The Sacramento Bee has a story (behind a paywall) about a proposed mid-rise apartment building at 30th and T Street in Sacramento. The project is intended to provide affordable housing units. According to current federal income requirements for the region, someone with an annual salary of up to $72,050 (80% of the area's median income) would be be eligible to apply. The salary scale increases for every additional household member. The income requirements cover the so-called “missing middle” of low-wage workers who can neither qualify for subsidized housing for the unhoused, nor afford market rate units. According to the article, rents will range from $1,700 to $1,800 for 1-BR units and from $2,000 to $2,100 for 2-BR units. 

The current median rent for 1-BR units throughout Sacramento is $1,495. For a 2-BR unit, the median is $1,850. Though the anticipated prices for the proposed apartments are a bit on the high side, the location is one that, arguably, can save occupants money by not requiring a car because so many daily destinations are well within walking and biking distance and the area has decent transit service. So the units, while "affordable" are also in a desirable location. 

Both the County and the City of Sacramento have significant housing goals to meet. The article indicates that the City of Sacramento has significantly streamlined its permit process for the project. Here in the UnCity, though the County has its own streamlined housing approval process, the County has a well-known reputation for, let's just say, a "different" approach to project approvals - which makes the DMV look nimble and quick by comparison. It has been 11 years since the County adopted an Affordable Housing Ordinance, one that requires developers to pay a fee - an incentive for developers to recover costs by driving up prices for new market-rate units.

In. addition, the article says that the developer is working with the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Authority (SHRA, the city's housing agency) to line up grant funding for the project. SHRA has a dual housing agency obligation. It is the housing agency for Sacramento County as well as for the City of Sacramento. It's track record, though, has been one that consistently emphasizes projects for the City of Sacramento instead of the County.

Perhaps you are wondering why this sort of project is never proposed for our community. It's not hard to figure out the answer. For one thing, our community is not pedestrian/bicycle/transit friendly. Besides, the County: 

• has no vision for our community,
• is still stuck in the 1970's when strip malls were all the rage,
• lets developers do whatever they want to do, without concern for public sentiment,
• permits projects to happen wherever developers feel like doing it (like at Country Club Plaza, maybe?) instead of where it might make sense for the community,
• has yet to get SHRA pay serious attention to the needs of unincorporated area, thus letting  SHRA favor the City of Sacramento, and
• stands by while incorporated cities like Sacramento attract innovative projects.

It seems all our community is good for are 2 or 3-story low-end apartment complexes - like, say, the new ones west of Arden Fair except without the marginal amenities provided there. Apartments here are just thrown up all over the place, without regard for occupant access to shopping/services/schools/parks/activities and generally in conflict with adjacent land uses and traffic patterns. The developers of those apartments - likely to be pals of our decision makers - are given wide latitude. Our CPAC is inclined to love any development project, regardless of community sentiment about the proposal and is prone to send projects straight on to the Planning Commission. Most members of the County Planning Commission - composed of Supervisorial appointees as it is - are utterly unfamiliar with our community and what makes it tick. They tend to buy into whatever story the staff tells them. Those stories are usually scripted by the developer and embellished with the rubber stamp of the CPAC. As a result, we get 4-story self-storage places that block the sunlight for adjacent single-family dwellings, poorly-located, cookie-cutter apartment complexes, and single use projects that otherwise cry out for mixed use.

The proposed apartment building for 30th and T is not a high-rise structure, but it is tall enough that occupants can see - particularly if a shared rooftop gathering space is included - our gorgeous sunrises and sunsets, the striking annual canopy of fall color, and vistas of Mt. Diablo and the Sierras. That's a significant real estate value-addition that can justify the high costs of infill construction vs. sprawl into the sticks. For the County, however, that would require thinking outside the box, wouldn't it? Further (oh dear!), anything over four stories requires an elevator. Unlike elsewhere, the County lets developers here avoid putting elevators in buildings 3 stories or less because of the costs involved. As a result wheel-chair-bound residents of our community are restricted to first floor units while local parents with strollers and groceries get to struggle with stairs. {...sigh...} Sorry. Never mind.