Californians for Homeownership, a nonprofit organization sponsored by the California Association of Realtors (CAR), has joined with the California Housing Defense Fund in a lawsuit challenging new residential development fees adopted by the City of Los Altos.
The fees being challenged in the new lawsuit include parks fees, transportation impact fees, a fee for “general government services,” and a public art fee. Californians for Homeownership cited the city’s estimates in noting the total fees for a typical mid-sized apartment or condominium project would exceed $4 million. The lawsuit calls out what it considers to be defects and inconsistencies in the nexus study the city adopted to justify the new fees.
“Under the city’s new fee regime, owners and residents of new developments will be double-charged for the same services — once in the form of fees when the project is built, and again in the form of taxes over the years that follow,” said Matthew Gelfand, the in-house litigator for the nonprofit. “The city’s fee calculation methodology assumes that new developments in the city will provide zero additional tax revenue, which is absurd.”
“The extent of the legal flaws in these new fees is startling,” added Dylan Casey, executive director of California Housing Defense Fund, the organization’s co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. “We can’t afford to tax desperately needed housing the same way we tax cigarettes, especially when construction costs already make it very difficult to develop new housing. We are glad to have Californians for Homeownership as a partner in this important legal challenge to fees that will harm housing affordability in a city that is already one of California’s most expensive to live in.”
The case is California Housing Defense Fund and Californians for Homeownership v. City of Los Altos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 24CV447754.
;
Sounds like Los Altos does not want any new development that would be considered affordable. Only very high-end developments would be able to survive these fee structures as they would pass on the cost directly to the end user, tenant or owners. Another case of NIMBY
Very true, just government doing what government does, makes it difficult for middle class people to find homes and lives decent lives. Legalized theft is all it is.
Well, I don’t see the NIMBY issue… but we haven’t seen the development plan.
Were the complaint and the article instigated by Realtors or the Developer?
I wonder because, that old “affordable Housing” phrase is developer talk for a high density more profitable project. It’s a glittering generality used to suggest a benefit for the common man, who, in my experience rarely if ever can actually afford the final product.
It is not unreasonable that a developer with a nonconforming project that negatively impacts an existing community pay premium development fees to mitigate the impact and post a performance bond that what is promised/approved, is what actually gets built, and
not just up-zoned later.
Alternatively, CA. buyers looking for an affordable high density experience can explore the new CostCo housing component…