Op-Ed: Debunking SF Chronicle’s ‘anti-housing’ label on Encinitas

The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an opinion piece entitled “This rich beachfront city is trying to launch an anti-housing insurgency in California.”

While I respect that people have varying opinions on how to resolve the affordable housing crisis, this opinion piece makes claims that are not only misleading and hyperbolic but also patently false.

Consider the following: The author claims, “Encinitas has arguably earned the distinction of California’s most housing-averse city for its refusals to approve new developments, and for evading state laws meant to force it to do so.”

Encinitas has currently achieved 32.7% of its housing goals (compared to 19.7% at the county level and 9.5% at the state level) for the current 6th Cycle RHNA goals. Furthermore, the city’s overall goal is 1554 housing units, and there are 1571 in the housing development pipeline. Encinitas surpasses San Diego County and the state in meeting its RHNA goals for very low, moderate, and above-moderate housing.

The referenced data, including data used to generate the chart above, comes directly from the CA State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Dashboard. It should be noted that this data is current as of 2023, as 2024 data will be published in the third quarter (Q3).

While Encinitas may, as of 2023 data, be shorter in meeting our goals for low-income units, the data shows Encinitas is not new housing averse. As the Density Bonus Law incentivizes developers to build up to an additional 50% of market-rate units by only providing 20% of low- or very-low-income units, it is unsurprising that this “rich beachfront town” is far exceeding the above moderate (read: market-rate) needs.

The author also omitted a crucial point in her quoting of the City Council’s support for the Our Neighborhood Voices ballot initiative: Mayor Bruce Ehlers asked, “How many more million-dollar condos do we need?”

The developer build-out of housing units that require incomes vastly beyond California’s average household income will, over time, reduce affordability in Encinitas. Those who can afford these homes or units drive the median income higher, thus shifting the goalpost for calculating very-low and low-income rates.

The author claims, “Unsurprisingly, the city is now grappling with an exploding homeless population.”

Encinitas ranks third in the County of San Diego’s Point-In-Time Counts for reducing homelessness by 12% from 2024 to 2025, just behind Carlsbad and the City of San Diego, at 15%. This data was discussed in the same City Council meeting that the author references regarding our homeless action plan, as well as a recently published KPBS article highlighting the successes in supporting this vulnerable population.

The author cleverly omits the chorus of voices at that same City Council meeting advocating for increased services in her highlighting of those opposed, attempting to negate the hard work the community and its leaders have done to compassionately address this issue.

While there is more to be done as a society, to say Encinitas is exploding with homelessness (and suggesting it is due to her claim that we fall behind on approving developments) is factually inaccurate.

Finally, the author claims, “It was yet another example of how much time some California city leaders are willing to waste on farce instead of focusing on legitimate solutions.”

She infers there is only one solution: build, baby, build.

In a city like Encinitas, where 95% of available land is already developed, we are focused on additional solutions.

Encinitans recently learned that several single-family and multi-family density-bonus projects have resorted to unauthorized and unpermitted short-term rentals to fill their vacancies rather than lowering their rates. One single-family development approved under the state’s Density Bonus Law advertised overnight stays on its website until it was brought to the City Council’s attention.

We are familiar with the neighboring city’s initiatives and SB 789’s response to address this issue via a vacancy tax. At the state level, it is notable that what was once a tax designed to discourage available housing from being left vacant has been reduced to a reporting requirement.

If all we needed to do was provide inventory in addition to that intentionally kept off the market, bought as second homes, converted to short-term rentals, or left vacant, rather than adjust rental rates, the author might have had a valid point.

However, there is hardly one solution to any social issue.

Furthermore, none of these housing laws address the need for or support of additional infrastructure or services, which will only further impair a city’s ability to serve present and future community members.

It’s no wonder that the state is “full of Encinitases” grappling with the weight of these one-size-fits-all mandates and supporting Our Neighborhood Voices. Encinitas was hardly the first, and is unlikely to be the last.

The author provides few resources as evidence for her claims. Two of the four links in the article mention lawsuits and public rebukes regarding housing laws. It should be noted that these actions occurred during the leadership of state Sen. Catherine Blakespear as mayor of Encinitas.

Ironically, Blakespear has now gone on to co-sponsor or support several housing laws that have led to many California cities, counties, and residents criticizing the state’s efforts to eliminate a more collaborative, community-based approach to solving the issue.

So-called “YIMBY’s” continue to perpetuate the false notion that anyone advocating for their community is against affordable housing. The San Francisco Chronicle needs only to look to their own backyard to see that just isn’t true.

When locals of the Mission District fought against a 330-unit project that “would never be 100% affordable,” they weren’t anti-housing, they were anti-displacement. They organized, they advocated, and they won.

In an era where opinion is increasingly taken as fact, better due diligence is necessary to verify that the basis of those opinions can be validated with references or data. The piece published in the San Francisco Chronicle is far from opinion; it distorts reality.

Kathleen McDowell
Encinitas