'Close to Home' column - Don't Sell Chanate Short:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/5362617-181/close-to-home-dont-sell?artslide=1

Housing advocates welcome the initial steps taken last week by Sonoma County supervisors to increase the availability of affordable housing.

But we’re concerned by the request for proposals issued last month by the county for its 100-plus-acre site on Chanate Road in Santa Rosa. If the supervisors select the proposal submitted by the highest bidder, we’ll likely see dozens more million-dollar homes there. Will the supervisors walk their talk and come up with a development plan that helps address this unprecedented housing shortage?

For a century, the county land at Chanate has been devoted to serving the health and housing needs of economically disadvantaged residents. There are many perfectly usable buildings on the site. Most, like the mental health facilities, the Wellness Center and the well-designed shelter for women and children, are currently in use. County officials claim the two former Sutter hospital buildings are not earthquake safe and want them demolished. But earthquake standards for hospitals are much stricter than they are for residential uses. Repurposing older buildings is normally vastly less expensive than tearing them down and starting from scratch. (More)

New Award

Very honored to have just received the 2015 "Careers of Distinction Award" from the Sonoma County Bar Association, and to share the award with Chris Costin, Esq, of Byers, Costin and Simon in Santa Rosa. Here's a link to my bio in the Program for the event. Thank you! - David Grabill

From the May 7, 2013 Santa Rosa Press Democrat: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130506/OPINION/130509688

Housing and what ABAG doesn't get

By DAVID GRABILL

Published: Monday, May 6, 2013 at 4:55 p.m.

Last Modified: Monday, May 6, 2013 at 4:55 p.m.

The Association of Bay Area Governments is in the process of setting regional housing allocations for the next eight years in our nine-county Bay Area. Each city and county in the region must zone adequate sites to meet its ABAG-assigned allocation for housing affordable to families of all income levels.

The new allocations are supposed to balance housing development with employment in each community. And state law, SB 375, mandates that cities and counties reduce greenhouse gas emissions by coordinating housing needs with transportation and land-use planning so people can ride public transit, walk or bike to work. But ABAG's new numbers do just the opposite for many jurisdictions.

Your April 30 editorial (“Plan Bay Area and the benefit of regionalism”) praised the president of ABAG, Mark Luce, for saying that planning for growth “is not going to be addressed by forcing zoning where it's not wanted.” Zoning is supposed to address the housing needs of the whole community, rich and poor alike. People who work in a city should have the opportunity to live there in housing they can afford. Some people in wealthier cities and counties don't want more people, especially if they're lower income or of a different ethnic background.

ABAG's new One Bay Area Plan,” emphasizes regional planning and environmental preservation. But more than 30,000 people commute long distances to worksites each day in Napa County from Sonoma, Lake and other counties. Most of these commuters would prefer to live closer to where they work, but housing is scarce and very costly in Napa. Ignoring this huge imbalance, ABAG proposes to reduce Napa County's housing allocations from the current 3,705 units to only 1,407. ABAG proposes to cut allocations to Marin County jurisdictions by more than half, from 4,882 to 2,436 units.

Marin is the wealthiest county in the state and racially one of the least diverse. More than 60 percent of the people who work in Marin County commute to work from Sonoma, Contra Costa and other counties. About 80 percent of the county population is white, compared to less than 50 percent for the Bay Area in general.

There's no shortage of land suitable for housing in Marin and Napa. So why is ABAG proposing these reductions? Is it because Luce, a Napa County supervisor for 16 years, and his constituents in Napa don't want more housing there for for the people who work there, and they don't want ABAG to force them to address the housing needs of the farmworkers who help make the county so wealthy?

The Napa County Board of Supervisors is unique in the Bay Area for never having approved a single unit of housing for lower-income families. Luce recently won re-election claiming that as president of ABAG he could get that county's housing allocations reduced. In both Napa and Marin, proposals for affordable housing developments face fierce opposition from residents who don't want more low- and moderate-income families living in their communities.

While ABAG proposes steep reductions in housing allocations for Marin and Napa counties and some other wealthy jurisdictions, allocations for Oakland, San Jose, Richmond and San Francisco have been adjusted upwards. This will inevitably worsen traffic delays in many areas and harm air quality.

Additionally, the federal Department of Housing and Community Development warned ABAG recently that the proposed housing allocations may violate laws prohibiting housing discrimination. Lower-income families tend to be non-white. By concentrating new affordable housing allocations in areas which already have high concentrations of non-white residents, and reducing allocations to wealthier jurisdictions that are mostly white, ABAG is helping to increase racial and economic segregation.

Regional planning for housing, transportation and environmental preservation should be a high priority, but that means balancing jobs and housing availability for the people who work in those jobs, rich and poor, urban and rural, non-white and white. That's also a goal of fair housing laws, and of SB 375, the landmark environmental protection law adopted in 2008.

Sadly, ABAG doesn't seem to get the message. Housing allocations should be based on meeting the needs of each community's economy and minimizing pollution. That's good for business, for the environment and for the families that have the choice of living close to where they work. And it's just plain common sense.

David Grabill is a Santa Rosa attorney and a member of the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group.

April 3rd, 2013 By Kevin McCallum
THE SANTA ROSA PRESS DEMOCRAT

City leaders rejected a developer’s plan to build 73 homes in the largest subdivision under construction in Santa Rosa, calling the proposal a “bait-and-switch” that would leave the city without the low-income housing it was promised. Meritage Homes of California wants to start building the second phase of 138 single-family homes approved for a former Christopherson Homes subdivision off Aston Avenue in the southeast section of the city. But because of the way the original subdivision was broken up in foreclosure, the current developer doesn’t own the piece of property that was set aside for the 24 units of affordable housing associated with the project. Instead, Meritage is proposing to restrict some of its smaller 1,400-square-foot homes for moderate-income families.

A family of four in Santa Rosa is considered moderate income if it makes 120 percent of the median income, or $99,100. But that didn’t sound very affordable to Councilman Jake Ours. “In this particular case, I think there’s a bit of a bait-and-switch going on,” Ours said. “We’re not getting affordable units, and until we can get that, I don’t’ think I’ll vote for this.”

City staff had come up with a compromise they hoped would make the best of a bad situation. The city had approved Christopherson Homes’ 162-unit Daunhauer Ranch subdivision at 1600 Aston Avenue in 2003. Because the project was more than 15 acres, the city required 24 of the units be built on-site as a low-income apartment complex. A separate entity, Alderbrook Properties, was established to develop the affordable units. But when home values plummeted, Christopherson Homes, once the largest homebuilder in the county, defaulted on the main portion of the property. In 2010, Meritage Homes bought the property where single-family homes were planned from Wells Fargo Bank, but it did not purchase the parcel approved for the affordable units. A previous council in 2012 signed off on a deal allowing nine of the 65 housing units in phase one to be set aside for moderate-income families. But this time the deal faced greater scrutiny.

“I feel like I’m getting backed into a corner and I don’t like it,” Councilman Gary Wysocky said. Council members expressed a preference for the original plan. But City Attorney Caroline Fowler pointed out that city staff was trying to find a way to keep a project that creates jobs and builds affordable homes moving forward. She also stressed that Meritage Homes didn’t own the property where the affordable units were planned. “We can’t force them to build low-income housing on a site that they don’t own,” Fowler said.

Keith Christopherson, former owner of the now-defunct Christopherson Homes, said he still hopes to build the affordable units, but needs some help. He said he hopes Meritage will help him finance the deal. But Wysocky said he doubted the separate apartment parcel would be developed anytime soon. “That’s going to stand alone for a long time, I fear,” he said.

Housing advocate David Grabill noted that the need for moderate-income housing has lessened since housing prices have tumbled, stressing that low-income housing is where the real unmet need is. “You’ve got to hold their feet to the fire,” Grabill said. Ultimately, the council instructed Meritage to sit down with Christopherson to see if the two groups could find a way to get the low-income units built. They requested an update in 30 days.

“I think we could easily pull it together in a month,” Christopherson said.

Napa Resists Affordable Housing

An excellent and well researched ARTICLE from the North Bay Bohemian about the lack of affordable housing in Napa County and how Napa and other 'NIMBY' jurisdictions in the Bay Area are seeking to avoid their obligations under state and federal laws to address the housing needs of households of all income levels.

ACLU Jack Green Award

The Sonoma County ACLU gives the Jack Green as the Jack Green Award recipient for 2012. Green, a union organizer in Santa Rosa in the 1930's, was tarred and feathered and dumped at the Marin County line by vigilantes (including some police officers). He came back a couple days later and continued his organizing work. Our wonderful Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey put a little blurb about the award in the Congressional Record .

FAIR HOUSING MEANS FAIR LENDING!

In 1968 Justice Stewart writing for a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court stated "IF CONGRESS WERE POWERLESS TO ASSURE THAT A DOLLAR IN THE HAND OF A BLACK MAN WILL PURCHASE THE SAME THING AS A DOLLAR IN THE HANDS OF A WHITE MAN ......THEN THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT [BANNING SLAVERY] MADE A PROMISE THE NATION CANNOT KEEP."
Jones v Alfred H. Mayer

Today that promise remains unfulfilled for many Americans because of the color of their skin, their race, ancestry, religion or mental or physical disability. The most important consumer purchase a person will make in their life time is buying a home. Under the Federal and California fair housing laws you have the right to be treated in an equal and impartial manner by a financial institution.

What is prohibited?

When applying for a loan, refinancing a mortgage or home equity loan no one can take the following actions for reasons of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, martial or family status or disability:
- deny a loan
- establish terms, conditions, or privileges different for the giving of a loan, for
example giving the loan only with a higher interest rate or downpayment
- charge different costs for services like making an application, doing an
appraisal, closing costs etc.
- be targeted for a loan that has fees, terms or rates that are excessively high
i.e predatory

What Should I look for?

If you experience one or more of the following you may have been discriminated against.
- Property Standards: Does the bank have standards for lending based on the maximum age or minimum property value?
- Minimum Loan Amounts: Does the bank have standards for lending based on a minimum loan amount?
- Subjective Lending Criteria: Does the bank have standards for lending based on the property being well maintained? Is the bank asking vague questions about the applicants character or insisting that the borrower have excellent credit?
- Different Terms for Loan: Does the bank have higher fees on smaller loans; require different downpayments or offer higher interest rates for loans in Hispanic or an African-American neighborhoods?
- Employment Stability: Does the bank have standards for lending based on the applicant being on the job for at least two years?
- Credit Record: Does the bank have standards for lending which excludes from the credit history regular payment of rent, utilities, doctors or the local grocer?
- Appraisal Practices: Does the bank have appraisers that make downward adjustments on the value of a home for "functional obsolescence" because it or the neighborhood is over a certain age?
- Private Mortgage Insurance: Does the bank have insurance companies that reject coverage based on some or all of the underwriting standards listed above?

The problem of predatory lending practices.

This is a problem that effects middle class families, as well as the working poor, but such practices are most especially targeted to lower income families and the elderly that don?t usually qualify for well regulated loans. Faced with a crisis like the purchase of a car, a major repair to their home, or a hospital bill, many people are forced to apply for a loan from a finance company or subprime lender.

Some of these lenders require the payment of high annual interest and points, pad closing costs, add recording fees, bogus broker fees and the like. The applicant must often buy credit life insurance, often for excessive amounts and roll all the premiums up-front to be financed as part of the loan.

The purpose of these terms is to make a lot of money. Also, it is to make sure that the person will not meet the terms of the loan. This forces the person into another round of refinancing so more fees and charges can be assessed until the home is foreclosed on and the borrower?s credit is completely ruined.

Find out your credit score.

The most important information to get a mortgage is your credit score. Score a 750 and your excellent credit history will likely make your dream home a reality. Rate a 525 or lower and your only hope will be a subprime lender or finance company. Until recently, this credit scoring system was a secret. However, now for a small fee, Fair, Issac & Company and Equifax Credit Information Services will provide you your score, information on how it was arrived at and things you can do to improve it. If you want to get your credit score go to their web site (www.myfico.com) or write Equifax Credit Information Services at P.O. Box 70241, Atlanta, Ga. 30324.

Where can you get help?

Often, the only way you can find out if your a victim of housing discrimination or predatory lending is to contact your local Fair Housing enforcement agency and request that they investigate a particular lender and their loan officers.

For people with a disability, the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) also has made a telephone number free of charge for the hearing impaired (1-800-927-9275), also interpreters, tapes, Braille materials and assistance reading and completing the forms. HUD?s web site also has information about filing a complaint (www.hud.gov)

Nice Words from Elizabeth Warren

Lawsuit may delay Alexander Crossing apartments

CHANTAL M. LOVELL - Napa Valley Register Monday, September 18, 2011

A pending lawsuit will likely delay construction of 134 new apartments in southeast Napa, but it is too soon to tell for how long.
St. Anton Partners received City Council approval in August to build the Alexander Crossing apartments at 190 Silverado Trail. The Sacramento-based developer had planned to break ground later this year or early next, depending on weather, said Robert Lawler, a project manager.
That schedule is now up in the air following the filing of a lawsuit on Aug. 31 by neighbor Debra Phairas and the Neighbors Against Alexander Crossings, an unincorporated association.
The suit asks the court to prevent St. Anton from “engaging in any physical construction or pre-construction activities” related to the apartment construction while the case is pending.
“We’re still in the process of getting our permits,” Lawler said. It’s too soon to tell how long construction could be delayed as a result of the lawsuit, he said.
Lawler said St. Anton Partners has hired a land-use attorney to help it defend against allegations that include the assertion that the site is zoned for single-family residences.
St. Anton Partners is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the city of Napa, the City Council and property owner ZR Gateway LLC.
City attorney Michael Barrett said the city is preparing its defense, including a record of the process by which the apartments were approved.
“In general, the court will hear the substance of each party’s position within approximately 9 to 12 months,” he wrote in an email.
In the meantime, Lawler said the developer will continue to seek permits as planned. If a judge does order them to stop all work, or prevents construction from beginning, he is unsure whether the apartments will be ready for occupancy by the spring of 2013, its original estimated date of completion.
Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano, a group that advocates for affordable housing, said the legal challenge further delays people who need affordably- to moderately-priced housing from moving to the city in which they work.
“Alexander Crossing would provide some moderate-income units, and of those 134, 27 would be affordable to low- and very-low-income residents,” said David Grabill, a Santa Rosa attorney who represents the group. Latinos Unidos has previously sued the city and county over lack of affordable housing.
“Right now, one-third of the people who work in Napa County commute from other counties. Most of those people find housing in Napa too expensive. A lot of those people would be interested in Alexander Crossing,” Grabill said.
“Napa has a long way to go to meet its affordable housing needs,” he said. “(Alexander Crossing) is a drop in the bucket, but it’s a drop which is better than no drop. We’re sad the neighbors filed this.”
Napa’s housing manager, Jan Maurer-Watkins, said all new developments are required to make at least 10 percent of their units affordable to people who make 50 percent or less of the area’s median income or pay a fee to contribute to future affordable housing projects.
While the 27 promised affordable units at Alexander Crossing are needed, so are the market-rate apartments, she said.
“There’s more of a demand for rental housing right now because of the foreclosures that have happened over the past years,” she said. “By this project not going through, this would impact the ability of a whole range of Napa residents from finding residences that are affordable to them.”
The neighbors’ attorney, Allan C. Moore, of Danville, said the case is not about preventing apartments from being built or delaying a partially affordable housing project. He said the neighbors behind the suit just want to make sure laws are followed.
“We do not oppose any affordable units, but we do want good government,” Moore said.
The primary issue is whether zoning laws were followed, Moore said. The neighbors allege in the complaint that “a significant portion” of the project is zoned for single-family use, therefore an apartment complex may not be built there.
“I think everybody should care about this,” Moore said. “The multiple-family use was approved in a place that only allows single-family use. ... The general public should always be concerned that the city only approve uses allowed in that zoning.”
Moore equated the alleged wrongdoing with allowing a gas station to be constructed in the heart of a residential area.
The case also accuses the city and other defendants of misleading the public by listing the wrong Assessor’s Parcel Numbers in documents, and failing to do a full environmental impact report.
Grabill said he fears that this type of opposition to new housing projects will deter others from trying to build in Napa. “It’s a red flag to other developers to stay away,” he said.
“We remain committed to the project and we are going to defend it,” Lawler said.


Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/lawsuit-may-delay-alexander-crossing-apartments/article_4bafbbfe-e271-11e0-8e4a-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1YMwpcFF3

Napa Valley Register Editorial

Decade-old lawsuit led to better housing plan

The bedrock principle on which the Napa Valley has flourished both economically and culturally in the last half-century has centered on protecting its agriculture. But safeguarding land against development doesn’t excuse the county or its cities from state-mandated housing obligations.
That delicate balance between ag preservation and new housing requirements makes for some difficult planning challenges. Every choice is thoroughly scrutinized not just locally, but by litigious affordable housing advocates.
When Napa Superior Court Judge Ray Guadagni ruled in June that the county’s housing plan complied with California state law — in response to a challenge by attorney David Grabill, representing Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano — it showed that the county is, in fact, balancing its goals well.
“We were relieved,” County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman said. “One of the frustrating things for me is that we spent all this time and energy and money debating the finer points of the law when we could have been spending all of that time, energy and money on providing affordable housing.”
Litigation may be the enemy of progress now, but it was also likely the original catalyst for the county’s current, more progressive, look at its housing needs.
Almost a decade ago, Latinos Unidos and Grabill first sued the county over its housing plans after the county’s Housing Element lost units to the incorporation of American Canyon. Expensive deals between the county and the cities of Napa and American Canyon — but not much housing — were the result.
That lawsuit may have been the foundation for the county’s subregional housing alliance, which has brought the county and its municipalities together to share future housing allocations from the Association of Bay Area Governments. Housing numbers will now be given to Napa County and its municipalities to distribute in a way that makes more planning sense for the entire region.
“It would be fair to say that there was sort of a head-in-the-sand attitude toward housing in the county prior to that first lawsuit,” said Larry Florin, the county’s housing director. “It certainly has evolved into us thinking more proactively about how we deal with it.”
That evolution has grown to include consideration for state legislation like Senate Bill 375 and Assembly Bill 32, which called for future development to be near a city’s transportation network to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.
And development dollars can go a lot further when, for example, affordable housing incentives come from both county and city sources, as evidenced with the recent contributions to the Alexander Crossing proposal in the city of Napa.
Napa County has righted its housing plans in the last decade and made a real attempt at meeting our ever-changing housing needs.
The county’s actions have demonstrated an interest in doing more than just meeting a planning obligation.
Hopefully, livable affordable housing units will follow soon.
For some Napans, “ag preserve” will forever mean “no more houses anywhere in Napa County.”
But that’s not the law, and that’s not the county’s approach to the future.


Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/editorial/decade-old-lawsuit-led-to-better-housing-plan/article_4e11b6f8-a523-11e0-b8a4-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1RABYpFJ6

St Helena Star Editorial

Time to face reality

By Doug Ernst
PUBLISHER
Thursday, May 13, 2010

Several letter writers in this week’s edition complain that the Star had the temerity last week to publish — on the front page, no less — a threat by Santa Rosa attorney David Grabill to sue the City of St. Helena if its soon-to-be-completed General Plan Housing Element fails to comply with state law.

One writer says she “resented” the Star for publishing the threat so prominently.

Still another said that publishing the threat was tantamount to inciting “outside agitators.”

“Who is David Grabill?” a third letter writer wants to know.

The outrage reminded me of a 1966 Mad Magazine parody of Ozzie and Harriet, the television sitcom portraying the perfect American family, the Nelsons.

The satire featured “Oozie” and “Harried” and their two sons, “Divot” and “Rickety.” It opens with “Oozie” reading a newspaper with articles missing from beneath headlines such as “Vietnam,” “Laos” and “Race Riots.”

“Harried” is telling a neighbor, “I cut out the articles that might disturb him.”

“Oozie” tells his wife: “I think we should vacation in Cuba this year…”

The point is, newspapers in 1966 printed a lot of “bad news” that Americans didn’t like reading but needed to see. Television comedies were crafted to buffer Americans from bad news.

Forty-four years later, there’s no way to protect people from bad news. Not only is it all around us, it’s also printed, broadcast, podcast, i-cast, e-mailed, Twittered and Facebooked from sea to shining sea.

The truth is, attorneys like David Grabill are going to continue to threaten to sue cities whether the St. Helena Star publishes his threats or not. Nevertheless, let me take a stab at answering the question, “Who is David Grabill?”

According to information gleaned from a 2003 article by the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and a Tuesday morning phone interview, the 68-year-old Grabill:

• Participated in Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic 1963 march on Washington, D.C.

• Worked on Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign in 1968.

• Worked 14 years with California Rural Legal Assistance in Santa Rosa as a legal aid lawyer and housing advocate for farm workers.

• Won a court injunction, in 1982, voiding the arrests of about 50 farmworkers by federal immigration officials and the City of Calistoga, who raided homes and marched arrestees through town in handcuffs. He was assisted by Lincoln Avenue social worker Ana Gonzalez, who is now Ana Vigil, owner of Ana’s Cantina in St. Helena.

• Went to work as a lawyer with the Santa Rosa-based Housing Advocacy Group, formed in 1998 by activists trying to provide housing for low-income people, seniors, farm workers, the disabled and the homeless.

• Sued or threatened to sue more than a half-dozen local governments, winning at least seven major lawsuits against Healdsburg (1991), Sonoma County (1998), Rohnert Park (2001), Santa Rosa (2002), Napa County (2004), Humboldt County (2010) and Mendocino County (2010), requiring taxpayers to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and reaching settlements that require planning for thousands of affordable homes and apartments.

• Worked with Father John Brenkle, the St. Helena monsignor, on housing issues.

• Worked on behalf of St. Helena tenants being forced out of mobile homes by Hall Winery.

• Forced developers to develop less profitable homes.

• Worked with environmentalists to accept housing on land they wanted to protect.

St. Helena residents can follow the example set by Mad Magazine’s “Harried Nilson,” cut articles out of the newspaper and, as the parody said, “live completely and hermetically sealed off from reality,” but that won’t stop David Grabill.

Instead, residents can keep Grabill out of St. Helena City Hall and Napa County Superior Court by making sure that the city’s Housing Element complies with state law.

Thanks for reading.

Affordable Housing

FIGHTING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
By Paul Payne
SANTA ROSA PRESS DEMOCRAT, May 11, 2003

Attorney David Grabill knew his victory in an affordable housing case still rankled Santa Rosa City Hall insiders, so he shied away from their favorite downtown deli.

He opted instead for lunch at an out-of-the-way Nepalese restaurant. But before he could finish his turkey curry, a Sierra Club leader unhappy about Grabill's push for a housing project in Sebastopol walked up to the table, frowned and said, ``We've got to talk.''

Grabill's relentless fight for more low-cost homes has angered powerful forces across the political spectrum. Over a dozen years, the 60-year-old lawyer has sued or threatened to sue a half-dozen local governments, won four major lawsuits and reached settlements that require planning for hundreds of affordable homes and apartments.

``Some of what we do is contentious,'' Grabill said. ``It doesn't make us a lot of friends.''

Grabill works as counsel to the Housing Advocacy Group, a coalition representing labor, religious faiths, farmworkers, seniors and the disabled. His lobbying and legal pressure have forced:

* Politicians in Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, Healdsburg and Rohnert Park to rewrite their housing policies and pay legal fees totaling more than $300,000, and leaders in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County to provide homeless shelters.

* Developers to build more low-profit homes, sometimes at the expense of lucrative development plans.

* Environmentalists to accept housing built on land they want to protect.

To many critics, Grabill is rigid, confrontational and so zealous that they have had to compromise hard-won policies to balance housing growth and land protection. He's been called an extortionist, a blackmailer and a shameless opportunist by those who say his suits are misdirected and take money from public projects.

``So many of us are just so angry,'' said Santa Rosa City Councilwoman Janet Condron, who believes the city was doing a good job providing affordable housing before Grabill intervened. ``Somebody comes in with a hammer like this not really directed at the target ... I gag at paying his legal fees.''

But he is revered by social activists, who say he's a champion of the poor in a region that has grown increasingly more expensive.

``He's an incredibly dedicated guy with a passion for helping the less fortunate,'' said nonprofit developer Clark Blasdell, president and CEO of Northbay Family Homes of Novato. ``And I've found him to be an extremely wise counsel.''

Majida Gibson, a longtime Petaluma housing advocate, said without Grabill, elected officials would ignore the obligation to get land for low-cost homes.

``He has put teeth in the legal requirements for affordable housing through his lawsuits,'' said Gibson, a Housing Advocacy Group board member. ``Public officials are sitting up and taking notice.''

Even those who disagree with his confrontational tactics concede Grabill's work has brought positive change.

``We don't sue local government and we don't threaten local government,'' said John Lowry, executive director of Burbank Housing Development Corp., one of the largest local builders of homes for low-income residents. Grabill ``has raised the profile of affordable housing. From that perspective, I admire his work.''

Grabill's commitment to what he calls social justice is rooted in the civil rights and peace movements of the 1960s.

The son of a doctor, he grew up in suburban Washington, D.C., went to the exclusive Sidwell Friends school with the children of lawmakers and government officials and developed friendships that connected him to an emerging class of white, liberal lawyers.

Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. were more than just names to Grabill. On a summer break from Yale University in 1963, Grabill participated in King's historic march on Washington. He later worked on Kennedy's presidential campaign.

Grabill was radicalized by the war in Vietnam. He went to the University of Pennsylvania law school, and committed himself to correcting inequities he saw in a military draft that sent a disproportionate number of minorities to Vietnam and a government that turned its back on the poor.

``If you were interested in promoting social change, or should I say, if you were a white do-gooder, you went to law school,'' Grabill said.

In 1973, after running a law commune in Venice Beach, Grabill dropped out of the workaday world. He and his wife moved to a West Virginia farm, where they spent the next seven years going back to the land with another family.

After his marriage ended in divorce, Grabill returned to professional practice. He joined California Rural Legal Assistance in Santa Rosa, and spent 14 years as an advocate for farm laborers, helping to improve living conditions and encouraging union organization. He married again, to Dorothy Battenfeld, a teacher at Montgomery High School.

When home prices skyrocketed and the Housing Advocacy Group sought his help in the mid-1990s, Grabill left CRLA. He now works from his Santa Rosa home office for the affordable housing group, which even Grabill jokingly calls by its acronym, HAG.

The advocacy group was formed in 1998 by people who had tried for years to provide housing for low-income people, seniors, farmworkers, the disabled, the homeless and others in a county that is one of the least affordable in the nation.

Membership is a few dozen and the group is organized without officers. Stephen Harper, a retired stockbroker, is the chairman.

Housing is considered affordable if it can be bought by people earning less than the median income -- $71,000 annually for a family of four in Santa Rosa. Low-income housing is for families that earn less than 80 percent of the median income, or less than $56,500.

A typical day finds Grabill poring over pending legislation and lobbying for homeless shelters, or attending public hearings and pressing officials to make way for low-cost homes.

``We're telling them they have to do things differently than they are doing,'' Grabill said. ``A lot of times there are some painful parts. There are repercussions.''

Every so often, he winds up in court. Other times, the hint of a suit gets results.

His latest victory happened last month. The Sebastopol City Council was poised to scrap the 145-unit Laguna Vista housing project, which both the developer and housing advocates said was the city's best hope to get low-cost homes.

Opponents argued that Laguna Vista would bring traffic and harm nearby wetlands, which are home to a variety of animal and plant species.

But Grabill intervened. He warned that if Sebastopol didn't allow Laguna Vista to go forward, the city wouldn't meet goals for affordable housing. And he threatened to sue.

The council reversed course, much to the disappointment of what Grabill calls Sebastopol ``cucumbers,'' people he describes as having a thin layer of green on the outside but who are white on the inside.

``We see people waving the environmental banner when their real interest is themselves and what's going to be built next door,'' Grabill said. ``By the same token, we see developers waving the environmental flag.''

That was partly the case when Grabill sued Sonoma County in 1998 in one of the biggest wins ever for the affordable housing movement.

The county's housing policy had discouraged apartments and other high-density projects in rural communities, leaning instead toward custom homes on large lots. The county's goal was to preserve open space and maintain zoning that allowed developers to build more profitable homes.

Grabill sued, saying the policy violated state law, which requires counties to earmark land for affordable housing.

A judge sided with Grabill and the county was forced to rewrite its policies and pay incentives to affordable home builders. A moratorium on all building was imposed until the matter was resolved.

``There's a kind of a philosophical conflict here,'' Supervisor Mike Kerns said. ``Our goal is to protect open space and agricultural lands. Then there are those like David Grabill who want more affordable housing. That kind of flies in the face of what we're doing. He's made it a little more difficult for us.''

Santa Rosa critics said Grabill's efforts make life easier for developers and run roughshod over the public.

Grabill's suit, settled this year, claimed Santa Rosa was overdeveloped with pricey homes and that the city's newly adopted general plan housing element failed to specify where 1,800 units of low-income housing could be built over the next few years.

City planners and the housing group negotiated changes in planning documents to streamline approval of affordable housing projects.

Under that plan, projects wouldn't have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as is now required. Nor would the projects have to be reviewed by the City Council unless an appeal is filed.

Critics argued that the plan limited chances for opponents to persuade decision-makers that projects should be changed or rejected.

But Grabill said opponents have plenty of chances for appeal at various levels.

And without a steady increase in affordable homes, Sonoma County could be headed for a crisis.

Forecasters say Santa Rosa alone will get 50,000 new light-industry and service-sector jobs by 2025. Something must be done to provide housing for workers, he said.

``Where are these people going to live?'' Grabill asked. ``There isn't the political will to say `no new jobs' or to cut back on expansion. So you have to provide housing for people.''

You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 521-5250 or ppayne@pressdemocrat.com.

PHOTO: 3 by JOHN BURGESS / The Press Democrat
1. David Grabill speaks during a Santa Rosa City Council meeting.
2. Lawyer David Grabill, right, confers with Stephen Harper, left, chairman of the Housing Advocacy Group, at the back of the Santa Rosa City Council chambers, on their strategy to promote low-income units in a proposed high-end Fountaingrove apartment complex.
3. Patty Davenport shows her frustration over dealing with Social Security issues while lawyer David Grabill searches his backpack for phone numbers to resolve her problems during a pro bono morning recently at the Homeless Services Center in Santa Rosa.
4. The Oak Grove Apartments in Healdsburg are among the affordable housing developments that David Grabill had a hand in influencing.

LOW-COST HOMES

Major affordable housing groups:

Housing Advocacy Group: Formed in 1998 by Arnold Sternberg, retired executive director of Burbank Housing Development Corp., to push for lower-income housing. The chairman is Stephen Harper, a retired stockbroker and president of the Interfaith Shelter Network in Santa Rosa. David Grabill is the group's General Counsel

Sonoma County Housing Coalition: Formed by the business community about three years ago. Broad representation from labor, environmental groups and housing advocates who endorse housing projects that address low-income needs. Formerly headed by Supervisor Valerie Brown. Now run by Jim Leddy.

Burbank Housing Development Corp.: Created in the early 1980s by Sonoma County to qualify for federal housing money. Mission is to build housing for lower-income families on a nonprofit basis. Executive Director is John Lowry.

HOUSING POLICIES UNDER PRESSURE

Legal actions by attorney David Grabill, representing Housing Advocacy Group:

Sebastopol: Threatened to sue the city in April over the City Council's announced intention of rejecting a 145-unit housing project that included dozens of affordable homes and apartments. The council reversed course and allowed the planning to move forward.

Santa Rosa: Sued and settled in 2002. Said the city did not identify enough sites to meet affordable housing obligations. City agreed to identify sites and agreed to programs involving the construction of homeless shelters and farmworker housing. Legal fees: $28,000.

Rohnert Park: Sued and settled in 2001. Said the city was not zoning for affordable housing. City agreed to designate areas in future annexations for affordable housing. Legal fees: $23,000.

Sonoma County: Sued in 1998 over lack of high-density housing in rural areas. Judge ruled in 2001 that county housing policy did not comply with state law. Led to county ordinance encouraging affordable housing. Also, homeless shelter. Legal fees: About $200,000.

Healdsburg: Sued in 1991, along with California Rural Legal Assistance, over policies limiting apartments and affordable housing. Settled in 1993. City made zoning changes that opened up sites for low-cost homes. Legal fees: $75,000.