Ridiculous RHNA ("Ree-na")
|All kinds of housing for all kinds of people|
We show that only 5% of CA cities and counties build as many houses as projected by their recent "Regional Housing Needs Allocation" goals. The other 95% didn't "make their RHNA numbers" and are therefore subject to "streamlining". ("Regional Housing Needs Allocation" is abbreviated RHNA and pronounced "Ree-nah".)
Examples of jurisdictions large, medium and small show CA's Housing and Community Development agency's (HCD) RHNA numbers imply dramatically unrealistic growth in housing needs which therefore cannot be met by cities and counties.
Recent public comments in favor of raising RHNA numbers suggest that intent of high RHNA numbers is not to add more housing but to remove any restrictions towns and counties might put on building.
Other posts related to RHNA:
Part 2: http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/09/ree-diculous-ree-na-part-ii.html
Background on RHNA
RHNA was established decades ago. The idea was that California's increasing population needed more housing. To assist cities and counties in planning for that housing the California Dept. of Finance estimates population growth which then become the basis for projected housing growth (RHNA numbers) for a region. The RHNA numbers are administered by California's "Dept. of Housing and Community Development" (HCD).
An excellent history of the perversion of RHNA for political purposes is here:
Until recently, if no one built housing according to the RHNA numbers, HCD didn't do anything. If the projected growth didn't happen, it was not presumed to be the fault of the city. That has changed with new legislation which implicitly assumes that cities can somehow induce buildings to be constructed by private development companies, or that it is only the cities that are holding back more housing from being built.
We show here:
- that RHNA numbers assume a rate of growth far higher than that of the last 30 years,
- that housing construction has kept up with population increase,
- that there are more housing units than households in every county in California,
We also propose ways to modify RHNA numbers to keep it line with realistic growth.
These facts are important because the proposed bills in the California legislature are based on the assumption that RHNA is a true assessment of future growth. Therefore, the reasoning goes, if RHNA numbers are not met by a jurisdiction it must be the fault of the the jurisdiction.
Taking these items in sequence:
RHNA Numbers are Unrealistic
California has 58 counties and 482 cities and towns (there is no legal distinction between a city and town) for a total of 540 jurisdictions. Of those 540 cities and counties, HCD's 2019 "SB-35 Statewide Determination Summary" lists only 28 jurisdictions that comply with the RHNA numbers assigned them. So, out of 540 jurisdictions only 5% (one in twenty) met their RHNA numbers.
Image 1: Intro segment of HCD 2019 SB-35
HCD's SB-35 Statewide Determination found at:
A look at the entire list of 28 jurisdictions shows that those meeting their RHNA numbers are small cities representing a tiny fraction of California's population. RHNA numbers for counties do not refer to the entire population of the county but only the unincorporated parts of the county. In populous counties like Santa Clara (nearly 2 million people) almost all of the population lives in incorporated cities which have their own RHNA numbers - the population under county control is very small.
-------------- +++ -----------
Some of the rationale given for assigning RHNA numbers is 'to ensure that all jurisdictions contribute to alleviating the housing shortage'. The RHNA numbers for cities and counties are unrealistic and shows no relation to either historic growth patterns or any housing "shortage". We show examples of small, medium and large jurisdictions for which RHNA is unrealistic.
Examples of extraordinarily unrealistic RHNA allocations
At the small end, consider Alpine County. It borders Nevada just South of Lake Tahoe. It had a total population of 1,200 in 2000, 1,175 in 2010 (decrease of 25) and an estimated 1,129 (decrease of 46) residents in 2019. Over 96% of the land in the county is owned by the US as a National Park or National Forest.
Image 2: Alpine County: Population 1,129 & Declining
5 housing units for every household
Failed to meet their RHNA goals and therefore subject to monthly fines up to $100,000.
According to the US Census, Alpine County (2019) comprised 350 households. Home ownership is 84% as of 2019 compared to 64% for the US. There are 1,782 housing units in Alpine County, i.e., about 5 housing units per household - meaning there are 1,432 are mostly empty vacation homes. I.e., there are 4 empty housing units for every occupied one.
With a population declining over 19 years, far away from the expensive coastal cities, almost everyone owning their home, and five housing units per household what is the possible justification for assigning any RHNA requirements at all to Alpine County?
For Alpine County it is clear that RHNA devoid of any rational purpose. Are there any other counties in a similar situation? It turns out that there are a baker's dozen counties like Alpine County with small and declining populations (from 2010 to 2018), excess housing units, and high home ownership. Throw in two more that have trivial increases and we have 15 rural counties without a housing problem yet potentially subject to high fines under Chiu's AB-215.
13 Counties Losing Population (plus 2 that didn't gain much)
- Sierra County (33) Population decreased by 33
- Alpine County (21) Population decreased by 21
- Calaveras County (421) " " 421, etc.
- Del Norte County (1,389)
- Kings County (1,320)
- Lassen County (3,984)
- Modoc County (74)
- Mono County (380)
- Mariposa County (122)
- Plumas County (234)
- Siskiyou County (288)
- Trinity County (151)
- Tuolumne County (625)
- Amador County +3 Population increased by 3
- Inyo County +31 Population increased by 31
Amador is among the 95% of California cities and counties that failed to meet their RHNA. As in Alpine County builders didn't construct enough "Above Moderate Income" housing units so they get the full brunt of state law, just like Alpine County - see image 5 below from 2019 HCD.
Since 1990 it has grown from 131,591 residents to 141,029, i.e., an increase of 9,438 residents over 30 years or 315 residents per year. It now faces a RHNA of 9,409 housing units over the next eight years. This means HCD's numbers imply housing for an additional 23,522 residents (based on Pasadena's current household size of 2.5 people) or 2.5 times more residents in the next 8 years than they have increased in the last 30 years. In 8 years that averages 2,940 more residents every year from RHNA vs. the actual 315 annual population increase over the last 30 years. This is nearly 10 times more growth than the historical average!