Reporter- San Francisco Business Times
Now that city officials across the Bay Area have finished crunching the numbers on the last seven years of housing supply progress, some assessment is in order.
The region’s cities must calculate how its housing supply is keeping up with projected population growth from 2007 to 2014 – numbers set by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as the Regional Housing Need Allocation. There aren’t many carrots and sticks that ABAG can use to force cities to build that housing, so we end up with a wide array of successes and failures.
(Scroll down to see a breakdown of cities’ housing supply performances.)
It’s mostly failures though – and the data illustrates a reason why the Bay Area is one of the most expensive in the nation. A glance at the graphic at the bottom of this story shows how medium-sized and large Bay Area cities stack up – what percentage of their housing needs they actually built.
Cities like Milpitas, Sunnyvale, Redwood City and Dublin have plenty to brag about. They at least build close to the number of housing units they needed to. Cities like Oakland, Palo Alto and Berkeley? Pretty dismal failing grades.
San Francisco permitted 16,449 units out of the 31,193 units it needed to – 53 percent of the need, according to ABAG. (As the San Francisco Planning Department notes in a separate report, the city fulfills its full housing needs – but only for upper income residents – if you count units approved but not built.)
The entire region – Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma counties – permitted about half the units they needed to in order to meet projected population growth.
Cory covers real estate and economic development.