A housing crisis had SLO city officials worried about substandard housing. Here’s why
Affordable housing has been an area issue since the first European settlers arrived.
Adobe construction had low-cost, local building materials, but they require a lot of time and labor to build.
Wood frame houses relied on expensive imported lumber.
The region’s isolation and lack of economic horsepower may have saved the area from wall-to-wall development but it has also created housing bubbles.
When training bases expanded during World War II, stories and advertising in the newspaper reflected a major shortage of housing.
After the war, Cal Poly installed trailers on campus nicknamed “Silver City” for GI Bill students and their families because the town lacked housing.
In the post-war era, the area began to see economic stability with an influx of state money for Cal Poly, CMC, ASH and utility money at Morro Bay and later Diablo Canyon.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, San Luis Obispo had about 10% old substandard housing units that had fallen behind in repair or were scrounge built.
Earthquake and fire codes were written to protect residents, but at a cost to some of the most affordable rentals.
San Luis Obispo began to target the old units at the end of the 1960s, along with an effort to build some subsidized housing with support from Great Society federal money.
It is not clear if there was an effort to make one-to-one replacement of the older, unsafe but affordable units.
This story from Sept. 25, 1970, by Sue Strandberg was part of a housing crisis series. This story focused on substandard buildings slated for demolition, edited for length.
Housing crackdown would evict 750
About 750 persons would be without homes if all the sub-standard living units that are beyond repair in San Luis Obispo were torn down.
Many of the estimated 1,500 other persons living in substandard units would also be out on the street if landlords of these properties were ordered to bring them up to standard.
That’s because rehabilitation often is costly, and it would be considered a better investment to demolish and build anew.
The exact number of live-in units that don’t meet the code is not known. Updating the 1960 and 1967 census indicates that between 8% and 12% of the units of the city are substandard.
Ron Young, city director of planning and building, said more substandard units might be found if a complete house-to-house study were made.
Reducing the number of substandard units is a harder and slower process than finding out how many there are.
The city currently has no systematic program of inspection and code enforcement, though it is considering adopting one on the hope that it would be granted federal money to hire extra staff to conduct it.
A head building inspector and two field inspectors are currently charged with enforcing the state building, housing, plumbing and electrical codes within the city. Most of their time is spent enforcing these laws in new construction.
Within the last year, when new construction lagged, an average of 20 man hours a month was left for inspection of existing housing.
Inspection and code enforcement of existing units is done totally on a referral basis. When a case is called to the department’s attention, it is dealt with.
Though about 250 units in the city should be demolished now, according to the Building and Planning department’s estimates, only an average of 35 houses were demolished annually during the last five years.
Half these houses were demolished because the city condemned them and ordered them down; the other half were torn down voluntarily.
Getting a house torn down or repaired is a long tedious chore for city officials.
“It is entirely a persuasive process,” said Young. The process involves writing (a) letter, negotiating time-tables and re-inspections.
Another route to enforcement is for the city to bring violators to court. If the property owner failed to follow the judge’s order, he could be found guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a 500% fine, six months in jail or both.
The city has avoided taking such a route.
“We make a definite effort to avoid bringing a matter to court,” said John Kellerman, chief building inspector. He said gaining the cooperation of property owners is a quicker route.
lt would would also mean hiring more prosecuting staff if the city were to adopt a hard-line approach.
In cases of demolition orders, the city council can act if the property owner does not respond. The city tears down the dilapidated building and puts a lien on the property.
But the city has never done this.
Just as hindering as the lack of staff and slow enforcement process is the lack of housing. Housing can’t be demolished if people have nowhere to move. In such a market there is lass competitive incentive to maintain property.
An increasing number of students in the community also has its impact on the condition of housing. Areas with the greatest deterioration are areas zoned for multiple residences but containing a large number of single family homes.
Since a single-family home in a multiple zone has less value than if it were located in a single-family zone, owners of these properties are apt to let them go. Often they are rented to a number of students who are more apt to be apathetic about the maintenance of property.
Young said a concentrated code enforcement could eliminate dilapidated units (units so bad they should be torn down) and check the spread of deteriorating units (those which could be brought up to standard through repairs).
