The Bill That Could Make California Livable Again

[M II A II R II K]

The Bill That Could Make California Livable Again


January 13, 2020

By Annie Lowrey

Read More: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...fornia/604786/

.....

California has a hyperacute version of a problem affecting a number of states and, especially, metro regions within those states. Based on the housing-unit-to-population ratio in similarly wealthy and urban states, such as New York and New Jersey, California is short 2 million to 3.5 million housing units. (California has 358 homes per 1,000 people, whereas New York and New Jersey each have more than 400.) Right now, the state ranks 49th in units per capita, behind only Utah.

- This deficiency has driven a cost-of-living crisis, leading to long commutes, desolate retail corridors, plunging net worths, bankruptcies, and shortages of child care, elder care, and other services. Any number of trends have collided to foster the housing shortage: surging income and wealth inequality, in-migration, growing construction costs. But in policy terms, there is one central culprit: zoning regulations, including local oversight rules. Neighborhoods have the ability to kibosh too many projects, and zoning rules favor sprawl over infill housing. --- S.B. 50 would override local restrictions on building, letting developers create more housing and denser housing near train stations and high-frequency bus stops. Homeowners would be able to build accessory dwelling units or casitas; companies would be able to build small apartment complexes.

- The bill stalled in the California legislature last year. But earlier this month State Senator Scott Wiener announced changes that would give localities more flexibility in implementing the law, provided that they allow as much construction as S.B. 50 itself would allow, and would ensure that low-income residents get access to the new housing. --- The bill is a technical one, steeped in arcana on parking requirements, height limits, and bus frequencies. But it would be a transformative one, both its detractors and its supporters agree. It would effectively disallow single-family zoning in many neighborhoods. It would force wealthy suburbs to permit the construction of apartment buildings and duplexes. And it would reorient the state’s growth away from sprawl toward infill. Housing would get more plentiful, and thus cheaper.

- Its detractors sit in two camps. Tenants-rights groups and low-income-housing advocates argue that S.B. 50 would not do enough to create housing for the poor, and might supercharge displacement in neighborhoods where even high-income residents are seeing themselves priced out. “Incentivizing more luxury development and inflating property values in San Francisco will further exacerbate real estate speculation, which has already played a key role in displacing low and moderate-income tenants, immigrants, seniors and families across California,” argues the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, which advocates for tenants. --- Then there are the NIMBYs, who argue that S.B. 50 will destroy neighborhoods’ homegrown character, hurt home values, and harm the environment: Goodbye to green, single-family neighborhoods, and hello to traffic-gnarled, high-rise apartments.

.....

[kingkirbythe....]

This bill is a start.

[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.

[Pedestrian]

^^Oops. Sorry about that Ms. Fife (of "Moms4Housing"):

Deputies evict squatting Oakland moms in pre-dawn raid
By Amy Graff, SFGATE Updated 9:35 am PST, Tuesday, January 14, 2020

In an early morning raid, sheriff's deputies evicted a group of mothers illegally occupying a vacant house in Oakland.

Multiple videos posted by news organizations online show the mothers being pulled out of the house and put in handcuffs by deputies just before 6 a.m. Protesters stood outside chanting "shame on you" at the deputies.

Alameda County sheriff's deputies arrested two women and a man during the eviction, a sheriff's spokesman confirmed . . . .

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Patrick McKinney ruled on Friday that the women do not have the right to stay and must leave within five days . . . .

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...n-14973686.php

[dimondpark]

S.B. 50 would override local restrictions on building, letting developers create more housing and denser housing near train stations and high-frequency bus stops. Homeowners would be able to build accessory dwelling units or casitas; companies would be able to build small apartment complexes.

Ive never heard them called 'casitas'.

Here we call them in-law units or granny units or something like that, casita actually sounds better imo.

Yes that's nitpicking but whatever...

[SLO]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Ive never heard them called 'casitas'.

Here we call them in-law units or granny units or something like that, casita actually sounds better imo.

Yes that's nitpicking but whatever...

I hear casitas in So Cal regularly, but the official name is ADU, additional dwelling unit. The restrictions on ADUs was loosened 2 or 3 years ago.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Ive never heard them called 'casitas'.

It's a common term in Arizona but it means more than an "adu". It's basically used for any very small detached living unit--doesn't have to be "accessory" to anything. As you may know, it literally just means "small house".

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Ive never heard them called 'casitas'.

Here we call them in-law units or granny units or something like that, casita actually sounds better imo.

Yes that's nitpicking but whatever...

Calling them Casita's is very common in California and the southwest in general. In Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico they are called Casitas as well

Unsurprisingly it is Spanish for "little house"

[plutonicpanda]

I hope this bill dies like the stupid ones that were proposed. When this bill makes cities even more unaffordable, more opposition to new transit lines, and California still bleeds population to states(notably ones building large freeway networks), the anti-car crowd will still blame suburbs and cars and conservative ideologies.

[uaarkson]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

I hope this bill dies like the stupid ones that were proposed. When this bill makes cities even more unaffordable, more opposition to new transit lines, and California still bleeds population to states(notably ones building large freeway networks), the anti-car crowd will still blame suburbs and cars and conservative ideologies.

Lol. When will you people learn that America has been getting diminishing returns on the suburban experiment for 40+ years now? Do you just ignore the successes of walkable and urban Europe and Asia?

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Lol. When will you people learn that America has been getting diminishing returns on the suburban experiment for 40+ years now? Do you just ignore the successes of walkable and urban Europe and Asia?

The most powerful and wealthy country on the planet seems to be doing something right and hasn't been hindered by suburban development. The suburbs are experiencing tons of growth and are homes to hundreds of millions of people. The "suburban experiment" hasn't failed and is no longer an experiment. It is a part of life. Get over it and try lowering your nose a bit.

You just ignore the successes of suburbs. Europe and Asia have tons of problems just like the states do. It is so funny to me so see posters here act like the pastures are so much greener in Europe and Asia.

[Pedestrian]

Key California housing bill’s chances of passing just improved dramatically
Alexei Koseff Jan. 17, 2020 Updated: Jan. 17, 2020 11:23 a.m.

SACRAMENTO — State Sen. Scott Wiener’s bill to clear a path for denser housing around public transit and in wealthy suburbs got a big push forward Friday when the Senate’s leader steered it out of the committee where it stalled last year.

Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, said she was moving SB50 out of the Appropriations Committee, whose chairman, Democratic Sen. Anthony Portantino, blocked it in 2019 and gave a frosty reception to the amended version that Wiener is now proposing.

Atkins sent the bill to the Rules Committee, where it could advance directly to a Senate floor vote before a deadline for passage at the end of the month. . . . .

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics...f-14984182.php

[pdxtex]

I'm no economist but wont new units just end up being market rate? The bar has already been set pretty high. The median price for a house statewide 500k. But yeah, it's a start.

[SFBruin]

There are also people who live in actual basements in San Francisco. Though I imagine that that is super illegal and probably not that common.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

There are also people who live in actual basements in San Francisco. Though I imagine that that is super illegal and probably not that common.

Reality is always more dramatic than theory in the Bay Area. Not only do people live in basements (aren't Millennials doing that all over the country?), developers are developing underground warrens--like termite dens--for them:

Maybe underground ‘sleeping pods’ in the Mission aren’t a bad idea after all?

Of the 219 units micro-housing developer Chris Elsey of Elsey Partners LLC wants to build in the Mission District, 65 of them would be underground sleeping pods renting between $1,000 to $1,375 . . . .

Elsey, a Kansas-based developer, would like to build two apartment buildings in the Mission District, located across from each other on surface lots at 401 South Van Ness and 1500 15th Street, that would each include two basement-level floors.

“Above ground, the building would feature eights floors with 161 units—each 200-square-feet including a bathroom and kitchen,” reports SFGate. “In the basement-level floors, the sleeping pods are stacked on top of one another, like bunk beds, with one side opening to a common living space.”

Think of the cellar spaces somewhat akin to capsule hotels, popular in countries like Iceland and Japan, where people sleep comfortably on the cheap in pod-like rooms. But unlike the overseas hotels, Elsey’s underground pods would only come with curtains for privacy, as the city’s building code won’t allow them built with a wall and door. And while the basement units won’t come with windows, Elsey says that the common space, which would face an outdoor courtyard, would provide some natural diffused light.

Though abnormal and ostensibly outrageous, exceedingly tiny sleeping units have, due to the city’s “cruel and inhumane” housing crisis, proven successful in San Francisco as of late. For example, the $1,200-per-month bunk bed pods in the Tenderloin, which made headlines last year, sold out as soon as they hit the market . . . .

The buildings’ above ground studios would rent between $2,000 to $2,375, a bargain in a city there the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $3,683 . . . .

(The Building--above ground)


(Diagram of below-ground "podville")

https://sf.curbed.com/2020/1/10/2105...unk-beds-dorms

[craigs]

The city passed a law allowing garages to be converted to housing units as-of-right. There are still building codes to satisfy, and I would imagine a construction permit is needed, but no zoning variance is required if I recall correctly.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by craigs

The city passed a law allowing garages to be converted to housing units as-of-right. There are still building codes to satisfy, and I would imagine a construction permit is needed, but no zoning variance is required if I recall correctly.

I know, but before the law changed there were hundreds (if not thousands) of such conversions done illegally and there's a process to get them legalized that most owners have not gone through.

All you have to do is scan real estate adds and you'll see plenty of "unpermitted inlaw unit" acknowledgements, quite a few of which are in former garages I'm sure.

[plutonicpanda]

Nice! We are moving to assimilate Hong Kong's cage apartments which I believe are even illegal there.

[chris08876]

1968, California dreamin', 2020, Mamas and Papas leaving California.

Hopefully the fire gets put out in the future. Make the state livable again.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Hopefully the fire gets put out in the future. Make the state livable again.

No matter how you feel about SB 50 and California's various policies toward business, development and assorted social issues (and I am severely distressed by quite a few of them--nearly all it often seems), California remains a beautiful place, almost uniquely blessed by nature and in many ways also enhanced by previous generations (Highway 1, Golden Gate Bridge, the towers of SF and LA, the state's many parks (national and state) and so on. And while some large businesses are leaving the state for Texas suburbs and other low tax/low regulation spots, the concentration of knowledge professionals and entrepreneurs in California continue to create new businesses faster than any are leaving. In part this is because of high skill immigration (a remarkable percentage of knowledge-based businesses are led by immigrants). 90% of the state remains a great--maybe exceptionally great--place to live. Even parts of the infamously challenged cities.

And it's an interesting fact that while 27% of California (over 10 million people) is foreign-born, Gov. Newsome says the state needs 3.5 million new homes by 2025. There are several points to be made here: (1) Without virtually uncontrolled immigration, the state might not even have a housing shortage, however (2) very few of the people living in the state's tent cities and making up the population of homeless are immigrants. Assuming many of the newly arrived immigrants crossing the southern border bring very little with them in terms of possessions or assets, this tells you that the state's housing problem is not about poor people and maybe not even about too few homes (although a reasonable surplus of homes, which we clearly do NOT have, might help with the problem of affordability).

It really seems to be about an exceptionally tolerant attitude toward substance use/abuse and the resulting addiction and about a failure to deal appropriately with mental illness, both making treatment available to those who need it and making it compulsory for those who demonstrate an inability to shelter and feed themselves thus putting their lives and physical health in danger. And to at least some extent it may be about such factors as the gentle weather and the generous welfare benefit policies which the state can afford because of its continuing wealth and wealth creation.