Why this local councilmember said no to his city's COPA

East Palo Alto city council earlier this week rejected their version of SJ's COPA--an overly complex, overwrought ordinance that would privilege nonprofits in the residential real estate property market. CM Antonio Lopez wonders "whether we as legislators should place nonprofits in the business of being real estate brokers," and if the scheme would actually have any impact, or is just a symbolic, feel-good gesture. From a Palo Alto Daily news op ed.

Why exhaust so much political capital, why risk the litany of lawsuits that potentially wait for us at the door of its passage, for an ordinance that at most would benefit about a half dozen or so families per year? This is not to say that each of those renters are not our utmost concern. Again, it is a question of cost, of whether we’ve explored other avenues to support tenants. I do not believe we have. Worse, I am worried that we’ve gotten ourselves mired in a political quicksand, deciding to center hundreds of combined hours of staff for a single policy that in the end might hurt us more than help.

A symbolic gesture

The approach seems backward. Should we not, before passing such an ordinance, pave the way for tenants to be in a position to become homeowners? A single-family home in East Palo Alto now sells for upwards of a million dollars. Most tenants cannot afford that, and I seriously doubt that the city has the fiscal capacity to take on a substantial role in acquiring properties.

OPA then will be a paper tiger, a symbolic gesture to our commitment to affordable housing, strong in principle, but ineffectual in practice.

Read the whole thing here:

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Image by Sandra Regina