.
Even if no one wants to say it out loud, solutions like tax credits produce a minimum of affordable housing while amplifying developer’s profits. The conclusion is painfully obvious: We can’t build ourselves out of an affordability crisis with tax giveaways.
No doubt there are plenty of people who will read about the lack of affordable homes, shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh well, California is an expensive place.” But as time goes by, who’s going to care for your children, cook your meals, take out your trash and drive you to the airport? The sprawling, segregated society that the cynics excuse is wholly unsustainable for the vast majority of people.
Abolishing Article 34 wouldn’t solve everything overnight, but it would get rid of a barrier born of fear and greed, and push us to fight for every possible unit of affordable housing.
As advocates today, our options are limited — even on city-owned land.
Consider an example in San Diego: The Mariner’s Cove Apartment Complex is a mixed-income community about a mile from the ocean and home to almost 300 working-families, many of them first-generation immigrants and refugees. A developer is proposing that all 500 units at Mariner’s Cove be demolished and replaced with 772 units. We support more housing, but the latest iteration of the plan available for public inspection shows that the ratio of affordable to market rate homes on site will flip after construction.
Since the 1980s, the owner of the apartment complex was required to keep 60% of the units affordable. After construction, however, the total amount of affordable housing would drop to 40%, and nearly all of the new units would be reserved for above-moderate income renters and anyone capable of paying market rate.
This is what happens when public leaders throw up their hands and cede control over public infrastructure to private interests at the mercy of market fluctuations: The affordable housing gap widens bit by bit.
There are, however, encouraging signs of dissent. In 2022, Oakland abandoned plans for a market-rate tower on an empty one-acre lot, and, instead, pushed through two low-income apartment buildings after tapping a new nonprofit developer with access to state funds. For years, activists rallied around the site and even drew up a “people’s proposal” for 100% low-income housing.
We should be pushing to remove obstacles on all fronts. If we’re serious about building more affordable housing, repealing Article 34 is a good first step.
Ramla Sahid is the founder and executive director of the nonprofit Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans (PANA). Rahmo Abdi is PANA’s director of campaigns and organizing.
Local News
