4 ms·

a solution is on the table— sb-827. please research it. californians (and i am one too) need to stop complaining and start fixing things. this bill fixes things

a solution is on the table— sb-827. please research it. californians (and i am one too) need to stop complaining and start fixing things. this bill fixes things. it needs our attention and support. UPDATE: sb-827 prevents local governments in california from banning density near public transit. it represents the most radical housing bill in recent california history, because it rebalances control from hyperlocal municipalities to the state level. it could unlock 3m housing units in a state building <100k a year. that's 30 years of pent-up supply, and it could actually affect market prices.

anthonyleecook 9y ago
interesting!! will take a deeper look
dcldcl 9y ago
SB-827: Planning and zoning: transit-rich housing bonus [0] Edited: Nevermind, I see your other posts below. Original: I'm a urban California resident... (have been for a good chunk of my life). I'm don't see why this is a solution to the problem of why people are leaving the state. Can you provide your thoughts on why you believe this to be the solution? Or links to material you've found to be compelling? [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
- krausejj 9y ago
  https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/sb827-california-housing-crisis https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s... is the best article so far, but the nber introduction from 2002 is a great background piece (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835) also, i've considered this quite a bit and written on it mediocre-ly: https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-89b9609e4650 https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-8...
  - dcldcl 9y ago
    If I get the idea behind it, we're going to eliminate/reduce parking requirements and give a density bonus. And the primary way this will be feasible is if (more) people take transit. Then the thing about SB827 that doesn't make sense to me is why the bonus is only for residential development. Yes, I understand that residential pricing is the problem. But, we're not just taking transit to our friend's house. We're taking transit to work and services. Sure, I can see this working in San Francisco given the transit coverage and relatively centralized business core. (Scary though given the quality of service that Muni/BART offers presently.) But in LA/SD/Greater Bay Area/Sacramento? I think there's a ton of jobs that aren't off transit lines. Doesn't seem to work well there. Yes, I agree that things probably need to change in California. But SB827 seems to be about stirring the pot.
    - prawn 9y ago
      What density are they talking about? If 4-6 levels, then you can likely accommodate residential in the upper tiers and light commercial (consultancies, etc) at the bottom.
vondur 9y ago
Here in Southern California, we are running out of room for housing. You can basically drive all the way from San Diego to Santa Barbara, or from the coast to about a 100 miles inland and it's all city. Unless you are going to tear down existing housing and rebuild with more high density housing which is just cost prohibitive. I figure at some point availability of water will become the limiting factor.
- krausejj 9y ago
  some redevelopment is likely to occur. McKinsey did a deep dive here and came up with a 3 million number for new units (https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/closing-californias-housing-gap https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/closing-...) this wouldn't happen overnight, but it would be the biggest increase in housing supply in recent history. there are quite a few maps you can google to see where the increased density would be likely to go: https://transitrichhousing.org/ https://transitrichhousing.org/ (it looks like most of SB will not be affected, because you don't have as much transit as California's other cities)
- nopinsight 9y ago
  Since agriculture uses the bulk of water, it is a matter of allocation and proper pricing. California’s is a knowledge-based economy—Agriculture contributes but a small percentage to it (about 2%). Why should we restrict the number of productive people who can live in the state in favor of crops? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
  - DougN7 9y ago
    There is the small issue of those productive people needing to eat...
    - nopinsight 9y ago
      California exports a lot of food, including to other countries. It does not need to have excess food supply given its economic structure.

anthonyleecook 9y ago

interesting!! will take a deeper look

dcldcl 9y ago

SB-827: Planning and zoning: transit-rich housing bonus [0] Edited: Nevermind, I see your other posts below. Original: I'm a urban California resident... (have been for a good chunk of my life). I'm don't see why this is a solution to the problem of why people are leaving the state. Can you provide your thoughts on why you believe this to be the solution? Or links to material you've found to be compelling? [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

krausejj 9y ago
https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/sb827-california-housing-crisis https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s... is the best article so far, but the nber introduction from 2002 is a great background piece (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835) also, i've considered this quite a bit and written on it mediocre-ly: https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-89b9609e4650 https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-8...
- dcldcl 9y ago
  If I get the idea behind it, we're going to eliminate/reduce parking requirements and give a density bonus. And the primary way this will be feasible is if (more) people take transit. Then the thing about SB827 that doesn't make sense to me is why the bonus is only for residential development. Yes, I understand that residential pricing is the problem. But, we're not just taking transit to our friend's house. We're taking transit to work and services. Sure, I can see this working in San Francisco given the transit coverage and relatively centralized business core. (Scary though given the quality of service that Muni/BART offers presently.) But in LA/SD/Greater Bay Area/Sacramento? I think there's a ton of jobs that aren't off transit lines. Doesn't seem to work well there. Yes, I agree that things probably need to change in California. But SB827 seems to be about stirring the pot.
  - prawn 9y ago
    What density are they talking about? If 4-6 levels, then you can likely accommodate residential in the upper tiers and light commercial (consultancies, etc) at the bottom.

vondur 9y ago

Here in Southern California, we are running out of room for housing. You can basically drive all the way from San Diego to Santa Barbara, or from the coast to about a 100 miles inland and it's all city. Unless you are going to tear down existing housing and rebuild with more high density housing which is just cost prohibitive. I figure at some point availability of water will become the limiting factor.

krausejj 9y ago
some redevelopment is likely to occur. McKinsey did a deep dive here and came up with a 3 million number for new units (https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/closing-californias-housing-gap https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/closing-...) this wouldn't happen overnight, but it would be the biggest increase in housing supply in recent history. there are quite a few maps you can google to see where the increased density would be likely to go: https://transitrichhousing.org/ https://transitrichhousing.org/ (it looks like most of SB will not be affected, because you don't have as much transit as California's other cities)
nopinsight 9y ago
Since agriculture uses the bulk of water, it is a matter of allocation and proper pricing. California’s is a knowledge-based economy—Agriculture contributes but a small percentage to it (about 2%). Why should we restrict the number of productive people who can live in the state in favor of crops? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
- DougN7 9y ago
  There is the small issue of those productive people needing to eat...
  - nopinsight 9y ago
    California exports a lot of food, including to other countries. It does not need to have excess food supply given its economic structure.