Housing is Bishop’s Gordian knot, defined as “an extremely difficult or involved
problem.” The city is a two square mile dot that serves as the epicenter of Inyo County, the
second largest in square miles out of California’s 58 counties but the 52 nd in population. The
majority of those 18,000-plus folks live within sight of U.S. Hwy. 395. So, what’s the problem?
The source of those numbers, the 2010 census, doesn’t include the percentage of
publicly owned land in each county. Inyo is divided up into Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power, the Bureau of Land Management and the federal Forest Service. That landscape
makes Inyo an attractive place to live but a really hard area to find a place to live.
That was the problem addressed by Bishop’s Housing Element update, required by
California law. The City Council got a run-through of that update at this week’s meeting in
preparation for a final vote of approval August 23 to meet the State’s deadline. The possibility
of Los Angeles taking a second look at divesting some of its land holdings opens up a lot of
housing opportunities.
According to a summary from the California Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Bishop fell far short of the 65 housing units needed, spread out over three
income levels, with just 23 units made available from 2014-2019. The development of Silver
Peaks’ 72
units, a partnership between the City and Inyo Mono Advocates for Community
Action, will help meet the needs of lower income residents through the next cycle.
A list of potential available sites within Bishop indicates room for 67 to 130 units
distributed across low-, moderate- and above moderate income levels. The majority resting in
the moderate income spectrum. Of the eight sites, not including Silver Peaks, five are publicly
owned with only the privately-owned Home Street nursery location pending.
Inyo’s First District Supervisor Jeff Griffiths added a new wrinkle to the conversation,
noting the possibility of an Eastern Sierra Council of Government’s regional housing forum.
“Our problem is Mammoth’s problem,” he said acknowledging the number of local residents
who work in Mammoth, “Mammoth has to be involved.”
Mayor Stephen Muchovej summed up what the city needs to meet Bishop’s housing
needs: a commitment from Los Angeles to divest lands, funding to buy and a development
partner.During Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s recent visit to Bishop, Muchovej had the
opportunity to have that LADWP discussion.
Here’s the description of that divestiture conversation from Los Angeles: “On a recent
visit to the Owens Valley, Mayor Garcetti had conversations with local leaders and business
owners about ways that the City of L.A. could divest land …. The Mayor's staff is working with
DWP to determine the most effective path forward — a review that includes careful
examination of DWP divestiture policies in Inyo and Mono Counties, the City Charter and other
applicable laws. Bishop's economic well-being is important to Mayor Garcetti, and the City of LA
is enthusiastically supporting initiatives to create more job and housing opportunities for local
residents — including the Power System Training Center and Silver Peaks Affordable Housing
Center.”
In other words, Garcetti didn’t say “no.”
Discover more from Sierra Wave: Eastern Sierra News - The Community's News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No mention of the land DWP already, back in 2004, agreed to divest immediately adjacent to the City of Bishop. It’s the land west of the canal, but east of Hanby. Imagine what could have been done with that land if the City of Bishop hadn’t of stopped DWP from letting that land go in 2004.
The lands to be divested have already been identified long ago. It’s not large tracts of land throughout the valley, it’s small parcels near towns. These are needed for housing and other basic land needs and won’t lead to unwanted growth.
The City of Bishop is culpable for exacerbating the problem and needs to step up quickly. Don’t act like they didn’t partially cause this problem!
won’t lead to to unwanted growth? Growth being wanted or unwanted is a matter of personal opinion. I would bet most folks don’t want growth and all the issues that come along with it.
Hard to believe Bishop’s ‘well being’ is important to Garcetti and L.A. I would think he would prefer everybody gone so L.A. can get more water. Now I would believe that Mammoth would be glad to move it’s poor working class down here so they don’t have to deal with it themselves. More land for them to develop for millionaires. Has anyone ever seen success in Mammoth with this kind of project, even once? And yeah, more people = more problems. This kind of stuff always has someone trying to cut a fat hog. Is everybody sure they want more people around here?
We certainly do not want unrestricted development in the Eastern Sierra. Many of us living here have seen and experienced that very thing in So Cal in our lives. DWP is required in the Long Term Water Agreement to divest some of it’s property in the Owens Valley and to date still required to do so. Careful and considered needed housing project alternatives can be envisioned that will add to our community rather than unrestricted development being unleashed in the Eastern Sierra. A regional effort makes sense and we have great folks who have vision and can meet the needs of our community. New housing is certainly on the menu and what about some programs to help folks rehab and fix up their existing properties. There is also a commercial side for redevelopment considered in the past, of DWP divesting some of their commercial properties by selling to existing lease holders which would allow them to upgrade their newly owned business locations. There is also the need of continued focus on vacant commercial properties. Hopefully at some point with covid recovery there will be funds available to meet our needs.
Yes, we don’t need unfettered growth, but that’s not what’s being talked about. You’ve been around awhile, you surely know about the lands LADWP identified around the year 2000 for divestiture. They are parcels near towns only. These will not lead to unfettered growth, only to much needed development on a small scale. City of Bishop is wholly responsible for the parcels near Bishop not being sold already and the City needs to step up to get things moving again quickly!
The City of Bishop has a difficult relationship with the DWP. They are lease holders of DWP land like Bishop Park and and have concerns for the businesses who are commercial leaseholders from DWP in the City of Bishop. I think I heard that there will be some City of Bishop water main extensions along the west side North Sierra Highway near the Fairgrounds that DWP may devest some land at some point. As much as I am critical of the DWP in the Eastern Sierra I can only encourage the City of Bishop to do what they can, kinda like a trickle down course of action regarding DWP.
After reading the above article I have a few questions. Are the units being built for Mammoth work force, as this reads to be part of the need for more units. Also what is moderate income based on. According to demographics on Bishop, there is low income and high income, leaving out the middle income. Words without factual representation sound great but are baseless without including actual costs to be asked for rents and home purchase. By the way, driving to Mammoth from Bishop everyday takes a large chunk out of the wages earned by workers and increases the carbon footprint for those concerned with climate change.
Yeah let’s have DWP give up a bunch of their land and before you know it we’ll be the new Lancaster.
With increased population density comes social problems regardless if it’s a big city or a housing project.