15 ms·

Governor Brown's housing proposal could mean sweeping Bay Area changes

155 points by apsec112 10y ago

Shivetya 10y ago
Interesting but Sec 3 (c) does have an out with regards to planned existing zoning or general plan, then of course design reviews are another ninety days. I am quite sure that if the groups have been so successful they will simply be able to delay the process regardless. There will certainly be cities who will sue the state to throw the law out. Finally, never discount political retribution towards developers who do go this route. While protected in developments that follow this proposed law all their other developments directly and indirectly related will face more scrutiny Still got to celebrate a Governor whose solution doesn't involve taking away property rights but attempts to allow those with them to use them as they want.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  This will have some effect in San Francisco (some neighborhood development plans and zoning regs are so low density all projects require approval). But a lot of projects (like "the monster in the mission" to replace an old Burger King and empty warehouse with housing) would not be able to be blocked under this law. They follow the existing development plan so they require no exceptions. Even out here in Sunset, all the land is zoned 40ft or 60ft. If you include a basement, thats 4-6 stories when most structures are 2. If you weren't subject to massive delays and reviews, it would certainly be profitable to tear down some of these single-family homes and build 4-6 story apartment buildings.
readams 10y ago
I would rate the probability that this actually passes as somewhat less likely than an asteroid wiping out all life on Earth in the next year. That said, it sounds like a major step in the right direction toward actually addressing the root of the housing crisis.
- tryitnow 10y ago
  I have no evidence one way or another on whether this will pass, so I'm curious as to what you're basing your assessment on. The local NIMBYs have virtually no power at the state level, so I don't see how they could block this. Whereas real estate developers, construction companies, and construction trade unions do have lobbyists in Sacramento.
  - aetherson 10y ago
    I'm not sure that real estate developers are super-excited to build projects with 20% on-site affordable units, though maybe! I think it's clear that their preferred model would be to allow them to off-site their affordable housing requirements, but maybe this is a compromise they could live with.
    - saryant 10y ago
      Those requirements are quite common in Texas and developers still build like crazy.
      - wavefunction 10y ago
        They turn around and donate some cash to an "affordability" fund to get out of building any affordable units in their new developments. I'm somewhat torn about this: something has to be done to insure that a variety of economic classes live and mix in proximity in our cities ,but it seems like affordability programs don't do much to help the working poor but offer plenty of assistance to folks who are on disability and other assistance programs perpetually. Despite my radical leftist beliefs, I feel like the family that works in the downtown should be able to live "close" to their work if they want to, with an available pool of affordable housing in the market.
    - rhino369 10y ago
      20% affordable is standard in many places, especially since affordable isn't really that affordable.
pjlegato 10y ago
This would address an important element of high Bay Area housing costs: the discretionary project veto by local authorities. This is the main reason why only super-high end luxury stuff gets built in San Francisco. In most parts of the US, there are certain local zoning laws. You apply to the local government for review of your project. This is expensive, as you must prepare detailed professional studies for the proposal. If the project conforms to all of the zoning laws, it must receive a permit. They can only deny you a permit if your project does not comply with some specific zoning law. In San Francisco and several other nearby cities, the local government can arbitrarily withhold a permit even when a project conforms to all local zoning laws in every respect, usually under the vague and arbitrary guise of "not fitting in with the neighborhood's character." Since applying for a permit is an expensive and time consuming process, most developers simply don't bother to even try in San Francisco. They just go elsewhere, where their project can't be arbitrarily vetoed by local authorities despite conforming to all applicable zoning laws. The main exception is luxury developments: since the profit margin on luxury construction is so high, it's worth the extra cost and risk associated with navigating San Francisco's permit process. If this law passes, then municipalities will not wield the power of arbitrary veto anymore. There will still be extensive zoning regulations, of course; the difference is that development restrictions will have to be spelled out in the law, in advance, rather than made up on an ad hoc, per-project basis by local officials. This greatly reduces the risk involved in starting a development project, and makes non-luxury developments much more likely to be profitable and thus undertaken by developers.
- jeffdavis 10y ago
  What would stop a municipality from making zoning laws that are impossible to meet, and then just issuing waivers to those that play the political game well enough?
  - SilasX 10y ago
    That sounds like how things already are, esp with the "neighborhood character" restriction.
  - floatrock 10y ago
hkarthik 10y ago
Having recently moved to the Bay Area in the last year from Texas, I've been observing the NIMBYs and I've determined that it's very nuanced issue. I live in Dublin, CA, one of the far East Bay suburbs that is actually constructing tons of highly dense, brand new housing. And I've closely observed long time residents and neighbors debate and challenge the developers putting in this housing. There are the obviously impractical folks, complaining about the aesthetics of highly dense townhomes/apartments and how they "ruin the hillside" with their "cookie-cutter" looks. But this is a relatively small group making a fuss. They're an easy target for the media. But there are those with practical concerns. Increases in burglaries and auto theft because thieves target newly constructed communities first due to easy pickings [1]. Schools that become so overcrowded that kids are being taught in mobiles because the schools can't build fast enough to accommodate the growth [2]. Traffic that comes to a standstill because the two lane roads can't be expanded fast enough and toll roads become the only rapidly deployable option [3]. Mass Transit that becomes standing room only due to the influx of new residents [4]. There are solutions to these problems (more police, more schools, more road construction), but these services are often not financed by the housing development authorities. Recent attempts to get the developers to shoulder more of this cost is often the next fight these communities face. Some of these things take a decade or more to resolve. Given all of this, it's understandable why some just go the easiest route possible and decide to block all new development. I'm not saying it's right, but hopefully this gives you a bit more context. It's not just long time residents fighting change for no reason. * [1] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/04/07/dublin-residents-patrolling-their-own-streets-after-burglaries-spike/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/04/07/dublin-residents... * [2] http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_28252721/dublin-grapples-school-overcrowding http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_28252721/dublin-grap... * [3] http://abc7news.com/traffic/new-i-580-express-lanes-now-open-in-east-bay/1207229/ http://abc7news.com/traffic/new-i-580-express-lanes-now-open... * [4] http://www.ktvu.com/news/100269984-story http://www.ktvu.com/news/100269984-story
- pjlegato 10y ago
  It's true that dealing with a ton of new residents requires a lot of infrastructural work on the part of local governments. I don't think anyone denies that. The issue is that it's not a choice between getting a lot of new residents or not getting a lot of new residents. Empirically, tons of people are moving to the Bay Area every year, whether local governments like it or not, whether they make provision for that or not. It's happening, and there's no legal way to stop it. Resisting new development doesn't stop people from moving here, nor does it remove the need to build out new infrastructure. It simply makes property values become that much higher, because there's a fixed supply and a growing demand. This is, I think the main factor in why NIMBYs resist development: their own property is worth much more every year. Building new residences would only slow the rate of appreciation of their property.
mc32 10y ago
Yes, guv Brown! At last he frees us from the shackles local governments have had on reasonable development. I do hope this passes. This, in my mind, would vindicate his governorship, in my eyes. Glad pragmatism shows through from time to time. Some day, some day, that we may repeal prop 13.
dmode 10y ago
This will be awesome if it happens. I don't have much hope though.
matt_wulfeck 10y ago
> When Brown was mayor of Oakland, "every Oakland project I proposed was opposed at City Council by one group of neighbors or activists," he said last October. If anyone wants to see evidence of this just sign up at nextdoor. There exist a group of dedicated people in every neighborhood whose sole purpose it is to stop any new development.
- Asparagirl 10y ago
  THIS. OMG, the anti-development mob on Nextdoor is horrifying. I live in southern Marin and you would not believe the hysterical and shameless level of NIMBYism. People in my area use the platform to try to block new single family residences from being built even on privately-owned parcels, and post to Nextdoor urging everyone to come to the planning meetings to try to block the permits. After all, the person who wanted to build the house was a developer who lived in Sacramento, not a local person, and everybody freaked. Why, there was even a possibility that he might build five or ten houses in that area further down the line (the horror, the horror). When I posted comments objecting to the attitude, one of the local anti-development residents apparently ran a deep background check on me and posted to Nextdoor that I surely must be opposed because my family must be real estate developers and have some kind of vested interest. Actually, my grandfather started a commercial real estate company on the other side of the country, not residential real estate nor any kind of new development. But the implication was clear: try to block NIMBYism and people will actually dox you (albeit poorly), to the point they will seek out your deceased maternal grandfather's name and business.
hermannj314 10y ago
It is a step in the right direction, but this is still just more of the same policies that screw over the middle 40% of population. This still doesn't fix the problem with housing. As someone who makes exactly the median income but likes to save it, I am legally forbidden from living in "affordable housing". If you are poor, here is your free house. If you make the median income, you are forced to spend money exactly like everyone else. Lawmakers only care about affordable housing for the poor, no one cares about providing modest housing for the modest earner.
- peteretep 10y ago
  Serious question: why do you believe you're entitled to affordable housing in any arbitrary location?
  - hermannj314 10y ago
    I believe I'm entitled to the same benefits we give to the bottom 40% of the population and I believe I'm entitled to think this based on my reading of the equal protection clause of the constitution. Creating housing where only the poor can live is not equal protection under the law.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      Do you also believe you should get food stamps?
      - tostitos1979 10y ago
        Given there exist software engineers at Google who sleep in their vans ... maybe yes if the OP's employer doesn't have free food? At least in tech, we don't have student loans. I've heard of Doctors leaving the Bay area because they were fed up of housing + commute. Have you seen the prices in MV downtown? Apartments seem to have doubled in prices. In my opinion, what happened is low interest rates allowed some big hedge funds/property management companies to buy all the properties in the prime spots ... they did a bit of renovation, tagged the places as luxury apartments and here we are. My last place, the apartment manager mentioned that some 2 bedroom apartment had 4 roommates .. that's how people afford this crap.
rat87 10y ago
Note: Gov. Jerry Brown(CA) not Gov. Kate Brown(OR)

155 points by apsec112 10y ago

Interesting but Sec 3 (c) does have an out with regards to planned existing zoning or general plan, then of course design reviews are another ninety days. I am quite sure that if the groups have been so successful they will simply be able to delay the process regardless. There will certainly be cities who will sue the state to throw the law out. Finally, never discount political retribution towards developers who do go this route. While protected in developments that follow this proposed law all their other developments directly and indirectly related will face more scrutiny Still got to celebrate a Governor whose solution doesn't involve taking away property rights but attempts to allow those with them to use them as they want.

xenadu02 10y ago
This will have some effect in San Francisco (some neighborhood development plans and zoning regs are so low density all projects require approval). But a lot of projects (like "the monster in the mission" to replace an old Burger King and empty warehouse with housing) would not be able to be blocked under this law. They follow the existing development plan so they require no exceptions. Even out here in Sunset, all the land is zoned 40ft or 60ft. If you include a basement, thats 4-6 stories when most structures are 2. If you weren't subject to massive delays and reviews, it would certainly be profitable to tear down some of these single-family homes and build 4-6 story apartment buildings.

readams 10y ago

I would rate the probability that this actually passes as somewhat less likely than an asteroid wiping out all life on Earth in the next year. That said, it sounds like a major step in the right direction toward actually addressing the root of the housing crisis.

tryitnow 10y ago
I have no evidence one way or another on whether this will pass, so I'm curious as to what you're basing your assessment on. The local NIMBYs have virtually no power at the state level, so I don't see how they could block this. Whereas real estate developers, construction companies, and construction trade unions do have lobbyists in Sacramento.
- aetherson 10y ago
  I'm not sure that real estate developers are super-excited to build projects with 20% on-site affordable units, though maybe! I think it's clear that their preferred model would be to allow them to off-site their affordable housing requirements, but maybe this is a compromise they could live with.
  - saryant 10y ago
    Those requirements are quite common in Texas and developers still build like crazy.
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      They turn around and donate some cash to an "affordability" fund to get out of building any affordable units in their new developments. I'm somewhat torn about this: something has to be done to insure that a variety of economic classes live and mix in proximity in our cities ,but it seems like affordability programs don't do much to help the working poor but offer plenty of assistance to folks who are on disability and other assistance programs perpetually. Despite my radical leftist beliefs, I feel like the family that works in the downtown should be able to live "close" to their work if they want to, with an available pool of affordable housing in the market.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    20% affordable is standard in many places, especially since affordable isn't really that affordable.

pjlegato 10y ago

This would address an important element of high Bay Area housing costs: the discretionary project veto by local authorities. This is the main reason why only super-high end luxury stuff gets built in San Francisco. In most parts of the US, there are certain local zoning laws. You apply to the local government for review of your project. This is expensive, as you must prepare detailed professional studies for the proposal. If the project conforms to all of the zoning laws, it must receive a permit. They can only deny you a permit if your project does not comply with some specific zoning law. In San Francisco and several other nearby cities, the local government can arbitrarily withhold a permit even when a project conforms to all local zoning laws in every respect, usually under the vague and arbitrary guise of "not fitting in with the neighborhood's character." Since applying for a permit is an expensive and time consuming process, most developers simply don't bother to even try in San Francisco. They just go elsewhere, where their project can't be arbitrarily vetoed by local authorities despite conforming to all applicable zoning laws. The main exception is luxury developments: since the profit margin on luxury construction is so high, it's worth the extra cost and risk associated with navigating San Francisco's permit process. If this law passes, then municipalities will not wield the power of arbitrary veto anymore. There will still be extensive zoning regulations, of course; the difference is that development restrictions will have to be spelled out in the law, in advance, rather than made up on an ad hoc, per-project basis by local officials. This greatly reduces the risk involved in starting a development project, and makes non-luxury developments much more likely to be profitable and thus undertaken by developers.

jeffdavis 10y ago
What would stop a municipality from making zoning laws that are impossible to meet, and then just issuing waivers to those that play the political game well enough?
- SilasX 10y ago
  That sounds like how things already are, esp with the "neighborhood character" restriction.
- floatrock 10y ago

hkarthik 10y ago

Having recently moved to the Bay Area in the last year from Texas, I've been observing the NIMBYs and I've determined that it's very nuanced issue. I live in Dublin, CA, one of the far East Bay suburbs that is actually constructing tons of highly dense, brand new housing. And I've closely observed long time residents and neighbors debate and challenge the developers putting in this housing. There are the obviously impractical folks, complaining about the aesthetics of highly dense townhomes/apartments and how they "ruin the hillside" with their "cookie-cutter" looks. But this is a relatively small group making a fuss. They're an easy target for the media. But there are those with practical concerns. Increases in burglaries and auto theft because thieves target newly constructed communities first due to easy pickings [1]. Schools that become so overcrowded that kids are being taught in mobiles because the schools can't build fast enough to accommodate the growth [2]. Traffic that comes to a standstill because the two lane roads can't be expanded fast enough and toll roads become the only rapidly deployable option [3]. Mass Transit that becomes standing room only due to the influx of new residents [4]. There are solutions to these problems (more police, more schools, more road construction), but these services are often not financed by the housing development authorities. Recent attempts to get the developers to shoulder more of this cost is often the next fight these communities face. Some of these things take a decade or more to resolve. Given all of this, it's understandable why some just go the easiest route possible and decide to block all new development. I'm not saying it's right, but hopefully this gives you a bit more context. It's not just long time residents fighting change for no reason. * [1] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/04/07/dublin-residents-patrolling-their-own-streets-after-burglaries-spike/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/04/07/dublin-residents... * [2] http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_28252721/dublin-grapples-school-overcrowding http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_28252721/dublin-grap... * [3] http://abc7news.com/traffic/new-i-580-express-lanes-now-open-in-east-bay/1207229/ http://abc7news.com/traffic/new-i-580-express-lanes-now-open... * [4] http://www.ktvu.com/news/100269984-story http://www.ktvu.com/news/100269984-story

pjlegato 10y ago
It's true that dealing with a ton of new residents requires a lot of infrastructural work on the part of local governments. I don't think anyone denies that. The issue is that it's not a choice between getting a lot of new residents or not getting a lot of new residents. Empirically, tons of people are moving to the Bay Area every year, whether local governments like it or not, whether they make provision for that or not. It's happening, and there's no legal way to stop it. Resisting new development doesn't stop people from moving here, nor does it remove the need to build out new infrastructure. It simply makes property values become that much higher, because there's a fixed supply and a growing demand. This is, I think the main factor in why NIMBYs resist development: their own property is worth much more every year. Building new residences would only slow the rate of appreciation of their property.

mc32 10y ago

Yes, guv Brown! At last he frees us from the shackles local governments have had on reasonable development. I do hope this passes. This, in my mind, would vindicate his governorship, in my eyes. Glad pragmatism shows through from time to time. Some day, some day, that we may repeal prop 13.

dmode 10y ago

This will be awesome if it happens. I don't have much hope though.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

> When Brown was mayor of Oakland, "every Oakland project I proposed was opposed at City Council by one group of neighbors or activists," he said last October. If anyone wants to see evidence of this just sign up at nextdoor. There exist a group of dedicated people in every neighborhood whose sole purpose it is to stop any new development.

Asparagirl 10y ago
THIS. OMG, the anti-development mob on Nextdoor is horrifying. I live in southern Marin and you would not believe the hysterical and shameless level of NIMBYism. People in my area use the platform to try to block new single family residences from being built even on privately-owned parcels, and post to Nextdoor urging everyone to come to the planning meetings to try to block the permits. After all, the person who wanted to build the house was a developer who lived in Sacramento, not a local person, and everybody freaked. Why, there was even a possibility that he might build five or ten houses in that area further down the line (the horror, the horror). When I posted comments objecting to the attitude, one of the local anti-development residents apparently ran a deep background check on me and posted to Nextdoor that I surely must be opposed because my family must be real estate developers and have some kind of vested interest. Actually, my grandfather started a commercial real estate company on the other side of the country, not residential real estate nor any kind of new development. But the implication was clear: try to block NIMBYism and people will actually dox you (albeit poorly), to the point they will seek out your deceased maternal grandfather's name and business.

hermannj314 10y ago

It is a step in the right direction, but this is still just more of the same policies that screw over the middle 40% of population. This still doesn't fix the problem with housing. As someone who makes exactly the median income but likes to save it, I am legally forbidden from living in "affordable housing". If you are poor, here is your free house. If you make the median income, you are forced to spend money exactly like everyone else. Lawmakers only care about affordable housing for the poor, no one cares about providing modest housing for the modest earner.

peteretep 10y ago
Serious question: why do you believe you're entitled to affordable housing in any arbitrary location?
- hermannj314 10y ago
  I believe I'm entitled to the same benefits we give to the bottom 40% of the population and I believe I'm entitled to think this based on my reading of the equal protection clause of the constitution. Creating housing where only the poor can live is not equal protection under the law.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    Do you also believe you should get food stamps?
    - tostitos1979 10y ago
      Given there exist software engineers at Google who sleep in their vans ... maybe yes if the OP's employer doesn't have free food? At least in tech, we don't have student loans. I've heard of Doctors leaving the Bay area because they were fed up of housing + commute. Have you seen the prices in MV downtown? Apartments seem to have doubled in prices. In my opinion, what happened is low interest rates allowed some big hedge funds/property management companies to buy all the properties in the prime spots ... they did a bit of renovation, tagged the places as luxury apartments and here we are. My last place, the apartment manager mentioned that some 2 bedroom apartment had 4 roommates .. that's how people afford this crap.

rat87 10y ago

Note: Gov. Jerry Brown(CA) not Gov. Kate Brown(OR)