"People in Pomona want to stay in Pomona": The State of Affordable Housing in Pomona

By Stephanie Granobles (she/her)

Introduction: Affordable Housing in Pomona

“People in Pomona want to stay in Pomona.” 

The pastor’s public comment struck me as I watched a recording of a Pomona City Council Meeting. He was one of many community members who spoke in favor of the passage of Pomona’s Inclusionary Housing Plan (IHP). The pastor referenced a project on Center Street that was displacing Pomona residents. As the recording continued, community members spoke against profit-seeking developers and on behalf of Pomona’s low-income residents. They asked the Pomona City Council for protection against displacement of current residents and the rich culture they've nurtured in their communities. Residents looked to the IHP for stability and justice.

The IHP advances affordable housing by requiring developers to include affordable units in market-rate residential developments. Last semester, I conducted a study of the implementation of the IHP as part of my Policy Implementation and Evaluation Course. I wanted to answer the question: Does the IHP truly serve Pomona's low-income residents? While I analyzed policy language, submitted Public Records Act requests, reviewed budgets, and read the city’s 100-page housing element, I became lost in bureaucracy—the people working within government and the rules, procedures, and paperwork they enforce. The pastor’s words reminded me why this mattered: policy intimately affects lives. It can prioritize either the profits of the few or the livelihoods of the many. Unfortunately, my findings revealed that it is unclear which value the IHP prioritizes. In many ways, the implementation of this justice mechanism has been a relative failure. Through my research, I found that the IHP is being improperly implemented and ineffectively protects against gentrification: the displacement prompted by profit-maximizing developers and higher-income people entering an area and driving up prices. 

While I do not call Pomona home, its Latinx community reminds me of my hometown of Chicago. Last semester, social media allowed me to see ICE terrorizing the streets of Chicago. Every time I looked up from my screen, my numbingly peaceful surroundings in Claremont were painfully detached from reality. When my college campus felt like a barrier between me and my home, Pomona offered me solace. From its corner stores to street vendors, Pomona grounds me in my Latinx identity. Irresponsible development and investment threaten this value. Under the IHP, the Pomona City Council protects residents from harmful developments. So far, the Council has failed at its role of protecting the future of the Pomona we know and love—a place that low-income communities of color have built and call home.

Coming to such a strong conclusion was the result of a semester-long review of City government publications, budgets, and meeting materials. Amidst all the complexity and inaccessibility of the language I read, I often wondered, was I supposed to understand these policy shortcomings? Are people from the communities I am a part of—latiné, low-income, first-generation college students—supposed to understand this? Typically, the communities I represent are on the receiving end of harmful housing policy. We understand it through our lived experience. However, through this study, I didn’t experience the effects of policy in the streets, protesting against unjust treatment toward my community. Instead, I spent time understanding it in my college dorm, in my room, reading budgets off a screen and emailing council people. To analyze the IHP, I had access to my college resources, support from professors, and a student position that allowed me to dedicate hours to research. I hold marginalized identities, but my knowledge came from my proximity to privilege. Through this research, I occupied a middle ground: I only interacted with government people and material, though my intentions always remained in service to my communities.

Research Process 

To understand the IHP meant to experience a semester of frustration. On October 6th, 2025, I submitted two Public Records Act (PRA) Requests for all of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Plans from 2021-2025, as well as reports evaluating the IHP’s effectiveness. After the City failed to meet its self-granted extensions, I independently found information on the IHP. I started this process by reading the Planning Commission’s meeting agendas. Soon, I found a routine for identifying relevant data: find Planning Commission meetings that discuss residential properties, look up the meeting agenda, open the attached documents under the meeting item discussing residential properties, and search for inclusionary compliance descriptions (if any) within those documents. My suspicions about the lack of any Inclusionary Housing Plans soon transformed into fact. On January 7th, 2026, the Office of the City Clerk finally replied to my PRA, stating that the planning department does not have documents that fulfill my request. In other words, Inclusionary Housing Plans do not exist. Reports evaluating the IHP, which are required by the City’s Housing Element, do not exist. Pomona’s government is avoiding its policy-mandated responsibilities. Without the review of proper Inclusionary Housing Plans, the Council limits awareness of affordable development and the public’s ability to hold elected officials accountable to their responsibilities. 

Findings: Case Study

I did not always believe this project would end in disappointment. When I started researching the IHP in September of 2025, I looked at how local news outlets covered affordable housing. In August of 2024, UrbanizeLA reported on the City’s approval of a project on N. Garey Ave. AC Martin, the developer, would replace a strip mall with 289 residential units. This proposal included nine apartments for moderate-income families and 20 for very low-income ones. Twenty-nine low-income households and families could not only benefit from housing stability but also have access to the amenities and living experience of a market-rate renter. I saved the article to my laptop. I imagined myself using it to close my research findings with a success story. However, by the end of my research, this “success story” became one of the IHP’s most important failures.

The new owner of the proposed development on N. Garey Avenue demonstrates the IHP’s flaws. In November of 2025, UrbanizeLA reported that AC Martin sold the property to Cape Point Development. The new developer is fully complying by paying a fee, building no low-income units—essentially, getting past all the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, in-lieu fees are a common alternative form of compliance in inclusionary housing ordinances. Pomona is no exception. To avoid building low-income units, the IHP allows developers to pay a fee based on their project’s square footage. The City must place the fees in an affordable housing fund, which can only contribute to developments that are 100% affordable. This system fundamentally conflicts with inclusive housing goals; in-lieu fees isolate low-income families to living environments separate from those of higher-income families. Had Cape Point Development not paid its way out, it would have provided up to 19 rental units for low-income households. Though I initially asked myself, “How did this happen?” It likely shouldn’t have. The IHP has safeguards for such unjust outcomes, but gentrification prevailed. 

According to the policy, a developer cannot receive their building permit until they submit an Inclusionary Housing Plan. The plan outlines a developer’s compliance with the IHP through inclusionary units, a fee, or a land dedication. Another major problem is that Pomona does not review all developments equally. The City Council reviews the Inclusionary Housing Plan for projects with 30 or more units that seek compliance through fee payments. To approve fee payment, the Council must conclude that building inclusionary units would cause a developer “extreme hardship.”  I was surprised to discover such stringent requirements. I remember re-reading the policy text and going to my professor for guidance, making sure I understood it right. To me, “extreme hardship” meant that the standard for a developer to buy its way out of inclusion is high. I saw this threshold as an exception to a common pattern: governments frequently side with developers over tenants and vulnerable communities. However, this threshold also meant that inclusion is discretionary—it is up to the City Council to determine a developer's burden. I soon discovered this policy language differed from its practice. 

Due to its large size and form of compliance, the Council must approve the project on N. Garey Ave. However, as of December 2025, the Pomona City Council has yet to review any Inclusionary Housing Plan for the Garey development. Not only has the City of Pomona lost potential homes for 19 Pomona families, but it has done so in a way that avoids its obligations. The review of the Garey project is not a unique case; it forms part of a strong pattern. Since June of 2021, none of the Council’s meeting materials have included agenda items that discussed the IHP, IH plans, or in-lieu fees. It is very likely that the City of Pomona has never created, let alone reviewed, an Inclusionary Housing Plan. The Garey Ave shift to non-inclusive housing, however, represents more than just a failure. It reveals fundamental flaws in policies that fail to combat gentrification. 

Findings: Back to the Policy

The main failures of the IHP are its alternatives and discretion. High-end improvements, often disguised as “renewal” or “investments,” and rising prices are the cornerstones of gentrification. Similarly, the IHP allows developers to create fully market-rate developments by paying the in-lieu fee. Though the policy requires large developments to undergo stricter reviews, Inclusionary Housing Plans are only a mechanism for inclusivity if the Council is actually reviewing them. When market-rate developments enter Pomona, the wealthier families that can afford them do as well. Together, large developers and higher-income people drive up prices and boost demand for homes, increasing the likelihood of displacement for current residents and the rich culture they’ve nurtured in their communities. This means uprooting what Pomona means to so many of us. 

Understanding what felt like the code of Pomona’s policy also meant understanding that they are failing residents. Our lowest-income households are left behind. The IHP treats low-income and very low-income households inequitably. For example, low- and very low-income families are not eligible for inclusionary units in for-sale developments. The City excludes families in the greatest need from owning the places they call home. The policy only allows very low-income units as substitutes for low-income units. To me, policy represents our values. We must ask ourselves: are homes for our lowest-income families not valuable enough to be a separate form of compliance? When reading the policy language, I was most surprised to learn how the City has legalized separation. The IHP allows developers to build inclusionary units on a property separate from market-rate ones. Pomona families can be isolated based on how they are priced. 

Conclusion and Call to Action 

This meticulousness taught me which reforms can help rectify this failure. Inclusionary housing for low-income households should be central to all compliance options, rather than limited to a few. To do so, we must advocate for reforms to the IHP:  

• The addition of inclusionary housing compliance options that create ownership opportunities for low-income and very low-income households

• The requirement that developers build all inclusionary units within the residential developments

• An increase to the in-lieu fees, creating greater incentives for developers to comply through inclusionary units

Above all, what my study taught me is that the IHP alone, especially in its current state, isn’t enough to protect Pomona families from gentrification. While Pomona’s government steps up, we must protect each other. 

We must call on our local government to be accessible and transparent in the implementation of one of the only regulatory policies protecting against gentrification. We must demand that the Pomona City Council abide by responsibility to create and review Inclusionary Housing Plans. We must advocate for a permanent rent-control ordinance, strict eviction protections, and innovative forms of housing that protect residents from rising rents and displacement. When we prioritize serving those of greatest need, we create conditions that are better for all of Pomona.

---

Stephanie Granobles is the daughter of Colombian immigrants. Currently, she is a junior Public Policy Analysis and Sociology major at Pomona College. Growing up in Chicago, a diverse city that is marked by the legacies of legally-sanctioned residential segregation, Stephanie is committed to studying systemic racism. She is driven by a societal vision where communities of color claim the political power historically denied to them through solidarity movements and the material benefits of racially just social policies.