Berkeley City Council Work Session on Social Housing Study

The Berkeley City Council held a special work session to receive a presentation on a study examining social housing models and feasibility in Berkeley. The session featured detailed analysis from city staff and consultants, council discussion, and public testimony, with council members expressing a range of positions on the study's recommendations and the city's fiscal capacity to pursue them.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Matt Gustafson (Bay Area Community Land Trust) advocated for community land trusts as a vanguard for social housing principles, emphasizing tenant governance and decommodification.
• David Shear (Housing Advisory Commission) presented the commission's unanimous recommendations, urging the council to view social housing as a philosophical framework for all affordable housing work and to begin planning a 2028 funding measure to replace the expiring Measure O.
• Sarah Bell (Housing Advisory Commission) echoed support for leveraging the existing Berkeley Housing Authority and pursuing future funding.
• Carol supported the study but urged a realistic, scaled approach focused on self-sustaining models and oversight for tenant governance.
• Maria expressed skepticism about complex financing and advocated for simpler, alternative construction methods.

Discussion Items

• Consultant Presentation: Jessica Hitchcock and Janet Smithheimer presented the Social Housing Study. They defined social housing by four principles: public/nonprofit ownership, permanent affordability, mixed-income tenancy, and strong tenant rights/ governance. The presentation analyzed local housing needs, reviewed international models (Vienna, Denmark), and a U.S. example (Montgomery County HOC). Financial modeling compared acquisition/rehab strategies with new construction, highlighting trade-offs between cost, scale, and depth of affordability.
• Council Questions & Deliberation:
  • Councilmember Taplin expressed strong support for the study's principles, including income integration, tenant governance, and exploring a public agency development model.
  • Councilmembers Kesarwani and Humbert raised significant fiscal and philosophical concerns. Both argued the city's scarce resources should prioritize new construction for the lowest-income residents over acquiring existing rent-controlled buildings. Kesarwani stated opposition to using local subsidy for households above 120% AMI.
  • Councilmembers Bartlett, Drako, and Wunafara engaged with the technical aspects of the study. Discussion points included barriers to moderate-income production, opportunities for acquisition, the need for fast financing for preservation, and the potential of social housing as an overarching framework rather than a standalone program.
  • Councilmember Blackaby sought context on the scale of need and discussed strategies like the Bridge Housing Avalon acquisition as a potentially scalable, cost-effective model.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes or decisions were taken during the work session.
• Council direction emerged for staff to further analyze concrete options based on the report and council feedback.
• Multiple council members and public speakers highlighted the need to begin work on a potential 2028 revenue measure (e.g., a bond) to continue affordable housing funding.
• The council acknowledged the value of the study in informing a long-term vision and framing future policy discussions, even amid disagreements on immediate next steps.