Housing advocates in Livermore decry what they see as a new tactic for NIMBYs
The latest court decision in a long battle to build 130 units of affordable housing in downtown Livermore has thrown the project into flux, and has housing advocates decrying a new breed of NIMBY tactics.
The battle dates back to May 2022, when the Livermore City Council agreed to sell a plot of land in the city’s downtown to Eden Housing. The nonprofit planned to build an 130-unit affordable housing complex on the site.
Soon after, a residents’ group called “Move Eden Housing” collected thousands of signatures to challenge the decision, and asked for the city to put together a ballot referendum on whether the land agreement should move forward.
Livermore City Council chose not to honor that request, calling the land transaction an “administrative act” which could not be challenged by petitions or a referendum. Referendum supporters, in turn, said the council and city clerk were denying the will of voters.
Lawsuits ensued, and after winding its way through the courts, the California Court of Appeals in San Francisco decided last Wednesday that the referendum could move forward. The court, in its decision, argued that the land deal was a legislative act subject to the referendum power because the development agreement also approved the construction of a new public park.
“We direct the superior court to order respondents to process the referendum petition as required by the Elections Code,” the decision read.
After a resounding win in the lower courts, the decision was a serious blow to the years-long effort to build affordable housing in Livermore. A statement from the City of Livermore said they were “reviewing the opinion”, and Linda Mandolini, CEO of Eden Housing, said her team would meet with the city later in the week. Both the city and Eden Housing said they were evaluating next steps to determine how and whether they should move forward with the project.
“It just feels so unnecessary,” said Mandolini of the referendum effort. “This housing would be fully occupied if we hadn’t been sued.”
Representatives for the Move Eden Housing referendum group could not be reached by press time.
Although a setback, those involved were careful to say the court’s decision was not a death blow to the affordable housing project. Because the court determined the park construction was subject to referendum, but not the entire housing complex, a modified agreement could potentially subvert the referendum requirement.
Laura Foote, the executive director of YIMBY Action, a non-profit advocating for abundant affordable housing, called nonprofit affordable housing a “tried and true method” to address the housing crisis. In her view, the fact that opponents needed to pursue a ballot measures is in some ways proof of the strength of the project.
“Normally they’re powerful enough that they kill it before it gets to the ballot,” Foote said.
Still, to those at Eden Housing, the project’s delays are representative of the continued challenges to housing efforts, especially in wealthier parts of the state. The downtown plan has been opposed by Joan Seppala, the publisher of The Independent newspaper, among other wealthy residents.
Mandolini described the lawsuit as a game of whack-a-mole, where increasingly innovative tactics are employed to stop new housing from being built.
“For the appeals court not to see this as a challenge to affordable housing defies logic,” said Mandolini. “If we’re talking about the challenge of getting through well-heeled opposition, this is the poster child for that. But we don’t give up that easily.”