LAKE TAHOE, Calif./Nev. – As prices for housing continue to climb, with non-equivalent wage increases, finding affordable housing is becoming increasingly difficult, even for those earning above 80% of the area median income. What does “affordable housing” actually refer to? Here in the basin, who is it meant to serve? And is there enough of it to help those who need it?

Defining affordable housing

Affordable is a tricky term to nail down in the housing sphere, since it’s often used to refer to something that anyone, regardless of income bracket, can pay for. It’s also been used to address the undue burden for most people renting and owning a home—that the combined cost for the housing payment and utilities shouldn’t make up more than 30% of the income for those paying (an uptick from the 1980s, where that number was 20%.)

However, for the context of this article and for affordable housing projects in the basin, there are two major points that qualify it as “affordable”: where residents would fall on the area median income scale (AMI) and the funding and grants that make the property affordable.

Because of the limited housing stock in the Tahoe Basin, “naturally affordable” housing is few and far between, as offering housing at market-rate and above is what makes money. And the apartments and houses that could be offered at affordable prices can be variable in quality—hence why funding for new units that are guaranteed to be affordable through processes like deed restriction is so important.

Affordable housing is typically defined for those at 80% AMI and below. While AMI is a Californian standard for housing, Nevada has a fairly analogous system with tiers, which also address those at 60% AMI. Property managers are required to keep track of the incomes of people living in affordable housing to ensure they qualify while they are living there.

State and federal funding is what makes it possible for these affordable housing properties to stay at a below-market rate, and typically, affordable housing nets more funding than other housing projects—California especially is prioritizing housing at the lower end of the AMI spectrum, hence why so many housing advocates talk about the “missing middle.” Still, on average, the need for 80% AMI and below is greater, though ensuring housing at all parts of the spectrum is important—and can sometimes open up housing opportunities and availability.

But even though the housing is here, many of the companies are not. Affordable housing is built, in part, by companies that receive tax credits for their construction, and while some are located in California, others can be states away—making it harder for people seeking affordable housing to get in touch with the right people.

Where is the affordable housing located in Tahoe?

As it currently stands, the majority of affordable housing is located in South Lake Tahoe and Truckee, with a few others in North Tahoe. El Dorado County and Placer County’s unincorporated areas don’t have any locations, though employers in the area have been responsible for providing affordable housing, which has historically been constructed in Truckee. Douglas and Washoe County both have no affordable housing in the basin, though Washoe Tahoe has acknowledged the need for it in their housing study.

Though there is a need for this housing from Tahoma to Glenbrook, it’s difficult to motivate building affordable housing in some of these areas—for example, Douglas County has expressed little interest in affordable housing here, though higher-end housing appears to get priority. As a result, South Lake Tahoe’s affordable housing bears the additional burden of housing long-term employees of casinos and ski resorts.

Since the pandemic, ski resorts have had to prioritize housing their employees to maintain business: signing master leases, adding housing assets to real estate holdings, and creating housing opportunities as parts of their expansion, as was recently detailed in Palisades Tahoe’s expansion. The loss of seasonal rentals to short-term vacation rentals and remote workers buying property in Tahoe have exacerbated the issue, and even with the promise of housing for new employees, people still struggle to find housing, spilling out into the longer-term market.

During the most recent Business Walks in North and South Lake Tahoe, business owners expressed how dire the need for housing was. Employees who have to commute long distances are often less reliably able to get to work, especially with weather. And they’re more likely to look for work closer to where they settle down, leading to a weaker economy in the basin.

Serving locals

For many interested in solving the housing problems here, there’s a major focus on providing that housing to locals. That concept is reflected in the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s definition of “achievable” housing, which specifies local workers or those at a particular AMI.

From the current data from South Lake Tahoe’s waitlists, there appears to be a high percentage of people applying to affordable housing that are local, with recent addresses or confirmed family and friends in the area. Placer County is also considering a “local preference” program for Dollar Creek Crossing, its newly approved affordable housing. There is a high complexity in ensuring that policies put in place aren’t discriminatory—which would disqualify these projects from getting necessary funding.

Some properties, like Sky Forest Acres, which have accessible and disability-friendly supportive housing units, are more likely to draw people with those specific needs in housing. Others that were built for employee housing require working locally within a specific boundary to be considered. Each property has its own considerations, which may make some more likely to have locals than not.

What are these properties like?

Because many of the affordable housing properties are newer in construction than older Tahoe properties, they are typically well-maintained and more modern in their amenities. One major thing that is true for all of them is they are required to provide units that are ADA-compliant and accessible.

For people with families and established jobs, or seniors and disabled people on pension, it’s a tough call to leave those units. Although many use their time in affordable housing to save up for market-rate housing, the higher costs of a resort town make it more difficult to do so in a timely manner. And with a limited supply of single-family homes due to conversion to short-term rentals or vacation homes, families are less motivated to leave. Several property managers have reported low turnover. For example, the Aspens in South Lake Tahoe, built in 2014, have had some families living there for a decade.

However, not every property is required to keep track of waitlists and turnover. Though they’re required by the state to keep diligent paperwork on income qualifications and property maintenance, only the city of South Lake Tahoe has required the housing department to report back on waitlists and turnover. As a result, the data for many of these properties is incomplete, though the Tribune reached out to all properties to get information.

It’s clear that while this housing is necessary, what currently exists isn’t enough—and isn’t enough to fulfill the housing needs in the region. Given the length of time it takes for properties to open up, for qualifications to be processed, and the difficulty in saving up money, it’s no wonder that people aren’t interested in vacating once they make it in.

Though many projects are underway, the length of time and costs for building means that these needs may continue to go unmet without the other solutions to address housing for all.

Eli Ramos is a reporter for Tahoe Daily Tribune. They are part of the 2024–26 cohort of California Local News Fellows through UC Berkeley.