9 ms·

Newsom signs legislation to boost California’s housing supply

113 points by m_ke 5y ago

koolba 5y ago
It’s not a coincidence he waited till the day after the recall to sign this.
- vmception 5y ago
  Probably strategic, everything in politics is so its barely worth mentioning. But I find the opposition party in California to be extremely petty. I mean, it is refreshing that politics in CA can revert to its natural state of merely being petty and childish, compared to how the national level has gotten. But at the same time its kind of weird and unnecessary given everything else going on. Of course, I kind of get the perspective that someone else can address everything else going on better, but I mean come on there is no power in the opposition party. If a sympathetic judge can't be found to affect a specific cause then there is no need for any energy on the matter because it is a waste of energy. Anyway, it is kind of cute though. "Ah he ate at a restaurant other people are also at legally under his own mandate, doing the thing we would all be doing everywhere if we lived in an actual republican state but lets pretend its controversial here, and then waited a single day to sign a lawwww wwaaaaaaah!"
  - wahern 5y ago
    Conceptually, a de facto single party system can almost operate like a party-less system. If you squint just right, that's increasingly how California looks. California's modified open primary system, which permits two candidates from the same party to compete in the general election, has been enormously influential in this regard. While Republicans lament the open primary has resulted in squeezing them out (despite being the ones wanting the system in the first place), the other side of that coin is Democratic candidates competing against each other for the center, at least in state-wide elections. Without the open primaries the party machine would have much more power, and the voters less power, as is often the case elsewhere where a single party dominates a city or state; but with it, you can get something approximating George Washington's dream. I always roll my eyes when I hear Republicans complain about state politics in California, as if a huge number of Democrats don't have the same gripes. With an open primary system the (D) or (R) needn't matter; just pick the one everybody else is using and then take your case to the public. It sucks for Republican candidates with their heart set on national office, but you can't have everything. Though, maybe Joe Manchin could teach them a trick or two. In any event, I have little sympathy for someone hung up on tribal identity.
    - vmception 5y ago
      Thats practically true, California should appoint a Standing Committee
      - wahern 5y ago
        I've always found it amusing that the core Democratic party apparatus in San Francisco is literally the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC). Both the name and initials seem like such easy fodder for red baiting. But I suppose there's not much value in pointing that out when so many outsiders believe the city is an actual communist enclave.
        vmception 5y ago
        That is amusing A bit insulting to communists/marxists/state-capitalists since CCP tax rates are lower than combined Federal+CA taxes. they're seizing less of the means of production.
- favorited 5y ago
  He was never going to veto it, and it would have become law after 30 days without his signature anyway.
potiuper 5y ago
Actual Title: Governor Newsom Signs Historic Legislation to Boost California’s Housing Supply and Fight the Housing Crisis
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
craigmcnamara 5y ago
This is great. I never understood why we allow people who don't own the land dictating the terms of the housing that gets built when we need more of every kind of housing in California. The fetishization of single story mid-century construction is especially confusing. Land is expensive, build up, not out.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pokstad 5y ago
  Because there are limited resources surrounding those homes. Like streets, schools, sewage, etc. You can’t just magically scale up the housing without also scaling up infrastructure.
  - mcny 5y ago
    My understanding is that they put a cap on property taxes that fund the infrastructure and then turned around and said there is no money for infrastructure.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Isn’t it a chicken and egg problem? The only way to fund the new infrastructure to accommodate growth that will bring in property taxes to fund it in the future is via debt or impact fees. Either can be difficult for local governments to do. Also voters are often given lots of say, people who don’t want density get entrenched and vote for local leaders who are like minded.
    - mateo411 5y ago
      Sort of. Property taxes can only increase at ~2 percent a year due to Prop 13. However, people are still buying and selling houses. The people who have recently purchased a house pay high property taxes, because the property is expensive.
  - xxpor 5y ago
zucker42 5y ago
This doesn't end single family zoning. It allows cities to end single family zoning in what looks like fairly narrow circumstances. The title should be changed because it's misleading to the point of being incorrect. > SB 10 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) creates a voluntary process for local governments to access a streamlined zoning process for new multi-unit housing near transit or in urban infill areas, with up to 10 units per parcel. The legislation simplifies the CEQA requirements for upzoning, giving local leaders another tool to voluntarily increase density and provide affordable rental opportunities to more Californians.
- aluminum96 5y ago
  Your comment is incorrect because you are describing SB 10, not SB 9. SB 9 indeed allows duplexes on all single-family parcels, as well as lot splits if one of the new homes will be owner-occupied, and neither lot would be less than 40% of the original lot's area.
- pboennig 5y ago
  SB 9 does end single family zoning in that it allows duplexes to be built on all lots currently zoned for single family housing. I agree that the title should reflect that the linked press release covers three bills: SB 8, 9, and 10, which change many things in California housing policy. > This bill, among other things, would require a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the proposed housing development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except as provided, and that the development is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
throwawayimbyyy 5y ago
Unfortunately it's an arms race between counties and the state. Bad faith actors in a variety of counties enact utility (sewer connections, septic, water, etc) moratoriums to halt development. Rather than budget and plan for increased capacity, they'd rather end growth. 0: https://argentco.com/post/californias-marin-municipal-water-district-continues-discussions-on-moratorium-for-new-water-service-connections/ https://argentco.com/post/californias-marin-municipal-water-...
- aluminum96 5y ago
  Municipalities that do this will be punished for it in the upcoming RHNA cycle. Laws like SB10 give them the tools to increase housing supply, but if they do not, they will become subject to ministerial (automatic) approval of certain projects under SB35.
aluminum96 5y ago
This is a pretty mild set of reforms. An analysis of SB9 in particular, written by the Terner Center at UC Berkeley, is available here: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/duplexes-lot-split-sb-9/ https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/duplex... Out of 7.5 million single family parcels, 6.1 million are SB9-eligible, and 521k would be market-feasible for construction. This would result in 714k new units of housing. Clearly SB9 will moderately increase density in some neighborhoods, but it will only lead to construction on ~3% of all single-family plots statewide.
- rgarrett88 5y ago
  >but it will only lead to construction on ~3% of all single-family plots statewide. Over what time frame? Do you have a source?
  - aluminum96 5y ago
    The source is the Terner Center link above. The time frame is 10 years, if I recall correctly.
quartesixte 5y ago
Next: try to convince everyone in America to stop treating houses as an appreciating asset. Tear down houses, recycle what material is recyclable, and build new ones. And build smaller.
- aluminum96 5y ago
  To do this, we have to break the cycle of housing price inflation: as housing stops appreciating (because we start building enough supply), people will have progressively smaller investment in their homes, and won't be as dependent on home appreciation for their financial welfare.
aluminum96 5y ago
This is not as large of a change as it seems: single-family zoning was already (quietly) dead in California. Under SB13, almost all single family parcels can already have both an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) a Junior ADU, for a total of three units per parcel. SB9 increases that number from 3 to 4: you can now split the lot, and each half can have a duplex. This does give owners more options though: they can sell the other half of the lot, rather than having to rent out ADUs.
pembrook 5y ago
I might be wrong, but it seems the details betray the headline. All I see is throwing more money at homeless people and voluntary upzoning program that city councils probably aren’t going to voluntarily use (hence why this problem exists in the first place). > It includes provisions to prevent the displacement of existing renters and protect historic districts Like all bizarro housing legislation passed in California, these bills sound like they'll make it even harder for developers to build. Not easier. I'm genuinely confused how even more red tape is going to somehow make it easier to build. It’s like developers said “we can’t build because there’s too much regulation” and the CA government responded by saying “here’s 3 more pieces of regulation!”
- aluminum96 5y ago
  > It includes provisions to prevent the displacement of existing renters and protect historic districts This is specifically in reference to the owner-occupancy provision. If you choose to split your lot into two parcels, the owner must attest that they intend to reside at the property for at least 3 years. This concession was made to satisfy a demand from the California Association of Realtors and get the bill passed. Note that this is different from the duplex provision: each parcel can have a duplex, regardless of whether you split the lot or not. The duplex provision does not have any owner-occupancy requirement. > So it's voluntary? SB10 creates a voluntary process for 10-unit apartment buildings near transit. SB9 is involuntary, and allows duplexes and lot splits in single family zones.
- favorited 5y ago
  They're starting to get more voluntary because of SB35. They can voluntarily decide where to build now, or helplessly watch a judge rubber-stamp whatever the developer wants to build once the city is designated as behind their RHNA requirements. SB35 ends the days where "local control" included an option to not build anything.
- thebradbain 5y ago
  SB 10 is voluntary; but for the cities that do choose to use it (or selectively use it), now neighbors can’t sue to stop anything 10 units or less from going up based on environmental concerns. It’s big for that reason. SB 9 is paradigm shifting: every lot in California that’s single family zoned can a) be split into two lots AND/OR b) each resulting lot can now have up to 2 units AND c) if the lot is compliant with all other criteria, each lot is still able to have an ADU built in addition to the extra unit, per statewide ADU law passed two years ago So you can potentially turn a single lot into 6 units. Or 3 without splitting the lot. All of this is by-right, too. Design approval and local councils can’t stop it, and I believe they must be approved within 90 days, too.
teakettle42 5y ago
Is there definable criteria for measuring the success of this policy direction? What are the metrics? Is there an example of this policy direction working elsewhere? Is the goal solely improving housing affordability in locations with high-demand? Is exacerbating the wealth gap of concern? Density is almost always developed as rental units; growing the permanent rental class means eliminating access to the only vehicle for building wealth for middle and low income Americans.
- aluminum96 5y ago
  > growing the permanent rental class means eliminating access to the only vehicle for building wealth This is a policy choice, and I would argue it's a bad choice. If we strive to make housing cheaper across the board, households will have more money available to save and invest by other means. In particular, the incentives created by housing as an appreciating investment are awful. Owners who have all their money locked up in home equity are incentivized to oppose new development, creating an artificial housing shortage. As a counterexample, consider Germany: virtually all households rent, housing stock is plentiful and affordable, and the middle class is still able to save and build wealth.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    I wish our wealth building was in the form of production machines that families maintain through investment.
    - zepto 5y ago
      What do you mean by “ production machines”?
      - dodobirdlord 5y ago
        Presumably investing by buying stock in companies that are economically productive, as opposed to engaging in purely speculative investment like owning land.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Tear down the houses and build sky scrapers?
- aluminum96 5y ago
  You'd think that's what SB9 did, based on the number of critics who accused it of "manhattanizing single family neighborhoods."
csours 5y ago
It took me a minute to parse what this means, not being from California. Single Family Zoning means that certain land may only be used for Single Family Homes - Ie No Condos, No apartments, no duplexes allowed. Removing Single Family Zoning means that developers can no longer be REQUIRED to build single family units in an area. Single Family Homes may still be built, but may not be required. If I am not reading this correctly, let me know.
- aluminum96 5y ago
  Indeed, I think a much better description of SB9's effect would be "legalizing duplexes and lot splits everywhere." About 97% of single-family parcels are expected to remain single-family under this law, in practice.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    Really that high? Full redevelopment takes time and money. But ADUs seem like a relatively cheap/easy way for home owners to get into rentals and earn some cash.
    - aluminum96 5y ago
      Yes, that's according to this analysis from the Terner Center: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SB-9-Brief-July-2021-Final.pdf https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07....
- alistairSH 5y ago
  That’s right. And other comments describe the details of when/how existing plots may be split or redeveloped.
endisneigh 5y ago
This is the beginning of the end for single-family houses (it's a good thing). Regardless of how you feel about single family vs. duplex - this will create too much selection pressure towards duplexes. Only the ultra-rich will be in single-family houses. On that note - I'm curious, would it be legal/constitutional to have national zoning laws? Are there currently national zoning laws?
- aluminum96 5y ago
  The Terner Center estimates that SB9 will affect only 3% of all single-family parcels in California: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/duplexes-lot-split-sb-9/ https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/duplex...
boulos 5y ago
m_ke: the original (annoying) title is "Governor Newsom Signs Historic Legislation to Boost California’s Housing Supply and Fight the Housing Crisis". Changing it to add "ending single family zoning in California" is editorializing and not quite accurate. To fit in 80 characters, while removing the weasel word of historic, I would have gone with "Governor Newsom Signs Legislation to Boost California's Housing Supply".
khazhoux 5y ago
I feel that these efforts to increase housing supply --especially in the Bay Area-- can only scratch at the problem, and very slowly. You would have to raze entire neighborhoods, entire towns, and rebuild them with high-density housing, to meet the demand. So why is there never discussion of reducing demand instead of increasing supply? As in, put a limit on how many employees can be hired in the Bay Area by any company. Google, Apple, Facebook, Netflix, and all the rest bring in many tens of thousands of employees (and their families) every year. They crowd out the nicer apartments, making them unavailable and unaffordable to low-wage employees. And eventually the tech worker cashes in their fantastic stock growth and over-bids on a house, driving prices up. The suggestion of capping hiring in the Bay Area seems to be a taboo suggestion, not sure why. Seems to me, when your house is flooding from a broken pipe, first thing you do it cut the main.
- cycrutchfield 5y ago
  Because it’s way easier to just build more housing than enact draconian policies to prevent freedom of employment and freedom of movement. Think about what you are suggesting for a second.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    If you can upzone housing, you can downzone offices. Why isn't anyone building brand new cities shaped the way they want, instead of trying to force people out of where they live? I'd much rather live in a blank slate city designed the way I'd like, than constantly fight people who don't want me around.
    - User23 5y ago
      That's a great question, have you got any thoughts on why?
      - nitrogen 5y ago
        The topic has come up once or twice on HN before, so maybe try searching for "new cities" or something like that. - All existing land is already claimed by someone, or by the government. There are insanely large parcels owned by individuals or small groups. - Most existing water is claimed by someone hundreds of miles downstream. - The overall US mindset (there are definitely exceptions!) has changed over the 20th and early 21st century from one of maximizing tangible accomplishment, to maximizing financial gain and minimizing loss. We're playing musical chairs instead of making more chairs. - Mass media (Disney -- kid shows, superhero movies) creates the impression that the current geographic and cultural structure of society is the only possible structure of society, by making a few views seem ubiquitous, and everything else the domain of pure fantasy. - Prior attempts eventually got ridiculed, like EPCOT (ironically enough also Disney). People won't leave you alone -- they'll insist that any hope of new ideas is unforgivable hubris, and do whatever they can to make their ridicule a self-fulfilling prophecy.
almost_usual 5y ago
So single family homes will be more expensive.
zbrozek 5y ago
I'm pretty excited about limiting side and rear setbacks to 4 feet.
ufhghfggf 5y ago
This will do nothing. CA has a low median property tax rate[1] of 0.74%, which allows rich elites and foreign speculators to buy empty lots of land and let them sit unused for decades while waiting for them to go up in value. This low property tax rate allows rich rent-seekers to buy up properties and then rent them out to people who can't get the big loans the landed aristocracy can. So we now have a record number of young people living with their parents, especially in expensive places like CA. Newsom is rich, as are his donors, as is Nancy Pelosi, and they have no interest in raising the property taxes of the mansions they live in and their investment properties they don't live in. [1] http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  > as is Nancy Pelosi I find it odd that people who are working until they are past 80 are accused of doing so just to enrich themselves. Pelosi has what 8 years left alive on average, and is spending all her time still working and influencing politics so that she goes to the grave with ~2% more money? Does that sound right to you?
  - bradlys 5y ago
    Yet Pelosi isn’t training any replacements to take over for her. Pelosi could still be working to enrich herself and for the power trip and fame. It’s not like people only have one simple motivation when they are in Congress. Pelosi is a neoliberal ghoul as much as anyone on the right side of Congress. She has no interest but in herself. She will continue to act in her best interests as she always has. (This isn’t much different of almost anyone in Congress - but worth mentioning anyway)
  - ufhghfggf 5y ago
    How much of her $100M+ fortune has she donated to charity? Almost none that I can see. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have committed to giving nearly all their billions to charity but Paul and Nancy Pelosi are using their $100M+ to establish multi-generational trust fund wealth for their children and family.
RickJWagner 5y ago
"to expedite construction of an estimated 6,500 shovel-ready affordable multi-family units in projects...." Welcome to 'life in the projects'. It's not a ticket to prosperity.

113 points by m_ke 5y ago

koolba 5y ago

It’s not a coincidence he waited till the day after the recall to sign this.

vmception 5y ago
Probably strategic, everything in politics is so its barely worth mentioning. But I find the opposition party in California to be extremely petty. I mean, it is refreshing that politics in CA can revert to its natural state of merely being petty and childish, compared to how the national level has gotten. But at the same time its kind of weird and unnecessary given everything else going on. Of course, I kind of get the perspective that someone else can address everything else going on better, but I mean come on there is no power in the opposition party. If a sympathetic judge can't be found to affect a specific cause then there is no need for any energy on the matter because it is a waste of energy. Anyway, it is kind of cute though. "Ah he ate at a restaurant other people are also at legally under his own mandate, doing the thing we would all be doing everywhere if we lived in an actual republican state but lets pretend its controversial here, and then waited a single day to sign a lawwww wwaaaaaaah!"
- wahern 5y ago
  Conceptually, a de facto single party system can almost operate like a party-less system. If you squint just right, that's increasingly how California looks. California's modified open primary system, which permits two candidates from the same party to compete in the general election, has been enormously influential in this regard. While Republicans lament the open primary has resulted in squeezing them out (despite being the ones wanting the system in the first place), the other side of that coin is Democratic candidates competing against each other for the center, at least in state-wide elections. Without the open primaries the party machine would have much more power, and the voters less power, as is often the case elsewhere where a single party dominates a city or state; but with it, you can get something approximating George Washington's dream. I always roll my eyes when I hear Republicans complain about state politics in California, as if a huge number of Democrats don't have the same gripes. With an open primary system the (D) or (R) needn't matter; just pick the one everybody else is using and then take your case to the public. It sucks for Republican candidates with their heart set on national office, but you can't have everything. Though, maybe Joe Manchin could teach them a trick or two. In any event, I have little sympathy for someone hung up on tribal identity.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Thats practically true, California should appoint a Standing Committee
    - wahern 5y ago
      I've always found it amusing that the core Democratic party apparatus in San Francisco is literally the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC). Both the name and initials seem like such easy fodder for red baiting. But I suppose there's not much value in pointing that out when so many outsiders believe the city is an actual communist enclave.
      - vmception 5y ago
        That is amusing A bit insulting to communists/marxists/state-capitalists since CCP tax rates are lower than combined Federal+CA taxes. they're seizing less of the means of production.
favorited 5y ago
He was never going to veto it, and it would have become law after 30 days without his signature anyway.

potiuper 5y ago

Actual Title: Governor Newsom Signs Historic Legislation to Boost California’s Housing Supply and Fight the Housing Crisis

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

craigmcnamara 5y ago

This is great. I never understood why we allow people who don't own the land dictating the terms of the housing that gets built when we need more of every kind of housing in California. The fetishization of single story mid-century construction is especially confusing. Land is expensive, build up, not out.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pokstad 5y ago
Because there are limited resources surrounding those homes. Like streets, schools, sewage, etc. You can’t just magically scale up the housing without also scaling up infrastructure.
- mcny 5y ago
  My understanding is that they put a cap on property taxes that fund the infrastructure and then turned around and said there is no money for infrastructure.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Isn’t it a chicken and egg problem? The only way to fund the new infrastructure to accommodate growth that will bring in property taxes to fund it in the future is via debt or impact fees. Either can be difficult for local governments to do. Also voters are often given lots of say, people who don’t want density get entrenched and vote for local leaders who are like minded.
  - mateo411 5y ago
    Sort of. Property taxes can only increase at ~2 percent a year due to Prop 13. However, people are still buying and selling houses. The people who have recently purchased a house pay high property taxes, because the property is expensive.
- xxpor 5y ago

zucker42 5y ago

This doesn't end single family zoning. It allows cities to end single family zoning in what looks like fairly narrow circumstances. The title should be changed because it's misleading to the point of being incorrect. > SB 10 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) creates a voluntary process for local governments to access a streamlined zoning process for new multi-unit housing near transit or in urban infill areas, with up to 10 units per parcel. The legislation simplifies the CEQA requirements for upzoning, giving local leaders another tool to voluntarily increase density and provide affordable rental opportunities to more Californians.

aluminum96 5y ago
Your comment is incorrect because you are describing SB 10, not SB 9. SB 9 indeed allows duplexes on all single-family parcels, as well as lot splits if one of the new homes will be owner-occupied, and neither lot would be less than 40% of the original lot's area.
pboennig 5y ago
SB 9 does end single family zoning in that it allows duplexes to be built on all lots currently zoned for single family housing. I agree that the title should reflect that the linked press release covers three bills: SB 8, 9, and 10, which change many things in California housing policy. > This bill, among other things, would require a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the proposed housing development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except as provided, and that the development is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

throwawayimbyyy 5y ago

Unfortunately it's an arms race between counties and the state. Bad faith actors in a variety of counties enact utility (sewer connections, septic, water, etc) moratoriums to halt development. Rather than budget and plan for increased capacity, they'd rather end growth. 0: https://argentco.com/post/californias-marin-municipal-water-district-continues-discussions-on-moratorium-for-new-water-service-connections/ https://argentco.com/post/californias-marin-municipal-water-...

aluminum96 5y ago
Municipalities that do this will be punished for it in the upcoming RHNA cycle. Laws like SB10 give them the tools to increase housing supply, but if they do not, they will become subject to ministerial (automatic) approval of certain projects under SB35.

aluminum96 5y ago

This is a pretty mild set of reforms. An analysis of SB9 in particular, written by the Terner Center at UC Berkeley, is available here: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/duplexes-lot-split-sb-9/ https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/duplex... Out of 7.5 million single family parcels, 6.1 million are SB9-eligible, and 521k would be market-feasible for construction. This would result in 714k new units of housing. Clearly SB9 will moderately increase density in some neighborhoods, but it will only lead to construction on ~3% of all single-family plots statewide.

rgarrett88 5y ago
>but it will only lead to construction on ~3% of all single-family plots statewide. Over what time frame? Do you have a source?
- aluminum96 5y ago
  The source is the Terner Center link above. The time frame is 10 years, if I recall correctly.

quartesixte 5y ago

Next: try to convince everyone in America to stop treating houses as an appreciating asset. Tear down houses, recycle what material is recyclable, and build new ones. And build smaller.

aluminum96 5y ago
To do this, we have to break the cycle of housing price inflation: as housing stops appreciating (because we start building enough supply), people will have progressively smaller investment in their homes, and won't be as dependent on home appreciation for their financial welfare.

aluminum96 5y ago

This is not as large of a change as it seems: single-family zoning was already (quietly) dead in California. Under SB13, almost all single family parcels can already have both an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) a Junior ADU, for a total of three units per parcel. SB9 increases that number from 3 to 4: you can now split the lot, and each half can have a duplex. This does give owners more options though: they can sell the other half of the lot, rather than having to rent out ADUs.

pembrook 5y ago

I might be wrong, but it seems the details betray the headline. All I see is throwing more money at homeless people and voluntary upzoning program that city councils probably aren’t going to voluntarily use (hence why this problem exists in the first place). > It includes provisions to prevent the displacement of existing renters and protect historic districts Like all bizarro housing legislation passed in California, these bills sound like they'll make it even harder for developers to build. Not easier. I'm genuinely confused how even more red tape is going to somehow make it easier to build. It’s like developers said “we can’t build because there’s too much regulation” and the CA government responded by saying “here’s 3 more pieces of regulation!”

aluminum96 5y ago
> It includes provisions to prevent the displacement of existing renters and protect historic districts This is specifically in reference to the owner-occupancy provision. If you choose to split your lot into two parcels, the owner must attest that they intend to reside at the property for at least 3 years. This concession was made to satisfy a demand from the California Association of Realtors and get the bill passed. Note that this is different from the duplex provision: each parcel can have a duplex, regardless of whether you split the lot or not. The duplex provision does not have any owner-occupancy requirement. > So it's voluntary? SB10 creates a voluntary process for 10-unit apartment buildings near transit. SB9 is involuntary, and allows duplexes and lot splits in single family zones.
favorited 5y ago
They're starting to get more voluntary because of SB35. They can voluntarily decide where to build now, or helplessly watch a judge rubber-stamp whatever the developer wants to build once the city is designated as behind their RHNA requirements. SB35 ends the days where "local control" included an option to not build anything.
thebradbain 5y ago
SB 10 is voluntary; but for the cities that do choose to use it (or selectively use it), now neighbors can’t sue to stop anything 10 units or less from going up based on environmental concerns. It’s big for that reason. SB 9 is paradigm shifting: every lot in California that’s single family zoned can a) be split into two lots AND/OR b) each resulting lot can now have up to 2 units AND c) if the lot is compliant with all other criteria, each lot is still able to have an ADU built in addition to the extra unit, per statewide ADU law passed two years ago So you can potentially turn a single lot into 6 units. Or 3 without splitting the lot. All of this is by-right, too. Design approval and local councils can’t stop it, and I believe they must be approved within 90 days, too.

teakettle42 5y ago

Is there definable criteria for measuring the success of this policy direction? What are the metrics? Is there an example of this policy direction working elsewhere? Is the goal solely improving housing affordability in locations with high-demand? Is exacerbating the wealth gap of concern? Density is almost always developed as rental units; growing the permanent rental class means eliminating access to the only vehicle for building wealth for middle and low income Americans.

aluminum96 5y ago
> growing the permanent rental class means eliminating access to the only vehicle for building wealth This is a policy choice, and I would argue it's a bad choice. If we strive to make housing cheaper across the board, households will have more money available to save and invest by other means. In particular, the incentives created by housing as an appreciating investment are awful. Owners who have all their money locked up in home equity are incentivized to oppose new development, creating an artificial housing shortage. As a counterexample, consider Germany: virtually all households rent, housing stock is plentiful and affordable, and the middle class is still able to save and build wealth.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  I wish our wealth building was in the form of production machines that families maintain through investment.
  - zepto 5y ago
    What do you mean by “ production machines”?
    - dodobirdlord 5y ago
      Presumably investing by buying stock in companies that are economically productive, as opposed to engaging in purely speculative investment like owning land.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Tear down the houses and build sky scrapers?

aluminum96 5y ago
You'd think that's what SB9 did, based on the number of critics who accused it of "manhattanizing single family neighborhoods."

csours 5y ago

It took me a minute to parse what this means, not being from California. Single Family Zoning means that certain land may only be used for Single Family Homes - Ie No Condos, No apartments, no duplexes allowed. Removing Single Family Zoning means that developers can no longer be REQUIRED to build single family units in an area. Single Family Homes may still be built, but may not be required. If I am not reading this correctly, let me know.

aluminum96 5y ago
Indeed, I think a much better description of SB9's effect would be "legalizing duplexes and lot splits everywhere." About 97% of single-family parcels are expected to remain single-family under this law, in practice.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Really that high? Full redevelopment takes time and money. But ADUs seem like a relatively cheap/easy way for home owners to get into rentals and earn some cash.
  - aluminum96 5y ago
    Yes, that's according to this analysis from the Terner Center: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SB-9-Brief-July-2021-Final.pdf https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07....
alistairSH 5y ago
That’s right. And other comments describe the details of when/how existing plots may be split or redeveloped.

endisneigh 5y ago

This is the beginning of the end for single-family houses (it's a good thing). Regardless of how you feel about single family vs. duplex - this will create too much selection pressure towards duplexes. Only the ultra-rich will be in single-family houses. On that note - I'm curious, would it be legal/constitutional to have national zoning laws? Are there currently national zoning laws?

aluminum96 5y ago
The Terner Center estimates that SB9 will affect only 3% of all single-family parcels in California: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/duplexes-lot-split-sb-9/ https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/duplex...

boulos 5y ago

m_ke: the original (annoying) title is "Governor Newsom Signs Historic Legislation to Boost California’s Housing Supply and Fight the Housing Crisis". Changing it to add "ending single family zoning in California" is editorializing and not quite accurate. To fit in 80 characters, while removing the weasel word of historic, I would have gone with "Governor Newsom Signs Legislation to Boost California's Housing Supply".

khazhoux 5y ago

I feel that these efforts to increase housing supply --especially in the Bay Area-- can only scratch at the problem, and very slowly. You would have to raze entire neighborhoods, entire towns, and rebuild them with high-density housing, to meet the demand. So why is there never discussion of reducing demand instead of increasing supply? As in, put a limit on how many employees can be hired in the Bay Area by any company. Google, Apple, Facebook, Netflix, and all the rest bring in many tens of thousands of employees (and their families) every year. They crowd out the nicer apartments, making them unavailable and unaffordable to low-wage employees. And eventually the tech worker cashes in their fantastic stock growth and over-bids on a house, driving prices up. The suggestion of capping hiring in the Bay Area seems to be a taboo suggestion, not sure why. Seems to me, when your house is flooding from a broken pipe, first thing you do it cut the main.

cycrutchfield 5y ago
Because it’s way easier to just build more housing than enact draconian policies to prevent freedom of employment and freedom of movement. Think about what you are suggesting for a second.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  If you can upzone housing, you can downzone offices. Why isn't anyone building brand new cities shaped the way they want, instead of trying to force people out of where they live? I'd much rather live in a blank slate city designed the way I'd like, than constantly fight people who don't want me around.
  - User23 5y ago
    That's a great question, have you got any thoughts on why?
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      The topic has come up once or twice on HN before, so maybe try searching for "new cities" or something like that. - All existing land is already claimed by someone, or by the government. There are insanely large parcels owned by individuals or small groups. - Most existing water is claimed by someone hundreds of miles downstream. - The overall US mindset (there are definitely exceptions!) has changed over the 20th and early 21st century from one of maximizing tangible accomplishment, to maximizing financial gain and minimizing loss. We're playing musical chairs instead of making more chairs. - Mass media (Disney -- kid shows, superhero movies) creates the impression that the current geographic and cultural structure of society is the only possible structure of society, by making a few views seem ubiquitous, and everything else the domain of pure fantasy. - Prior attempts eventually got ridiculed, like EPCOT (ironically enough also Disney). People won't leave you alone -- they'll insist that any hope of new ideas is unforgivable hubris, and do whatever they can to make their ridicule a self-fulfilling prophecy.

almost_usual 5y ago

So single family homes will be more expensive.

zbrozek 5y ago

I'm pretty excited about limiting side and rear setbacks to 4 feet.

ufhghfggf 5y ago

This will do nothing. CA has a low median property tax rate[1] of 0.74%, which allows rich elites and foreign speculators to buy empty lots of land and let them sit unused for decades while waiting for them to go up in value. This low property tax rate allows rich rent-seekers to buy up properties and then rent them out to people who can't get the big loans the landed aristocracy can. So we now have a record number of young people living with their parents, especially in expensive places like CA. Newsom is rich, as are his donors, as is Nancy Pelosi, and they have no interest in raising the property taxes of the mansions they live in and their investment properties they don't live in. [1] http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state

reducesuffering 5y ago
> as is Nancy Pelosi I find it odd that people who are working until they are past 80 are accused of doing so just to enrich themselves. Pelosi has what 8 years left alive on average, and is spending all her time still working and influencing politics so that she goes to the grave with ~2% more money? Does that sound right to you?
- bradlys 5y ago
  Yet Pelosi isn’t training any replacements to take over for her. Pelosi could still be working to enrich herself and for the power trip and fame. It’s not like people only have one simple motivation when they are in Congress. Pelosi is a neoliberal ghoul as much as anyone on the right side of Congress. She has no interest but in herself. She will continue to act in her best interests as she always has. (This isn’t much different of almost anyone in Congress - but worth mentioning anyway)
- ufhghfggf 5y ago
  How much of her $100M+ fortune has she donated to charity? Almost none that I can see. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have committed to giving nearly all their billions to charity but Paul and Nancy Pelosi are using their $100M+ to establish multi-generational trust fund wealth for their children and family.

RickJWagner 5y ago

"to expedite construction of an estimated 6,500 shovel-ready affordable multi-family units in projects...." Welcome to 'life in the projects'. It's not a ticket to prosperity.