In the course of selecting housing as a theme for the Livable Communities Newsletter, the concept of social equity in housing was discussed. This is standard procedure since the guiding principles of the Ventura County Civic Alliance call for a achieving a stable economy, preserving the environment and also seeking social equity for all citizens. However, social equity in housing has many faces and presents an enigma on how public bodies should proceed.

Yes, there are State and Federal laws (Fair Housing Act of 1966) that provide for fair housing practices and assurance that there will be no discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, creed, color or gender. That does not mean, however, that we won't see loan redlining in some areas or reluctance to invest in low income or ethnic areas. Redlining smacks of discrimination and rightly should be prohibited. Investment decisions are another matter; if the return is insufficient, it will take incentives to achieve affordable housing for the middle class or development guidelines requiring a certain percentage of homes to be within the reach of blue collar and service workers. Attempts to do the latter so far have fallen short of meeting the need.

State and federal redevelopment funds have been used successfully in the past to provide a broader range of housing in stressed communities as well as upgrade neighborhoods and commercial districts. However, in recent years these programs have been curtailed or terminated. Redevelopment in California got the budget ax in 2011. Although affordable housing was a prime objective, many municipalities awarded projects to private developers who built commercial complexes of dubious public value. There are alternative funding plans in the works but nothing of the scale previously provided.                                              

The ongoing problem of affordability has great disadvantages for the community.   In Thousand Oaks, Amgen, one of the nation's premier biotech firms and the employer of thousands, has made it known that the cost of housing in the area limits their ability to recruit the talented younger worker needed for high technology jobs. They could relocate to another state for this reason. School districts, fire departments, cities, department stores, etc. are unable to attract outside talent or relocate people from other areas because the newcomers can't afford the housing. While this situation may be without overt discrimination, it does present a question of equity and balance in housing. The middle class worker often has to travel greater distance to his or her worksite or live in crowded or sub-standard housing. Both of those factors distract from what we think of as a "livable community."