San Jose’s “PPP” housing strategy is a cute acronym but bad policy.

Over a decade ago, San Jose’s Housing Department (SJHD) summarized its strategy as “PPP” — shorthand for Production, Preservation, and Protection. They get points for clever alliteration and good intentions. But as we have seen our unhoused population grow exponentially, and a lack of added housing to the market, it’s glaringly clear that the strategy has been a bust — and often has worked directly in opposition to the fundamental goal of increasing the housing stock.

It’s time to revisit PPP, see what’s working and what’s not working, and offer an updated version based on what we’ve learned so far. We suggest PVP — Production, Vouchers, and Protection — with substantial reforms to the Production and Protection elements.

We’ll discuss these changes by analyzing how the San Jose Housing Department’s PPP strategy was implemented and why it failed.

The first P, Production, we all agree on. Let’s produce more housing. But only 1,213 new units were built in San Jose in 2021. We need tens of thousands and instead we have not created an ecosystem that responds to the vast market demand for housing. Much of the problem stems from the market-unfriendly posture of the Housing Department, which insists upon onerous permitting regulations which raises costs, slows down decision making, and generally makes it tremendously difficult to break ground and build.

The second “P” was Preservation, and this is where the Housing Department has been most incoherent and needs the most change. By taking an extremist, maximalist approach to Preservation, the SJHD has enacted and proposed many regulations that actively constrain sorely needed new housing development — causing the City’s Preservation strategy to undermine its Production strategy. The two most glaring examples of self-contradicting policies are San Jose’s Ellis Act and COPA proposal — both of which essentially prohibit densification and development of thousands of older, smaller properties in San Jose in the name of “Preservation”. This is a misguided strategy, like driving with your foot on the gas and the brake at the same time, as many of these older units are prime candidates for development as they are in and near transit corridors and urban villages. Simply put, to preserve a small, aging duplex downtown, COPA would deter 20 new units from being built.

The goal of preservation efforts should be to preserve access to affordable housing in city neighborhoods, not to encase older buildings in amber. By removing the Preservation of buildings requirement, we can focus on preservation of people and their ability to stay in their neighborhoods. The more effective way to achieve this goal is to offer a city-led program that would offer rental Vouchers to those who need to move if and when new housing construction happens. This allows us to keep residents in their neighborhoods while still building the new housing we all need. Additionally, rental vouchers can be used to prevent financial evictions so people who need it most can stay in their homes. As a result, we suggest re-framing our preservation efforts around the concept that can help both people and Production: let’s change this “P” to “V” and go from Preservation to Vouchers.

The Third P is Protection. Protecting tenants from coerced moves because of financial hardship is a good objective but it should be done effectively for the most good. Like with Preservation, the SJHD has taken the approach of casting a wide net of regulation rather than addressing simple solutions. This consistent regulatory approach from SJHD has made it tremendously difficult for property owners to collect overdue rents from non paying tenants and to take action against tenants who threaten their neighbors or destroy property.

Vouchers again become important in this regard. Vouchers can help protect tenants from financial evictions, but also protect them from neighbors who refuse to cooperate with the community and disrupt the lives around them. A voucher-oriented protection strategy would allow people to stay in their homes during rough financial times, but also protect the quiet enjoyment of everyone.

Production, Vouchers, & Protection

The way forward.

· Continue with much more vigor in accomplishing our Production goals.

· Reduce the regulations that inhibit owners and developers from building more housing, especially along transit corridors and urban villages.

· Put a halt to policies that unnecessarily compete against creating new units.

· And, perhaps most importantly, provide San Jose Rental Vouchers to renters who need them and stop displacement and financial evictions while protecting renters and their right to quiet enjoyment.

The way forward is PVP.