25 ms·

California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

289 points by baron816 7y ago

baron816 7y ago
Jerry Hill is the Senator for most of the SF Peninsula. He voted against the bill. https://sd13.senate.ca.gov/ https://sd13.senate.ca.gov/
- marcell 7y ago
  He is termed out. The author of SB50 has endorsed Shelly Masur for the open seat. She is, I believe, the only candidate for the seat in support of SB50. Endorsement: https://padailypost.com/2019/08/30/sb50-author-wiener-endorses-masur-in-state-senate-race/ https://padailypost.com/2019/08/30/sb50-author-wiener-endors... Her campaign page: https://www.shellymasur.com/ https://www.shellymasur.com/
tomatotomato37 7y ago
Here's the voting breakdown: https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB50/id/910526 https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB50/id/910526
- andymcsherry 7y ago
  Yea: 18, Nay: 15: Not Voting: 6 The measure fails despite more Yea than Nay votes. The California State Senate has 40 seats and always require 21 votes to pass. Vacancies (currently 1), absences and abstentions don't appear to affect the denominator of the 51% threshold. As a result, Not Voting is essentially a disguised no vote.
  - harryh 7y ago
    Not Voting is essentially a disguised no vote. This is such a lame rule. People wanting to vote no should have to say so and vacancies shouldn't make it harder for bills to pass.
davidw 7y ago
California's housing policy failures have repercussions up and down the west coast. It's sad they didn't follow Oregon's lead and legalize some more diverse housing options.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
  “Legalize” housing options. The way we talk about housing reflects part of the problem: the government wants you to ask for permission (and take their cut) before you can do anything, via permitting and zoning laws. They could care less if they’re a big part of the problem.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  The real answer is to legalize and tax it. Prop 13 is a huge distortion on the California real estate market.
  - rcpt 7y ago
    > legalize and tax it Thank you for this.
  - wahern 7y ago
    Prop 13 is a huge distortion to tax and revenue generally, but it doesn't promote anti-development NIMBYism. If anything, Prop 13 should make denser development more tolerable to existing residents as otherwise denser development in their neighborhood would lead to accelerated increases in assessed land values. That's the very reason Prop 13 was enacted in the first place--to improve ownership security in the face of rapid changes in the neighborhood. The one and only fix for NIMBYism is to remove local control. Cities have every incentive to continue restrictive zoning because the immediate costs are externalized to the larger region, while the benefits--satisfaction of home owning voters who don't want multi-family dwellings in their neighborhood--inure directly to the city leaders. It's a collective action problem. Mandates don't work well because leaders who comply are voted out of office, while those who find loopholes or simply ignore mandates are favored at the polls. So when politicians complain that SB50 and similar bills remove local control, that's exactly the point. But nobody wants to say that aloud because to most people "local control" is in the abstract a good thing, and losing local control a bad thing.
asdfqwer234 7y ago
Housing has been a bitter historical and cross-cultural source of class conflict and oppression. In its current form in America, the bourgeois accumulate as much as they can like any unethical entity, and leverage it to maximize personal utility at the cost of the living conditions of the masses. It's always interesting to see how people use capitalism to indirectly (which is no excuse) cause this natural brutal nature of existence, to cause the common man (or woman) to "groan and sweat under a weary life".
- mindslight 7y ago
  To be fair, a continual rent treadmill that forces everyone to work full time is the explicit overt policy of the Federal Reserve. But any candidate that brings this up gets memory-holed by the mainstream propagandas.
  - jdc 7y ago
    Woah. What kind of language do they use to describe said policy?
    - mindslight 7y ago
      https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm > The objectives as mandated by the Congress in the Federal Reserve Act are promoting (1) maximum employment, which means all Americans that want to work are gainfully employed, and (2) stable prices for the goods and services we all purchase The qualifier "want" is a distraction, as everyone "wants" to work if that's what it takes to have a reliable bed to sleep in. Furthermore, "stable" prices are untenable in the face of technological progress that makes everything less expensive. In order for the CPI average to keep going up, the price of housing has to shoot through the roof. edit: Try drawing out the basic feedback loop. The Fed acts by creating new money. It doesn't simply give this money away to everyone (which would cause across the board price inflation), but it can only be accessed by taking on loans. Anything that can be financialized becomes awash in this new money - housing, cars, education. Consumers then have to settle for paying interest payments (rent) on sky-high asset valuations, rather than having smaller loans that can be paid off early to achieve economic bargaining power.
matchbok 7y ago
What a mess. Sad to see "tenant" organizations yell and scream about gentrification and displacement, ignoring the fact that both of those things are happening right now.
- monadic2 7y ago
  SB50 would make the problem worse the way it’s structured.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    How is increasing the supply of housing going to increase gentrification? The housing shortage has resulted in high housing prices, which is the main driver of gentrification.
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's no guarantee the tenants can move back.
      - 33MHz-i486 7y ago
        they are anti-displacement provisions in the bill. gentrification/displacement can't happen if upzoning happens at scale of the entire regions/state. e.g. techies won't move to Oakland if there's a bunch of new housing in San Francisco, Palo Alto, Cupertino etc.
      - epistasis 7y ago
        You are spreading misinformation. This doesn't apply to any parcel that has a building been rented out for the past seven years. A length of time calculated to ensure that it is not profitable to tear down existing housing That among a whole host of other protections to make sure that nobody is displaced. There was a serious chance seriously upgrade protections for tenants while also increasing supply to prevent other pressures and welcome more people in to our cities. Instead a bunch of wealthy NIMBYs in suburbs do what they do and maintained exclusionary zoning to keep our apartments. A fraction of self described tenants groups carried water for landlords and wealthy homeonwer's profits by opposing this and giving conservatives the language to sound like they were woke. But be it tenants groups, non-profit affordable housing builders, unions, social justice groups, you will find them among the supporters.
kodablah 7y ago
Question from an outsider: Is it really necessary to have a state-level bill for this as opposed to county-level? Is the diversity of the localities in the state small enough where such a measure can be decided so centrally? (I admit I haven't read it or saw if it had conditions on population).
- hbosch 7y ago
  Well, one of the main "reasons" this bill was killed was about what you're asking. From the LA Times[0]: "Senate Bill 50, which would have allowed construction of mid-rise apartment complexes near transit and job centers and fourplexes in most single-family neighborhoods throughout California, was opposed by state senators who said the measure took too much power away from local governments and failed to sufficiently address low-income housing needs." So it seems there are people in the CA state senate who would rather see this done at county or city levels. However, sometimes these projects hinge on state support in the form of taxes/allocation or if there is existing state-level legislation that requires amendment or repeal... I think. I'm not a gov buff. Overall, though, I think the prevailing thought is that the cities/counties that some say "need" affordable/denser housing would never on their own vote for new legislation. Palo Alto is named in this article[0] where a resident claims building higher density dwellings is less important than curbing corporate expansion. Quote: "Greg Schmid, a 78-year-old retired economist, said the region should slow the expansion of large companies. Young, highly paid tech employees are overwhelming Palo Alto, he said, and adding to traffic congestion. The situation, he said, only works for the companies’ benefit and drives out families who earn less and could otherwise live in Palo Alto. “The aggressive expansion of big business does not have any sensitivity to the need for a sustainable community,” Schmid said." I think it's a fair point. -- 0. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-29/high-profile-california-housing-bill-to-allow-mid-rise-apartments-near-transit-falls-short https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-29/high-pro... 1. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-apartment-construction-density-palo-alto-20190422-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-apartm...
- davidw 7y ago
  They have been failing to do anything at the local level for years, because it's easier for a small group of angry wealthy homeowners to get their way in local processes. So they were looking to do something statewide, to put everyone on a level playing field.
sjg007 7y ago
Well the only solution is a ballot initiative to repeal prop 13. That will change things.
- generalpass 7y ago
  > Well the only solution is a ballot initiative to repeal prop 13. That will change things. This seems to always be stated as if stating it makes it true. Prop 13 has little to do with high housing prices and a lot to do with getting more revenue for governments. Prices are influenced by supply and demand. The artificial limiting of supply by all of the governments in California is the biggest factor in why the prices are outrageously high.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    Exactly right. And every time a property is turned over, the base tax rate gets reset, plus prop 13 allows for a 2% increase every year. California has the highest sales and income tax (for incomes over $500,000) in the Nation. They don't need the highest property tax, too.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      The reason California has the highest sales and income taxes is that it has the lowest property tax. People who have held property for a very long time are taxed very little relative to how they would be taxed in other states, and people who are new are taxed a lot.
      - fortran77 7y ago
        California does NOT have the lowest property tax. It is very distasteful for you to try to win an argument by lying. http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state And if you rank the states by percentage revenue from property tax, you'll see they are right in the middle https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-and-local-backgrounders/property-taxes https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
pochamago 7y ago
The gentrification boogeyman comes off to me as privilege masquerading as the voice of the oppressed. It's regularly used to bludgeon the poor into homelessness, while the areas that are rife with actual gentrification seem to have far more diverse and affordable neighborhoods.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Kalium 7y ago
  It's a little of both. There are plenty of people who genuinely believe they can help keep gentrification at bay if they preserve the housing approval systems that exist now. In practice that can mean anything from blocking everything to using approvals to extract design and donations to charities. There are also, as you say, those who are quite privileged and wish to preserve that. To them, gentrification is a great way to scare other people into averting change.
  - dionidium 7y ago
    > There are plenty of people who genuinely believe they can help keep gentrification at bay if they preserve the housing approval systems that exist now It's a complete reversal of cause and effect. New buildings don't cause demand; new buildings are a response to demand. You can't make the sun shine by passing a law against rain.
KoftaBob 7y ago
Pathetic.
- mpochwat 7y ago
  Well this is for sure a bummer
40acres 7y ago
It's getting very difficult to see how California works its way out of this mess. SB 50 like measures can be passed at the local level in theory but if I've learned anything from these fights it's that older, wealthy homeowners will cripple any attempt to do so.
- 0xB31B1B 7y ago
  They can’t be passed at a local level without CEQA review and a torrent of unending lawsuits. That’s why it needs to happen at a state level.
  - thedance 7y ago
    That’s not true. Any city in California has total authority to adjust their zoning code. Cities change zoning as a matter of routine business. The reason cities have not done anything constructive is each individual small government is held hostage by its own incumbent land owners.
    - 0xB31B1B 7y ago
      They can do it, it takes 8-10 years. Look at the eastern neighborhoods plan in SF, it literally took 20 years. Part of that is shitty nimby neighbors, part of that is area plans are able to be litigated under CEQA, which Is basically guaranteed, and it adds 4-8 years to an area plan project. My point is that it’s literally illegal to do, but it’s functionally impossible, or at least extremely difficult and it takes a very very long time. Ballot box rezoning is not subject to CEQA and therefore can pass quicker (it’s how JJJ skipped CEQA review in LA) but that’s a whole other can of worms.
      - thedance 7y ago
        Cities don’t need area plans to achieve this. They need only amend their codes to change the parameters of their existing designation, like R-1 or whatever. No public outreach is needed to write down that a duplex is permitted in the zone called R-1. No EIR need be written before raising maximum heights from 25 to 45 feet. Any city government can put the item in their agenda and do this in a single sitting. You’re right that people will sue over anything, and that’s why I support state preemptions in this case, but there’s no excuse for what cities have failed to do.
yonran 7y ago
California has a more principled approach to housing capacity planning called RHNA, in which the state sets a zoning budget (like that proposed by David Schleicher https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/ https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/) and then delegates to local governments the responsibility to zone to allow enough houses to meet that budget. Unfortunately, the RHNA has numerous flaws including vastly underestimating the “need,” lax enforcement, and having very long cycles. Scott Wiener has previously addressed the flaws somewhat (SB 35 (2017) and SB 828 (2018)), but there is still a lot that must be done to fix the RHNA; see this good overview for more information and potential administrative improvements (https://law.ucdavis.edu/centers/environmental/files/Elmendorf_et_al_Making-It-Work1.pdf https://law.ucdavis.edu/centers/environmental/files/Elmendor...) The appeal of Wiener’s SB 50 was that it would have quickly increased the capacity of housing using fairly good heuristics to improve access to opportunity (already residential, near transit stops or jobs, not high fire risk). It’s unfortunate that the state senate doesn’t seem to want to treat the housing shortage with the urgency that it deserves.
- SllX 7y ago
  No policy, not one, out of Sacramento is going to solve affordable housing in a stagnant property market in which people are incentivized not to sell, rent or lease their properties. Sacramento could centralize zoning and effectively upzone the entire State tomorrow and it would be one State constitutional amendment away from being overturned, which is not nearly as high a bar as it should be.
- exjdjeejfh 7y ago
  Principled is a way of making it sound less terrible than 'restrained'. California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.
  - sitkack 7y ago
    Nice how you slipped your pet bugaboo into your argument. Enviros are not responsible for the height caps and the sprawl.
veeralpatel979 7y ago
To combat many problems, the government would certainly be helpful, but isn't necessary. Take climate change. If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Unfortunately, a lack of housing is a problem that the government created. And it's a problem that only the government, in my view, can really fix. As long as housing supply is artificially restricted, I don't see how this gets better. Please let me know if I am wrong.
- paulgb 7y ago
  > If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Sure, but it's a lot easier for a software company to go carbon neutral than a power company. Which is not to take away from what they're doing, it is still hard to do! The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments. Neither is perfect all of the time. But when it comes to problems rife with externalities (like pollution, or intellectual property), free markets on their own tend to be bad at aligning incentives, and governments are the least-worst solution. Edit to clarify: this was about the climate change part, but I agree that the government is causing the problem here wrt. zoning.
  - veeralpatel979 7y ago
    > The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments This is smart. I'm stealing this :)
    - kunai 7y ago
      On the counterfactual, it's actually not very smart, and a toxic and myopic view of society. There's an entire spectrum of coordinating collective human behavior that ranges from systems like feudalism to anarcho-syndicalism to mixed economies like those that exist in Scandinavia and much of Western Europe. Government's role is infinitely flexible as a result; it can choose to be as expansive or as minimal as possible. In the case of housing, which is an issue where there needs to be mass action to ensure additional housing supply, relying on either the free market or government exclusively is not going to fix the problem. One of the things that a lot of pseudo-intellectual YIMBYs in the Bay and elsewhere don't realize about the housing crisis is that it will require massive mobilization action by both public and private actors to solve. For instance, I rarely hear the YIMBY crowd sing the praises of public housing, a model that has been successful[1] in Singapore, Vienna, and many other cities across the globe. I find the anti-government sentiments and libertarian beats on this website frequently tiring at best, gravely ill-conceived at worst. [1]https://www.shareable.net/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore/ https://www.shareable.net/public-housing-works-lessons-from-...
throwaway713 7y ago
There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated with moving, but I would have thought this would be a small minority of people, not the majority of them. Or are most people so rooted to where they grew up that they don’t want to leave? The other thing that confuses me is why companies aren’t moving either. It’s been a long time since a "new" city was created, but we have plenty of land available, and a lot of it is in pretty (but not natural park) locations. Is there that much of a network effect with talent being in one region that companies would rather pay a 4x compensation premium than relocate to new or lower cost locations? Are there any examples of big companies that have relocated their HQ to lower COL locations and then failed because they couldn't attract talent to move there, or is it just conjecture that this would occur?
- davidw 7y ago
  > Is there that much of a network effect with talent being in one region that companies would rather pay a 4x compensation premium that relocate to new or lower cost locations? Yes, it's pretty strong. Employers want to be where the employees are, and employees want to be somewhere where there are other jobs.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  They like living CA better than elsewhere, but don't want the economic profit to go to landlords who didn't create that value.
- 40acres 7y ago
  Network effects I suppose. When this economy was based on land and natural resources it made sense to move (and subdue the native population) to open land and gain an advantage, with a service based economy it makes greater sense to cluster at population centers and leverage that. The rise of remote work will probably alleviate this a bit but education, health care, entertainment, hospitality (aka. the fastest growing sub sectors of our service economy) are more valuable when delivered in person. Not to mention fighting climate change (not to say that we're doing a particularly good job) encourages density.
slavapestov 7y ago
Expensive housing is a feature and not a bug for the tech industry. They prefer to hire young, single workers because they will work longer hours in worse conditions, and if they can keep them rent- and commute-burdened they are less likely to switch jobs, start a family, take up a hobby, etc.
- ashtonian 7y ago
  That's funny considering that Google was literally trying to build housing for its employees and the Gov blocked them because nimby. Blaming the tech industries for California's terrible idea of governance is pretty laughable. The state would be bankrupt if not for the valley.
trashaccount975 7y ago
Long term there is no fix unless immigration is halted which is not going to happen. There is a virtually unlimited supply of people who want to come to this country. I live here in LA, the homeless problem has been accelerating dramatically over the last few years in spite of a "booming" economy. It bothers be that my opinion gets labeled all sorts of inaccurate names and it bothers me even more when people on the left talk about care and concern for the environment when allowing a developed population to find a balance with nature, happened naturally in the West and far East, would be one of the best things possible for the planet but a global lust for infinite economic growth clearly has won. There is an insane about of propaganda and race baiting which goes into making sure this idea is never openly talked about. Is there someone who can explain to me how I'm wrong about my long term view of Southern California?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
atatatko 7y ago
Would never accept job offer from the Valley exactly for that reason, unless it's a CEO position. Living in Asia, I can rent a perfect house for about $1000, including utilities and cleaning services. Remote job gives equal opportunities
- VRay 7y ago
  I dunno man, I ran the numbers and came out WAY ahead in the Bay Area As a senior engineer, I was able to negotiate 150k for remote work (and I'd rent a house house in a nice Midwestern city or a nice apartment in Tokyo for $1200/month) vs 300k+ per year in Mountain View Even with $3000/month rent, $6 gallons of milk, etc, I'm saving up way more money per year for a similar quality of life. Not to mention that I'm making way more connections and learning more in my time here, so I'll be in a way better spot after 5 years career-wise
  - anonymoushn 7y ago
    I think you can get about 33% more both in Tokyo and in the Bay Area. I took the Tokyo side of this trade. I don't think my learning and connections are significantly impeded by being in Tokyo, and my quality of life is leaps and bounds greater. Examples: Strangers regularly assault or shout slurs at me in San Francisco while I am distracted by trying not to step in the human feces on my way to work. In Tokyo, while I was waiting at a crosswalk in the rain without an umbrella, a stranger placed his umbrella above me. In Tokyo, everyone uses a form of bike lock that's essentially an extra back brake with a combination lock. In San Francisco, I lost my $500 bicycle from inside the trunk of my locked car in a private garage. In Tokyo, I do not really have any reason to own a car. I will save a little bit less money per year, and I will not get to deduct as much money per year from my income due to theft. I think it comes out alright.
- gpanders 7y ago
  That's pretty good. May I ask what part of Asia? I rent a ~1600 sq. ft. house in the southwestern US for about $1400/month including utilities. It blows my mind what people pay for a quarter of that on the coasts.
jarjoura 7y ago
This is a great read for anyone who wants to learn more about how we got here: https://www.amazon.com/Neighborhood-Defenders-Participatory-Politics-Americas/dp/1108477275 https://www.amazon.com/Neighborhood-Defenders-Participatory-... Katherine Levine Einstein was on The Weeds podcast a few weeks ago and gave a really good summary of her findings. She doesn't have an answer, but it at least frames the situation in a way that seems solvable. https://open.spotify.com/episode/6VfqIzzoOlYtkuKvwGDq1K https://open.spotify.com/episode/6VfqIzzoOlYtkuKvwGDq1K
cf 7y ago
Alright, please see this as an olive branch to YIMBYs. The results are pretty clear. The YIMBYs do not have the votes on their own to get this done. Unless you are some suburban retiree you probably recognize that the solution is building more housing. I think based on the voting records YIMBYs should join forces with PHIMBYs and make the next iteration of SB50 really take public and affordable housing seriously. The existing provisions added to SB50 already got the bill much closer. Why not add some provisions from AB1279? Maybe repeal article 34 in the constitution? Maybe repeal Costa-Hawkins? There are NIMBYs that are pretty clearly hiding behind affordable housing that we know are insincere. We know their cities and counties aren't doing enough to help poor folks. But the evidence suggests there are enough people that want to upzone and build housing to get this done. Does this strike others here are a reasonable path forward?
- Areading314 7y ago
  The reasonable path forward is to write off SF as a good place to live or do business. Tech badly needs a new economic zone, one where it is actually welcome.
  - cf 7y ago
    My way or the highway doesn't work in politics. I'm sorry if you were told otherwise.
  - rcpt 7y ago
    Asia?
- ratfaced-guy 7y ago
  This has been obvious to me for years. Also because the most affordable dynamic places always have a combination of PHIMBY and YIMBY. YIMBY was started by libertarian market urbanists. I agree govt intervention limiting land use rights is the main problem, but you’ll never get support for deliberalizing land use without guaranteeing protections to the lower and working classes. There’s plenty of ways to make this stuff work (see abroad) without having it turn into another Cabrini Green
Gimpei 7y ago
The SF board of supervisors has voted on resolutions opposing this bill several times now. If you care about housing and live in SF, take a second look at your supervisor. Their votes may not make a difference with respect to SB50 but they can certainly block housing in the city and too often they do.
- justinzollars 7y ago
  They all need to go. Not one is a housing advocate. All spend their energy to limit housing. They say they are for affordable housing, but their mandates are designed to exclude both groups of people and housing.
  - yonran 7y ago
    Not quite all of the BoS. Of the 4 misleading resolutions that the SF BoS passed to oppose SB 827 and SB 50 (https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20SB%2050.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20S...), only Sup. Ahsha Safaí and Mayor London Breed (and Jeff Sheehy and Vallie Brown, who are no longer in city hall) voted against the resolutions and in support of SB 50. It’s important to pay attention to which supervisors do what so that they can be held accountable on election day.
    - justinzollars 7y ago
      They all say they are for affordable housing - but as I mentioned above the mandates are designed to exclude and prohibit housing. The results are clear very little actually gets built.
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      Is there any reason to think they're not reflecting the will of their voters?
charliebrownau 7y ago
If anyone that isnt Anti White Commie still lives in Comifornia and you stand up for right wing western nations, its time to move to Vagina or Texas
IcePowder 7y ago
SB50 has all the aspects of a dystopic nightmare much like that which produced Kowloon Walled City..., https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/kowloon-walled-city https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/kowloon-walled-city
IcePowder 7y ago
High Density Housing near transportation hubs has for the most part taken on the appearance of Kowloon Walled City; https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/kowloon-walled-city https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/kowloon-walled-city
joshlittle 7y ago
It’s a shame. One only has to look at San Francisco‘s current zoning map to understand why this bill was important to solving the housing crisis in the state. https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-02/zoning_use_districts.pdf https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-02... In San Francisco, most of the city is zoned RH-1 or RH-1(D). Areas not zoned RH-1 (Essentially residential areas that allow the construction of multifamily apartments and other larger condominium projects) are seeing an explosion of growth and change; mostly in lower income minority neighborhoods where developers can affordably purchase property. It’s incredibly unbalanced; and senate bill 50 would have balance the scales to favor more housing options in some of these areas with stringent zoning for only residential single-family homes. Even though Senator Wiener is from San Francisco, the city council itself came out against this bill. San Francisco is the densest large city in California, with a larger ratio of the population living in apartments then most other cities in the state. Sen. Weiner is pretty safe from backlash as a majority of San Franciscans understand that other cities around the state need to do their part in building housing just like San Francisco has over the last century. For other politicians around the state, senate Bill 50 is Kryptonite. Like everywhere else in America, Politicians are elected by residents. The largest constituencies of voters tend to be those in single-family homes because mostly California lives in single-family homes. Very expensive single-family homes. People do not want to change the neighborhood to drastically in a way that would alter the equity they have accumulated in their home. The best way to not be reelected is to support this bill. Why support multi family apartment construction for people who do not live in their district? Very much the “I got mine“ attitude. There is no panacea here. It’s going to take a ballot referendum, which is not likely to pass for the same reasons. Or change to the fair housing act. In the 50s and 60s, California zoning was indeed complicated with racial bias and exclusion. Above all else, it is the epitome of Systemic racism for the time period; and the biggest flaw in the fair housing act. As it turns out, the system is still working as originally intended. Fixing the fair housing act to cover residential zoning might be more achievable then anything California can do on it’s own.
goodgoblin 7y ago
Massachussets has a law that enables developers to bypass zoning restrictions if they are helping bring low income housing to an area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Comprehensive_Permit_Act:_Chapter_40B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Comprehensive_Pe... I think it's sometimes used to threaten local zoning boards to capitulate to other developer demands, but it does contribute somewhat to the supply of affordable housing.
- pcwalton 7y ago
  California's SB 35 is similar.
briandear 7y ago
> He acknowledged, however, that more work is needed on SB 50, and asked his fellow lawmakers to approve it so the Assembly could continue that work. So why not do that work before sending it for a vote?
- harryh 7y ago
  Because there is a time limit on these things. I don't understand all of the procedural rules but since it didn't pass this vote now nothing can be done for a year. If it had passed this vote now it could have been tinkered with between now and a possible eventual passage in the next several months.
raverbashing 7y ago
So, I guess the question is, if tech companies keep feeding the monster, they are complicit in this. California is not just SV for a start. What's the point of having all your workers in a high CoL area again? Get a small office to appease VCs but have your workers somewhere else. Your money will go further as well
lasky 7y ago
Well, I guess I’ll just copy/paste my comment from another unrelated HN story 10 minutes ago: “And once again, any US organization allowed to use a .gov domain loses yet ANOTHER notch of credibility, and confidence in their competence.“ Our “Governments“ are becoming obsolete... meanwhile we’ll continue to delegate more and more of the responsibilities to provide the utilities we need to technology companies.
itqwertz 7y ago
Thank the lord, these places already are terrible.
blackrock 7y ago
Only one word can describe these politicians: Despicable
JohnClark1337 7y ago
Democrats need to get their state in order

289 points by baron816 7y ago

Jerry Hill is the Senator for most of the SF Peninsula. He voted against the bill. https://sd13.senate.ca.gov/ https://sd13.senate.ca.gov/

marcell 7y ago
He is termed out. The author of SB50 has endorsed Shelly Masur for the open seat. She is, I believe, the only candidate for the seat in support of SB50. Endorsement: https://padailypost.com/2019/08/30/sb50-author-wiener-endorses-masur-in-state-senate-race/ https://padailypost.com/2019/08/30/sb50-author-wiener-endors... Her campaign page: https://www.shellymasur.com/ https://www.shellymasur.com/

tomatotomato37 7y ago

Here's the voting breakdown: https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB50/id/910526 https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB50/id/910526

andymcsherry 7y ago
Yea: 18, Nay: 15: Not Voting: 6 The measure fails despite more Yea than Nay votes. The California State Senate has 40 seats and always require 21 votes to pass. Vacancies (currently 1), absences and abstentions don't appear to affect the denominator of the 51% threshold. As a result, Not Voting is essentially a disguised no vote.
- harryh 7y ago
  Not Voting is essentially a disguised no vote. This is such a lame rule. People wanting to vote no should have to say so and vacancies shouldn't make it harder for bills to pass.

davidw 7y ago

California's housing policy failures have repercussions up and down the west coast. It's sad they didn't follow Oregon's lead and legalize some more diverse housing options.

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
“Legalize” housing options. The way we talk about housing reflects part of the problem: the government wants you to ask for permission (and take their cut) before you can do anything, via permitting and zoning laws. They could care less if they’re a big part of the problem.
zozbot234 7y ago
The real answer is to legalize and tax it. Prop 13 is a huge distortion on the California real estate market.
- rcpt 7y ago
  > legalize and tax it Thank you for this.
- wahern 7y ago
  Prop 13 is a huge distortion to tax and revenue generally, but it doesn't promote anti-development NIMBYism. If anything, Prop 13 should make denser development more tolerable to existing residents as otherwise denser development in their neighborhood would lead to accelerated increases in assessed land values. That's the very reason Prop 13 was enacted in the first place--to improve ownership security in the face of rapid changes in the neighborhood. The one and only fix for NIMBYism is to remove local control. Cities have every incentive to continue restrictive zoning because the immediate costs are externalized to the larger region, while the benefits--satisfaction of home owning voters who don't want multi-family dwellings in their neighborhood--inure directly to the city leaders. It's a collective action problem. Mandates don't work well because leaders who comply are voted out of office, while those who find loopholes or simply ignore mandates are favored at the polls. So when politicians complain that SB50 and similar bills remove local control, that's exactly the point. But nobody wants to say that aloud because to most people "local control" is in the abstract a good thing, and losing local control a bad thing.

asdfqwer234 7y ago

Housing has been a bitter historical and cross-cultural source of class conflict and oppression. In its current form in America, the bourgeois accumulate as much as they can like any unethical entity, and leverage it to maximize personal utility at the cost of the living conditions of the masses. It's always interesting to see how people use capitalism to indirectly (which is no excuse) cause this natural brutal nature of existence, to cause the common man (or woman) to "groan and sweat under a weary life".

mindslight 7y ago
To be fair, a continual rent treadmill that forces everyone to work full time is the explicit overt policy of the Federal Reserve. But any candidate that brings this up gets memory-holed by the mainstream propagandas.
- jdc 7y ago
  Woah. What kind of language do they use to describe said policy?
  - mindslight 7y ago
    https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm > The objectives as mandated by the Congress in the Federal Reserve Act are promoting (1) maximum employment, which means all Americans that want to work are gainfully employed, and (2) stable prices for the goods and services we all purchase The qualifier "want" is a distraction, as everyone "wants" to work if that's what it takes to have a reliable bed to sleep in. Furthermore, "stable" prices are untenable in the face of technological progress that makes everything less expensive. In order for the CPI average to keep going up, the price of housing has to shoot through the roof. edit: Try drawing out the basic feedback loop. The Fed acts by creating new money. It doesn't simply give this money away to everyone (which would cause across the board price inflation), but it can only be accessed by taking on loans. Anything that can be financialized becomes awash in this new money - housing, cars, education. Consumers then have to settle for paying interest payments (rent) on sky-high asset valuations, rather than having smaller loans that can be paid off early to achieve economic bargaining power.

matchbok 7y ago

What a mess. Sad to see "tenant" organizations yell and scream about gentrification and displacement, ignoring the fact that both of those things are happening right now.

monadic2 7y ago
SB50 would make the problem worse the way it’s structured.
- manfredo 7y ago
  How is increasing the supply of housing going to increase gentrification? The housing shortage has resulted in high housing prices, which is the main driver of gentrification.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's no guarantee the tenants can move back.
    - 33MHz-i486 7y ago
      they are anti-displacement provisions in the bill. gentrification/displacement can't happen if upzoning happens at scale of the entire regions/state. e.g. techies won't move to Oakland if there's a bunch of new housing in San Francisco, Palo Alto, Cupertino etc.
    - epistasis 7y ago
      You are spreading misinformation. This doesn't apply to any parcel that has a building been rented out for the past seven years. A length of time calculated to ensure that it is not profitable to tear down existing housing That among a whole host of other protections to make sure that nobody is displaced. There was a serious chance seriously upgrade protections for tenants while also increasing supply to prevent other pressures and welcome more people in to our cities. Instead a bunch of wealthy NIMBYs in suburbs do what they do and maintained exclusionary zoning to keep our apartments. A fraction of self described tenants groups carried water for landlords and wealthy homeonwer's profits by opposing this and giving conservatives the language to sound like they were woke. But be it tenants groups, non-profit affordable housing builders, unions, social justice groups, you will find them among the supporters.

kodablah 7y ago

Question from an outsider: Is it really necessary to have a state-level bill for this as opposed to county-level? Is the diversity of the localities in the state small enough where such a measure can be decided so centrally? (I admit I haven't read it or saw if it had conditions on population).

hbosch 7y ago
Well, one of the main "reasons" this bill was killed was about what you're asking. From the LA Times[0]: "Senate Bill 50, which would have allowed construction of mid-rise apartment complexes near transit and job centers and fourplexes in most single-family neighborhoods throughout California, was opposed by state senators who said the measure took too much power away from local governments and failed to sufficiently address low-income housing needs." So it seems there are people in the CA state senate who would rather see this done at county or city levels. However, sometimes these projects hinge on state support in the form of taxes/allocation or if there is existing state-level legislation that requires amendment or repeal... I think. I'm not a gov buff. Overall, though, I think the prevailing thought is that the cities/counties that some say "need" affordable/denser housing would never on their own vote for new legislation. Palo Alto is named in this article[0] where a resident claims building higher density dwellings is less important than curbing corporate expansion. Quote: "Greg Schmid, a 78-year-old retired economist, said the region should slow the expansion of large companies. Young, highly paid tech employees are overwhelming Palo Alto, he said, and adding to traffic congestion. The situation, he said, only works for the companies’ benefit and drives out families who earn less and could otherwise live in Palo Alto. “The aggressive expansion of big business does not have any sensitivity to the need for a sustainable community,” Schmid said." I think it's a fair point. -- 0. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-29/high-profile-california-housing-bill-to-allow-mid-rise-apartments-near-transit-falls-short https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-29/high-pro... 1. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-apartment-construction-density-palo-alto-20190422-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-apartm...
davidw 7y ago
They have been failing to do anything at the local level for years, because it's easier for a small group of angry wealthy homeowners to get their way in local processes. So they were looking to do something statewide, to put everyone on a level playing field.

sjg007 7y ago

Well the only solution is a ballot initiative to repeal prop 13. That will change things.

generalpass 7y ago
> Well the only solution is a ballot initiative to repeal prop 13. That will change things. This seems to always be stated as if stating it makes it true. Prop 13 has little to do with high housing prices and a lot to do with getting more revenue for governments. Prices are influenced by supply and demand. The artificial limiting of supply by all of the governments in California is the biggest factor in why the prices are outrageously high.
- fortran77 7y ago
  Exactly right. And every time a property is turned over, the base tax rate gets reset, plus prop 13 allows for a 2% increase every year. California has the highest sales and income tax (for incomes over $500,000) in the Nation. They don't need the highest property tax, too.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    The reason California has the highest sales and income taxes is that it has the lowest property tax. People who have held property for a very long time are taxed very little relative to how they would be taxed in other states, and people who are new are taxed a lot.
    - fortran77 7y ago
      California does NOT have the lowest property tax. It is very distasteful for you to try to win an argument by lying. http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state And if you rank the states by percentage revenue from property tax, you'll see they are right in the middle https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-and-local-backgrounders/property-taxes https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...

pochamago 7y ago

The gentrification boogeyman comes off to me as privilege masquerading as the voice of the oppressed. It's regularly used to bludgeon the poor into homelessness, while the areas that are rife with actual gentrification seem to have far more diverse and affordable neighborhoods.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Kalium 7y ago
It's a little of both. There are plenty of people who genuinely believe they can help keep gentrification at bay if they preserve the housing approval systems that exist now. In practice that can mean anything from blocking everything to using approvals to extract design and donations to charities. There are also, as you say, those who are quite privileged and wish to preserve that. To them, gentrification is a great way to scare other people into averting change.
- dionidium 7y ago
  > There are plenty of people who genuinely believe they can help keep gentrification at bay if they preserve the housing approval systems that exist now It's a complete reversal of cause and effect. New buildings don't cause demand; new buildings are a response to demand. You can't make the sun shine by passing a law against rain.

KoftaBob 7y ago

Pathetic.

mpochwat 7y ago
Well this is for sure a bummer

40acres 7y ago

It's getting very difficult to see how California works its way out of this mess. SB 50 like measures can be passed at the local level in theory but if I've learned anything from these fights it's that older, wealthy homeowners will cripple any attempt to do so.

0xB31B1B 7y ago
They can’t be passed at a local level without CEQA review and a torrent of unending lawsuits. That’s why it needs to happen at a state level.
- thedance 7y ago
  That’s not true. Any city in California has total authority to adjust their zoning code. Cities change zoning as a matter of routine business. The reason cities have not done anything constructive is each individual small government is held hostage by its own incumbent land owners.
  - 0xB31B1B 7y ago
    They can do it, it takes 8-10 years. Look at the eastern neighborhoods plan in SF, it literally took 20 years. Part of that is shitty nimby neighbors, part of that is area plans are able to be litigated under CEQA, which Is basically guaranteed, and it adds 4-8 years to an area plan project. My point is that it’s literally illegal to do, but it’s functionally impossible, or at least extremely difficult and it takes a very very long time. Ballot box rezoning is not subject to CEQA and therefore can pass quicker (it’s how JJJ skipped CEQA review in LA) but that’s a whole other can of worms.
    - thedance 7y ago
      Cities don’t need area plans to achieve this. They need only amend their codes to change the parameters of their existing designation, like R-1 or whatever. No public outreach is needed to write down that a duplex is permitted in the zone called R-1. No EIR need be written before raising maximum heights from 25 to 45 feet. Any city government can put the item in their agenda and do this in a single sitting. You’re right that people will sue over anything, and that’s why I support state preemptions in this case, but there’s no excuse for what cities have failed to do.

yonran 7y ago

California has a more principled approach to housing capacity planning called RHNA, in which the state sets a zoning budget (like that proposed by David Schleicher https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/ https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/) and then delegates to local governments the responsibility to zone to allow enough houses to meet that budget. Unfortunately, the RHNA has numerous flaws including vastly underestimating the “need,” lax enforcement, and having very long cycles. Scott Wiener has previously addressed the flaws somewhat (SB 35 (2017) and SB 828 (2018)), but there is still a lot that must be done to fix the RHNA; see this good overview for more information and potential administrative improvements (https://law.ucdavis.edu/centers/environmental/files/Elmendorf_et_al_Making-It-Work1.pdf https://law.ucdavis.edu/centers/environmental/files/Elmendor...) The appeal of Wiener’s SB 50 was that it would have quickly increased the capacity of housing using fairly good heuristics to improve access to opportunity (already residential, near transit stops or jobs, not high fire risk). It’s unfortunate that the state senate doesn’t seem to want to treat the housing shortage with the urgency that it deserves.

SllX 7y ago
No policy, not one, out of Sacramento is going to solve affordable housing in a stagnant property market in which people are incentivized not to sell, rent or lease their properties. Sacramento could centralize zoning and effectively upzone the entire State tomorrow and it would be one State constitutional amendment away from being overturned, which is not nearly as high a bar as it should be.
exjdjeejfh 7y ago
Principled is a way of making it sound less terrible than 'restrained'. California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.
- sitkack 7y ago
  Nice how you slipped your pet bugaboo into your argument. Enviros are not responsible for the height caps and the sprawl.

veeralpatel979 7y ago

To combat many problems, the government would certainly be helpful, but isn't necessary. Take climate change. If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Unfortunately, a lack of housing is a problem that the government created. And it's a problem that only the government, in my view, can really fix. As long as housing supply is artificially restricted, I don't see how this gets better. Please let me know if I am wrong.

paulgb 7y ago
> If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Sure, but it's a lot easier for a software company to go carbon neutral than a power company. Which is not to take away from what they're doing, it is still hard to do! The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments. Neither is perfect all of the time. But when it comes to problems rife with externalities (like pollution, or intellectual property), free markets on their own tend to be bad at aligning incentives, and governments are the least-worst solution. Edit to clarify: this was about the climate change part, but I agree that the government is causing the problem here wrt. zoning.
- veeralpatel979 7y ago
  > The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments This is smart. I'm stealing this :)
  - kunai 7y ago
    On the counterfactual, it's actually not very smart, and a toxic and myopic view of society. There's an entire spectrum of coordinating collective human behavior that ranges from systems like feudalism to anarcho-syndicalism to mixed economies like those that exist in Scandinavia and much of Western Europe. Government's role is infinitely flexible as a result; it can choose to be as expansive or as minimal as possible. In the case of housing, which is an issue where there needs to be mass action to ensure additional housing supply, relying on either the free market or government exclusively is not going to fix the problem. One of the things that a lot of pseudo-intellectual YIMBYs in the Bay and elsewhere don't realize about the housing crisis is that it will require massive mobilization action by both public and private actors to solve. For instance, I rarely hear the YIMBY crowd sing the praises of public housing, a model that has been successful[1] in Singapore, Vienna, and many other cities across the globe. I find the anti-government sentiments and libertarian beats on this website frequently tiring at best, gravely ill-conceived at worst. [1]https://www.shareable.net/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore/ https://www.shareable.net/public-housing-works-lessons-from-...

throwaway713 7y ago

There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated with moving, but I would have thought this would be a small minority of people, not the majority of them. Or are most people so rooted to where they grew up that they don’t want to leave? The other thing that confuses me is why companies aren’t moving either. It’s been a long time since a "new" city was created, but we have plenty of land available, and a lot of it is in pretty (but not natural park) locations. Is there that much of a network effect with talent being in one region that companies would rather pay a 4x compensation premium than relocate to new or lower cost locations? Are there any examples of big companies that have relocated their HQ to lower COL locations and then failed because they couldn't attract talent to move there, or is it just conjecture that this would occur?

davidw 7y ago
> Is there that much of a network effect with talent being in one region that companies would rather pay a 4x compensation premium that relocate to new or lower cost locations? Yes, it's pretty strong. Employers want to be where the employees are, and employees want to be somewhere where there are other jobs.
lonelappde 7y ago
They like living CA better than elsewhere, but don't want the economic profit to go to landlords who didn't create that value.
40acres 7y ago
Network effects I suppose. When this economy was based on land and natural resources it made sense to move (and subdue the native population) to open land and gain an advantage, with a service based economy it makes greater sense to cluster at population centers and leverage that. The rise of remote work will probably alleviate this a bit but education, health care, entertainment, hospitality (aka. the fastest growing sub sectors of our service economy) are more valuable when delivered in person. Not to mention fighting climate change (not to say that we're doing a particularly good job) encourages density.

slavapestov 7y ago

Expensive housing is a feature and not a bug for the tech industry. They prefer to hire young, single workers because they will work longer hours in worse conditions, and if they can keep them rent- and commute-burdened they are less likely to switch jobs, start a family, take up a hobby, etc.

ashtonian 7y ago
That's funny considering that Google was literally trying to build housing for its employees and the Gov blocked them because nimby. Blaming the tech industries for California's terrible idea of governance is pretty laughable. The state would be bankrupt if not for the valley.

trashaccount975 7y ago

Long term there is no fix unless immigration is halted which is not going to happen. There is a virtually unlimited supply of people who want to come to this country. I live here in LA, the homeless problem has been accelerating dramatically over the last few years in spite of a "booming" economy. It bothers be that my opinion gets labeled all sorts of inaccurate names and it bothers me even more when people on the left talk about care and concern for the environment when allowing a developed population to find a balance with nature, happened naturally in the West and far East, would be one of the best things possible for the planet but a global lust for infinite economic growth clearly has won. There is an insane about of propaganda and race baiting which goes into making sure this idea is never openly talked about. Is there someone who can explain to me how I'm wrong about my long term view of Southern California?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

atatatko 7y ago

Would never accept job offer from the Valley exactly for that reason, unless it's a CEO position. Living in Asia, I can rent a perfect house for about $1000, including utilities and cleaning services. Remote job gives equal opportunities

VRay 7y ago
I dunno man, I ran the numbers and came out WAY ahead in the Bay Area As a senior engineer, I was able to negotiate 150k for remote work (and I'd rent a house house in a nice Midwestern city or a nice apartment in Tokyo for $1200/month) vs 300k+ per year in Mountain View Even with $3000/month rent, $6 gallons of milk, etc, I'm saving up way more money per year for a similar quality of life. Not to mention that I'm making way more connections and learning more in my time here, so I'll be in a way better spot after 5 years career-wise
- anonymoushn 7y ago
  I think you can get about 33% more both in Tokyo and in the Bay Area. I took the Tokyo side of this trade. I don't think my learning and connections are significantly impeded by being in Tokyo, and my quality of life is leaps and bounds greater. Examples: Strangers regularly assault or shout slurs at me in San Francisco while I am distracted by trying not to step in the human feces on my way to work. In Tokyo, while I was waiting at a crosswalk in the rain without an umbrella, a stranger placed his umbrella above me. In Tokyo, everyone uses a form of bike lock that's essentially an extra back brake with a combination lock. In San Francisco, I lost my $500 bicycle from inside the trunk of my locked car in a private garage. In Tokyo, I do not really have any reason to own a car. I will save a little bit less money per year, and I will not get to deduct as much money per year from my income due to theft. I think it comes out alright.
gpanders 7y ago
That's pretty good. May I ask what part of Asia? I rent a ~1600 sq. ft. house in the southwestern US for about $1400/month including utilities. It blows my mind what people pay for a quarter of that on the coasts.

jarjoura 7y ago

This is a great read for anyone who wants to learn more about how we got here: https://www.amazon.com/Neighborhood-Defenders-Participatory-Politics-Americas/dp/1108477275 https://www.amazon.com/Neighborhood-Defenders-Participatory-... Katherine Levine Einstein was on The Weeds podcast a few weeks ago and gave a really good summary of her findings. She doesn't have an answer, but it at least frames the situation in a way that seems solvable. https://open.spotify.com/episode/6VfqIzzoOlYtkuKvwGDq1K https://open.spotify.com/episode/6VfqIzzoOlYtkuKvwGDq1K

cf 7y ago

Alright, please see this as an olive branch to YIMBYs. The results are pretty clear. The YIMBYs do not have the votes on their own to get this done. Unless you are some suburban retiree you probably recognize that the solution is building more housing. I think based on the voting records YIMBYs should join forces with PHIMBYs and make the next iteration of SB50 really take public and affordable housing seriously. The existing provisions added to SB50 already got the bill much closer. Why not add some provisions from AB1279? Maybe repeal article 34 in the constitution? Maybe repeal Costa-Hawkins? There are NIMBYs that are pretty clearly hiding behind affordable housing that we know are insincere. We know their cities and counties aren't doing enough to help poor folks. But the evidence suggests there are enough people that want to upzone and build housing to get this done. Does this strike others here are a reasonable path forward?

Areading314 7y ago
The reasonable path forward is to write off SF as a good place to live or do business. Tech badly needs a new economic zone, one where it is actually welcome.
- cf 7y ago
  My way or the highway doesn't work in politics. I'm sorry if you were told otherwise.
- rcpt 7y ago
  Asia?
ratfaced-guy 7y ago
This has been obvious to me for years. Also because the most affordable dynamic places always have a combination of PHIMBY and YIMBY. YIMBY was started by libertarian market urbanists. I agree govt intervention limiting land use rights is the main problem, but you’ll never get support for deliberalizing land use without guaranteeing protections to the lower and working classes. There’s plenty of ways to make this stuff work (see abroad) without having it turn into another Cabrini Green

Gimpei 7y ago

The SF board of supervisors has voted on resolutions opposing this bill several times now. If you care about housing and live in SF, take a second look at your supervisor. Their votes may not make a difference with respect to SB50 but they can certainly block housing in the city and too often they do.

justinzollars 7y ago
They all need to go. Not one is a housing advocate. All spend their energy to limit housing. They say they are for affordable housing, but their mandates are designed to exclude both groups of people and housing.
- yonran 7y ago
  Not quite all of the BoS. Of the 4 misleading resolutions that the SF BoS passed to oppose SB 827 and SB 50 (https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20SB%2050.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20S...), only Sup. Ahsha Safaí and Mayor London Breed (and Jeff Sheehy and Vallie Brown, who are no longer in city hall) voted against the resolutions and in support of SB 50. It’s important to pay attention to which supervisors do what so that they can be held accountable on election day.
  - justinzollars 7y ago
    They all say they are for affordable housing - but as I mentioned above the mandates are designed to exclude and prohibit housing. The results are clear very little actually gets built.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    Is there any reason to think they're not reflecting the will of their voters?

charliebrownau 7y ago

If anyone that isnt Anti White Commie still lives in Comifornia and you stand up for right wing western nations, its time to move to Vagina or Texas

IcePowder 7y ago

SB50 has all the aspects of a dystopic nightmare much like that which produced Kowloon Walled City..., https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/kowloon-walled-city https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/kowloon-walled-city

IcePowder 7y ago

High Density Housing near transportation hubs has for the most part taken on the appearance of Kowloon Walled City; https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/kowloon-walled-city https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/kowloon-walled-city

joshlittle 7y ago

It’s a shame. One only has to look at San Francisco‘s current zoning map to understand why this bill was important to solving the housing crisis in the state. https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-02/zoning_use_districts.pdf https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-02... In San Francisco, most of the city is zoned RH-1 or RH-1(D). Areas not zoned RH-1 (Essentially residential areas that allow the construction of multifamily apartments and other larger condominium projects) are seeing an explosion of growth and change; mostly in lower income minority neighborhoods where developers can affordably purchase property. It’s incredibly unbalanced; and senate bill 50 would have balance the scales to favor more housing options in some of these areas with stringent zoning for only residential single-family homes. Even though Senator Wiener is from San Francisco, the city council itself came out against this bill. San Francisco is the densest large city in California, with a larger ratio of the population living in apartments then most other cities in the state. Sen. Weiner is pretty safe from backlash as a majority of San Franciscans understand that other cities around the state need to do their part in building housing just like San Francisco has over the last century. For other politicians around the state, senate Bill 50 is Kryptonite. Like everywhere else in America, Politicians are elected by residents. The largest constituencies of voters tend to be those in single-family homes because mostly California lives in single-family homes. Very expensive single-family homes. People do not want to change the neighborhood to drastically in a way that would alter the equity they have accumulated in their home. The best way to not be reelected is to support this bill. Why support multi family apartment construction for people who do not live in their district? Very much the “I got mine“ attitude. There is no panacea here. It’s going to take a ballot referendum, which is not likely to pass for the same reasons. Or change to the fair housing act. In the 50s and 60s, California zoning was indeed complicated with racial bias and exclusion. Above all else, it is the epitome of Systemic racism for the time period; and the biggest flaw in the fair housing act. As it turns out, the system is still working as originally intended. Fixing the fair housing act to cover residential zoning might be more achievable then anything California can do on it’s own.

goodgoblin 7y ago

Massachussets has a law that enables developers to bypass zoning restrictions if they are helping bring low income housing to an area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Comprehensive_Permit_Act:_Chapter_40B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Comprehensive_Pe... I think it's sometimes used to threaten local zoning boards to capitulate to other developer demands, but it does contribute somewhat to the supply of affordable housing.

pcwalton 7y ago
California's SB 35 is similar.

briandear 7y ago

> He acknowledged, however, that more work is needed on SB 50, and asked his fellow lawmakers to approve it so the Assembly could continue that work. So why not do that work before sending it for a vote?

harryh 7y ago
Because there is a time limit on these things. I don't understand all of the procedural rules but since it didn't pass this vote now nothing can be done for a year. If it had passed this vote now it could have been tinkered with between now and a possible eventual passage in the next several months.

raverbashing 7y ago

So, I guess the question is, if tech companies keep feeding the monster, they are complicit in this. California is not just SV for a start. What's the point of having all your workers in a high CoL area again? Get a small office to appease VCs but have your workers somewhere else. Your money will go further as well

lasky 7y ago

Well, I guess I’ll just copy/paste my comment from another unrelated HN story 10 minutes ago: “And once again, any US organization allowed to use a .gov domain loses yet ANOTHER notch of credibility, and confidence in their competence.“ Our “Governments“ are becoming obsolete... meanwhile we’ll continue to delegate more and more of the responsibilities to provide the utilities we need to technology companies.

itqwertz 7y ago

Thank the lord, these places already are terrible.

blackrock 7y ago

Only one word can describe these politicians: Despicable

JohnClark1337 7y ago

Democrats need to get their state in order