Accessory Dwelling Units as Low-Income Housing: California’s Faustian Bargain

Darrel Ramsey-Musolf

doi:10.3390/urbansci2030089

Abstract

In 2003, California allowed cities to count accessory dwelling units (ADU) towards low-income housing needs. Unless a city’s zoning code regulates the ADU’s maximum rent, occupancy income, and/or effective period, then the city may be unable to enforce low-income occupancy. After examining a stratified random sample of 57 low-, moderate-, and high-income cities, the high-income cities must proportionately accommodate more low-income needs than low-income cities. By contrast, low-income cities must quantitatively accommodate three times the low-income needs of high-income cities. The sample counted 750 potential ADUs as low-income housing. Even though 759 were constructed, no units were identified as available low-income housing. In addition, none of the cities’ zoning codes enforced low-income occupancy. Inferential tests determined that cities with colleges and high incomes were more probable to count ADUs towards overall and low-income housing needs. Furthermore, a city’s count of potential ADUs and cities with high proportions of renters maintained positive associations with ADU production, whereas a city’s density and prior compliance with state housing laws maintained negative associations. In summary, ADUs did increase local housing inventory and potential ADUs were positively associated with ADU production, but ADUs as low-income housing remained a paper calculation.

Highlights

In 1982, California mandated accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as suitable housing for seniors, college students, and low-income households [1]
1982, California allowed ADUs as housing units, and as of 2003, ADUs could be counted towards low-income housing needs
This study argued that counting potential ADUs as low-income housing was California’s Faustian Bargain due to a lack of state and city oversight and the unproven efficacy of counting potential ADUs as low-income housing

Summary

Introduction

In 1982, California mandated accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as suitable housing for seniors, college students, and low-income households [1]. In the case of ADUs and California, the state has recently revised state housing laws that should increase ADU production statewide In this background section, the following sections explore the compromises embedded in federal and state low-income housing policies, California’s primary housing intervention California’s implementation of political compromise to increase low-income housing inventory follows federal precedent. The U.S Congress, for example, responded to the 1920s Great Depression by adopting the Housing Act of 1937 This law created the first public housing units for low-income households in the guise of a jobs bill [85].

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion