3 ms·

> A study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that the new law likely would add, at most, fewer than 700,000 housing units across Califo

> A study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that the new law likely would add, at most, fewer than 700,000 housing units across California. A good, a pointless divisive bill that does nothing to fundamentally address the issues. It’s almost as if California politicians have discovered it’s better to have a bill that makes a lot of noise to make it seem like work is being done while simultaneously not doing anything meaningful that would truly disturb anyone. This is another version of banning restaurants from automatically giving water while the majority of the water goes to farms that hardly pay anything for it.

kadoban 5y ago
700,000 is not a tiny amount.
- kortilla 5y ago
  It’s tiny when it’s the max end of the estimation in a state of 40 million people.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    It’s probably enough to house almost 10% of those people at 3 persons per unit, which is not insubstantial.
dado3212 5y ago
6% increase in housing units isn't nothing [1]. That said, I think you're right that more aggressive measures would need to be taken to resolve the shortage. Is there a link to recommendations that would have larger impact? I know CEQA's brought up a lot, but is there some paper that's been written around proposals and estimated housing units? [1] https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/california/housing-statistics https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/california/housing-stat...
- kortilla 5y ago
  That’s effectively nothing when everything is so constrained already. A 3bd/2ba house in Sunnyvale runs for a couple of million dollars. Do you think 6% is going to bring it down to 300-500k like other suburbs in the country (e.g. around Indianapolis, Atlanta, Dallas)?
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    I don't think anyone believes this bill will single-handedly solve the housing crisis or intended it to do so. The hope is that it will be a good incremental step, and encourage other reforms to promote more housing as people discover that multifamily units aren't a big deal.
  - nostrademons 5y ago
    It's not going to bring home prices down - it actually reduces the number of SFHs on the market, and the new units created are duplexes where they'll be a landlord (probably an occupant) and a tenant. It's likely going to bring rents down, or at least keep them from climbing much higher. But that's already a huge win. A 2BR duplex in Sunnyvale rents for about $3500/month, which is pretty insane. Bring that down to $2K/month and you might have families living in their own unit again (instead of 3 families sharing a 3BR, each getting one room), or young people that can afford to found startups.
javagram 5y ago
700,000 new housing units sounds pretty good for such a modest change? It does seem like more action will be needed in the future - perhaps once people see that CA isn't transformed into MegaCity One by this change, they'll be further open to options like the previous SB 50 bill?
kelnos 5y ago
Regardless of whether or not it "solves" the housing crisis, it's still the right thing to do. If you own a large-enough plot of land, why should you be barred from building an in-law unit, or adding a second floor that functions as a separate housing unit? This just gives people some of their property rights back. 700k isn't nothing, either. I agree that it's not a ton, and it isn't going to solve the housing crisis, but it's a step in the right direction, and is a bonus for doing the right thing with regard to making zoning less restrictive.

kadoban 5y ago

700,000 is not a tiny amount.

kortilla 5y ago
It’s tiny when it’s the max end of the estimation in a state of 40 million people.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  It’s probably enough to house almost 10% of those people at 3 persons per unit, which is not insubstantial.

dado3212 5y ago

6% increase in housing units isn't nothing [1]. That said, I think you're right that more aggressive measures would need to be taken to resolve the shortage. Is there a link to recommendations that would have larger impact? I know CEQA's brought up a lot, but is there some paper that's been written around proposals and estimated housing units? [1] https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/california/housing-statistics https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/california/housing-stat...

kortilla 5y ago
That’s effectively nothing when everything is so constrained already. A 3bd/2ba house in Sunnyvale runs for a couple of million dollars. Do you think 6% is going to bring it down to 300-500k like other suburbs in the country (e.g. around Indianapolis, Atlanta, Dallas)?
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  I don't think anyone believes this bill will single-handedly solve the housing crisis or intended it to do so. The hope is that it will be a good incremental step, and encourage other reforms to promote more housing as people discover that multifamily units aren't a big deal.
- nostrademons 5y ago
  It's not going to bring home prices down - it actually reduces the number of SFHs on the market, and the new units created are duplexes where they'll be a landlord (probably an occupant) and a tenant. It's likely going to bring rents down, or at least keep them from climbing much higher. But that's already a huge win. A 2BR duplex in Sunnyvale rents for about $3500/month, which is pretty insane. Bring that down to $2K/month and you might have families living in their own unit again (instead of 3 families sharing a 3BR, each getting one room), or young people that can afford to found startups.

javagram 5y ago

700,000 new housing units sounds pretty good for such a modest change? It does seem like more action will be needed in the future - perhaps once people see that CA isn't transformed into MegaCity One by this change, they'll be further open to options like the previous SB 50 bill?

kelnos 5y ago

Regardless of whether or not it "solves" the housing crisis, it's still the right thing to do. If you own a large-enough plot of land, why should you be barred from building an in-law unit, or adding a second floor that functions as a separate housing unit? This just gives people some of their property rights back. 700k isn't nothing, either. I agree that it's not a ton, and it isn't going to solve the housing crisis, but it's a step in the right direction, and is a bonus for doing the right thing with regard to making zoning less restrictive.