[Pedestrian]

This bill is not new by any means. I am fairly sure it has been discussed previously on this site. Wiener introduced it to the CA legislature several sessions ago but it was killed in committee or otherwise never voted on due to opposition by local governments unwilling to see their local control overridden. Now it is back in the current legislative session, still with considerable opposition. And Wiener keeps watering it down in an attempt to get it passed although arguably if he does, it won't do much because it will have been so diluted.

Editorial: SB50 is back, and so is the shouting
Chronicle Editorial Board Jan. 8, 2020 Updated: Jan. 8, 2020 4 a.m.
Comments

State Sen. Scott Wiener relaunched his twice-stalled legislation to spur apartment construction Tuesday with a news conference in Oakland that showcased the resistance facing the controversial but crucial measure.

The San Francisco Democrat came to the steps of Oakland City Hall armed with an amendment answering local officials’ loudest objections to the bill, an array of backers from housing advocates to trade unions, and a slate of supportive politicians that even included a Republican. But given the protesters whose shouted and intermittently bullhorn-assisted chants made much of the event inaudible, what Wiener really could have used was a better microphone.

. . . Carroll Fife of Moms 4 Housing, which is occupying a vacant West Oakland house and was among the protesters, called the bill “the 2020 version of urban renewal,” the policy that razed poor, urban neighborhoods from the 1950s through the 1970s . . . .

The senator pointed out that some of the fiercest opposition to the bill comes from local officials in wealthy enclaves such as Palo Alto, Cupertino and Beverly Hills . . . .

The latest in a series of amendments meant to respond to the legislation’s critics would give cities two years to devise their own plans to allow as much new housing as SB50 would before its provisions take effect. That should answer the frequent objection that the measure usurps cherished “local control” of how and where development takes place.

In many cases, however, it won’t. That’s because those calling for local control of residential construction are often more interested in preventing it altogether . . . .

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...g-14957343.php
This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.