10 ms·
Building a house in California is not a housing development project [pdf]
- zbrozek 4y agoThe appellate court ruling upholds a Marin County superior court ruling that building a house is not a housing development project, and therefore the Housing Accountability Act does not apply. The stated legislative intent of the law was to remove barriers to building homes and was widely referred to as the "Anti-NIMBY" law. Now a court in one of the most-NIMBY counties in California has effectively gutted the law.
- codefreeordie 4y agoReading through this decision, it is clear that there is an overabundance of motivated reasoning here. The court very clearly is trying to justify its decision, not reach one based on the law. In particular given the amendment to the law in 2017 which added, among other things, these clauses: > It is the policy of the state that [the HAA] should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. and > despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section Both of these quotations are very clearly statements of "fuck you courts, follow the law", which the court has summarily ignored, stating that even though it is routine for statutes to be interpreted in such a manner that singular nouns include plurals and plural nouns include the singular, that the statement "only residential units" does not include building a residential unit and nothing else.
- sidewndr46 4y agoIs an accurate summary of this saying that the court interpreted "only residential units" as construction of one or more residences at the same time?
- codefreeordie 4y agothey interpreted it as specifically more than one residential unit, and nothing except residential units
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xyzzyz 4y ago> Both of these quotations are very clearly statements of "fuck you courts, follow the law", which the court has summarily ignored This is very classic for Californian courts and for Ninth Circuit.
- walrus01 4y agoAn interesting term I recently learned from the real estate industry is not just NIMBY but for the ultimate extreme of people who start municipal political fights against new development, BANANA Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
- daniel-cussen 4y agoLandlords you'd figure. Less competition. Less supply.
- m00x 4y agoI think your friend was pulling your leg. I'm married to a realtor and she's never heard that term. It's definitely not widespread.
- koube 4y agoI believe it's mostly a UK term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#BANANA_and_CAVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#BANANA_and_CAVE
- skybrian 4y agoIt's a joke I've heard before, probably online, but I don't know in what circles it's popular.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jonny_eh 4y agoIt's definitely a common term/joke in pro-housing circles. I've heard it as far back as 10 years ago if memory serves.
- mistrial9 4y agobut she is lying to you!
- skybrian 4y agoWas the law interpreted differently before? Have people previously claimed that building a single house was a housing development covered by this law, and succeeded, or is it a new kind of legal argument?
- vhold 4y agoThe ruling mentions "There is little caselaw interpreting this statutory definition." in regard to that question. It mentions one case where building 8 residential units was a "housing development project" It then goes into the fact that the law in question refers to a "housing development project" in one of 3 ways, 2 of which definitely don't apply, leaving behind the phrase "Residential units only", which they then point "units" is plural, not singular. So perhaps.. 2 residential units would have been a housing development project.
- AdamTReineke 4y agoThere's also some mention of the original plans calling for an ADU that was removed when the plan was scaled down at the request of the city, so the plaintiff was arguing they should have been covered because it was multi-unit. (If I skimmed it right.)
- fragmede 4y agoIt wasn't mentioned from what I saw, but you seem interested in laws changing; SB9 went into effect Jan. 1, 2022 for the expressed purpose of promoting housing development by allowing landowners to end up with four houses from what used to be a single plot.
- r00fus 4y agoBuilding a McMansion does not increase housing supply where it matters unless you also believe in "trickle down" economics.
- jamestimmins 4y agoAre you assuming that a home was knocked down to build the mansion? Otherwise you’re arguing that x + 1 == x.
- function_seven 4y agoI can't wrap my head around this thinking. (Not you. Parent.) A friend of mine just bought a brand new BMW. He's going to sell his old Nissan. Whomever buys that Nissan will be buying their first car, or selling their old car. The market is interconnected and conditions at one end of it absolutely affect the other end. Just look at the price of used cars last year when the new car stock was strangled. Imagine if, before that happened, someone was arguing that "making a luxury car doesn't increase the supply of cars"
- r00fus 4y agoNo, the question isn't whether a single large home increases supply. It does - by one house. "Housing Project" is really looking for a larger impact to the market than one home, usually 8+ likely dozens of homes. A single house is just a house, not a "housing project". Thus, they shouldn't get beneficial tax breaks to build it.
- zbrozek 4y agoThough there were no tax breaks being discussed regarding the case, but rather just the permission to build at all.
- BurningFrog 4y agoHousing supply very much matters in Marin County!!
- zbrozek 4y ago
- jeffbee 4y agoThis has not gutted the law, as I see it. The state's interest in the HAA and its enforcement by HCD is exclusively in multi-family development, at least duplexes and usually larger. Cities cannot include single-family developments in their housing elements, for example. The ability for a city to approve or deny SFHs will have no impact on the housing situation in the state.
- zbrozek 4y agoThey can include single family homes in their housing elements, typically as "above moderate income" - code for "market rate". Or they can also include them as "low income" if they are zoned at-or-above the Mullin Density, which is mostly 30 du/ac around the Bay Area. It's a small parcel, but you can build a SFH on 1452 sqft. Also the intent of the HAA is spelled out in the HAA itself, and it explicitly states that it is for "all economic segments": The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65589.5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- abeppu 4y agoUnder the reasoning laid out here, if you want to build one house, should you submit plans for a subdivision with multiple houses so that the HAA does apply, gain approval (and terrify the neighbors) and then run out of funds for construction as soon as the first house is completed?
- frognumber 4y agoNo, that does not follow. Law is not a computer program. It's interpreted by human lawyers and judges. It's not a system of rules. This sort of behavior falls under a broad set of rules about conspiracy, fraud, and similar. If that logic applied, I could apply for a permit to build an aesthetically-pleasing house, and run out of funds before the landscaping and exterior decoration were finished, and build slum housing. Fortunately, it doesn't work like that.
- abeppu 4y agoClearly, given the number of pages this dedicates to placing bounds on the definition of "housing development project", nothing is cut and dry. But I have to guess that if you were approved to build 3 houses, and stopped after building 1, these neighbors aren't going submit complaints to the county to try to compel you to build the other 2.
- sidewndr46 4y agoI watched a video about a guy in Hawaii who did the "lite" version of this. He could only get the zoning approval for a mansion basically, not the modest house he wanted to build. So he submitted plans for an absolutely massive mansion. Complete with a detached garage with a mother-in-law suite. He even gave it owns HVAC, plumbing, electrical, etc. All separate from the house. He built the mother in law suite, moved in, and the rest of the house has been "under construction" forever.
- genocidicbunny 4y agoI wonder what his tax situation is like. Is he paying taxes on the current value? Since the plan hasn't been completed, is there even a value that can be assigned? Seems the sort of thing where you're threading multiple loopholes and need to do it exactly right, which is probably not cheap or easy either.
- volkse 4y agoThey should apply to build a huge 5 story apartment complex on that lot, see how the community likes that. The county would have to approve that development according to that decision..
- 09bjb 4y agoThis is how 3-story apartment complexes get approved in my town :)
- ImPostingOnHN 4y agoseems they want just 1 house just for themselves? hardly a "development", more like a single home build
- zbrozek 4y agoThat definition is the core problem the court is contorting itself to address in the way that it likes. Development has quite a few plain-English definitions. One of them seems plenty straightforward and applicable: A project consisting of one or more commercial or residential buildings. [0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/development https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/development
- ImPostingOnHN 4y agowas the law intended by the legislators to apply to individual, single family home builds? like, did their definition match the one you referenced that includes a single home?
- zbrozek 4y agoWell so that's the problem, right? The legislature never defined it. So we're left to argue amongst ourselves and use dictionaries, leading to cherry picks. The did, however, state that the intent of the law was to promote housing regardless of economic segment.
- outside1234 4y ago
- burlesona 4y agoThe idea that local municipalities get to decide, arbitrarily and subjectively, what is "compatible with the neighborhood," means that property rights do not exist. As property rights are the basis of free markets, it's important that we understand there is no free market - not even a highly regulated market - for construction in large swathes of the US, and nearly every employment center. It is perfectly fine to regulate the acceptable parameters of development, but they can't subjective and arbitrary. That's not how rule of law works.
- gamegoblin 4y agoI think the proposal of the Strong Towns organization is among the best I have seen balancing between YIMBY absolutists and NIMBY absolutists. The problem with NIMBY absolutists is obvious -- it becomes impossible to expand the housing supply in areas that need expansion. The problem with YIMBY absolutists is also obvious -- it's probably not ideal to build a 30 story condo tower in the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes. (Though, arguably a 30 story condo tower is better than a housing crisis, but the Strong Towns proposal is geared towards never letting a housing crisis happen in the first place) The Strong Towns compromise is that it should always be legal to build the next increment of housing stock relative to whatever is the most common in the area. Where the increments are defined something like: single family -> duplex/triplex -> row house -> low rise apartments -> mid rise apartments -> high rise apartments. In a neighborhood with a majority of housing stock at one level, it should always be legal to build the next level. The idea is that it allows neighborhoods to "thicken up" over a few decades.
- oconnore 4y ago> it's probably not ideal to build a 30 story condo tower in the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes You mean because then it would be in their back yard? Or why?
- elefanten 4y agoBecause the surrounding infrastructure wasn't made for that density, and it takes way longer to retrofit than it does to throw up density, lowering the quality of life for the existing residents.
- tims33 4y ago-deleted-
- mips_avatar 4y agoI think you misread the judgement. They denied the permit to build the house, and the courts upheld the denial.
- _vertigo 4y agoAm I missing something? There linked pdf is a decision upholding Marin County’s rejection
- YeBanKo 4y agoThis is where a direct democracy can shine. A simple proposition that amends AHA to explicitly include single family homes might put a stop to this.
- CPLX 4y agoIt's a single fucking house on a fucking 1.76 acre lot? And these fucking psychopaths feel like that's too much housing? Like a single fucking house, on almost two acres?
- ceroxylon 4y agoLocal to the area and yes, there are a lot of NIMBYs, however this is not the best case to illustrate the battle for affordable and accessible housing. This is a power couple wanting to butcher their slope (19 heritage trees) to build a mansion unbefitting of the neighborhood, and then trying to use the HDP law to force the county to let them do it, despite obviously not fitting the spirit of the law.
- marincounty 4y ago
- wahern 4y ago19 trees "'protected' or 'heritage'". A "protected" tree is basically any native tree over 6-10 inches in diameter (i.e. more than a few years old), and a "heritage" tree is any of the same but over 18-30 inches (depending on species). See https://library.municode.com/ca/marin_county/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT22DECO_ARTVIIIDECODE_CH22.130DE_22.130.030DESPTEPH https://library.municode.com/ca/marin_county/codes/municipal... These are very broad classifications that mostly serve to provide pretext for rejecting projects or exacting fees. In San Francisco a protected tree is any tree with a diameter of 15" or more (specifically, a circumference of 48" or more). It'll cost you upwards of $500 in mandatory permits and fees alone to remove any (and each) such tree, even if it's a foregone conclusion that it needs to be removed. And if you remove it without spending the money and time on the permit, you'll face thousands of dollars in fines. The whole system is fscked up. Whether it was proper, legal, or otherwise for that "mansion" to be built, I have no opinion. But the existing regulations and permitting systems in California are wholly ridiculous; clearly, directly, and unequivocally responsible for an immense amount of social problems, including social inequities in this state; and outside a court of law, and without more context, deserve little deference regarding legitimacy and efficacy. In fact, the system has the overall effect of injuring rule of law by making it difficult, not to mention often times economically infeasible, to obey the letter of the law. It turns the community into scofflaws. If the law and law-abiding community is the only thing protecting a resource, then it's of paramount importance to maintain the legitimacy of and respect for the law, even if that means sometimes making sacrifices and compromises regarding what you would like to accomplish with the law.
- hayksaakian 4y agoFor folks in the comments who didn't bother to read the first 5 pages (the summary) The judge interpreted the HAA as only applying to units that expand housing beyond single family homes. The proposed project would be a 4000 square foot single family home in a neighborhood of roughly 1500-1600 square foot homes. Either way I think the law is absurd here, but it's actually having the INTENDED affect. Rather than building a luxurious single family home, the developer is encouraged to build a multi family home and actually expand the amount of housing available in the area. This seems like a "win" if your goal is to increase housing supply.
- bdowling 4y ago> Rather than building a luxurious single family home, the developer is encouraged to build a multi family home and actually expand the amount of housing available in the area. The property here is a hillside 1.76 acre lot in a "heavily wooded" area of Marin County next to a creek and currently without vehicular access. No one is ever going to build a multi-family development there.
- tremon 4y agoGood, let's keep the woodland then.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- foxyv 4y agoUnfortunately, single family homes and R1 zoning have the most impact on wildlands by converting vast swaths of lands into low density streets and houses. If you want to keep woodland, you need to densify.
- zbrozek 4y agoThe developer can't build a multi-family home there because the parcel isn't zoned for it.
- deleted 4y ago
- pessimizer 4y agoNext they're going to tell me that putting out my recycling isn't operating a recycling facility, and I was depending on that tax break.
- mertd 4y agoShould I cancel my pool house "housing project"?
- int_19h 4y agoTL;DR: "... these statutes do not resolve the meaning of the unhyphenated phrase “housing development project.” As their broad definitions suggest, the phrase could use development as a verbal adjective and mean a project to develop housing (a housing “development project”). On the other hand, the phrase could use development as a concrete noun and mean a project to build a housing development (a “housing-development” project), a concept these statutes do not define. Under the first interpretation, a project to build a single home would seemingly qualify as a housing development project, because it is a “project undertaken for the purpose of development” (§ 65928) and the development activity consists of constructing housing. Under the second interpretation, the same project would seemingly not qualify as a housing development project, since an individual single-family home is not a “housing development,” a term that generally refers to a group of housing units. ... Given the statutory context in which the definition of “housing development project” appears and the legislative history, we hold that the HAA does not apply to projects to build individual single-family homes."
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Panzer04 4y agoSo because your neighbours have small houses, you can’t build a big house? What absolutely inane reasoning.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mistrial9 4y ago... more "dollars" than "sense" in California housing at this time in history.
- morepork 4y agoGiven it's a big lot, could they just build a granny flat somewhere on the edge, and it would become a "development" as it's 2 units? There's a cost obviously, but small units like that aren't _too_ expensive
- jeffbee 4y agoAccording to the plaintiff's tweets, that was the original plan, but somewhere in the process the county persuaded them to remove the ADU from the project.
- kazinator 4y agoTL;DR: Some well-to-do NIMBYists who own fully detached homes wanted to prevent some other well-to-do from building, in their neighborhood, a bigger house than theirs (while butchering the natural landscape and harming the environment). They prevailed. The builder tried to argue that their home is a housing project, and so legally protected from cancellation by NIMBYists under some legislation known as the HAA. There was subsequently a lot of elaborate squabbling over the wording of the law, and whether plurals like "units" include projects that build one "unit". The legislation was found to be lacking in clear definitions of its terms. In the end it was decided that one home isn't a housing project. They set the precedent that someone building an an actual affordable home in all earnestness can now be stopped by NIMBYists, if it happens to be just one unit. If you build affordable housing, you must build two or more to stay within the protection of the HAA. (It doesn't seem like a big deal since you'd think most housing projects subdivide an expensive property into a beehive of tiny cells anyway. You can see some NIMBYs using this to stop the construction of, say, a lane home on the property of an existing house. However, the joke will be on them if the builder decides to make a larger "lane duplex" instead.)
- jeffbee 4y agoA law professor and authority on housing law held forth on Twitter at the time: https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1538284897151832064 https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1538284897151832064
- tanseydavid 4y agoI have lived in San Anselmo for close to 20 years and it is chock-full of self-absorbed people like this with too much money. They are not stupid -- they just took a "calculated" risk that they could pull this off. I guarantee if they consulted a lawyer beforehand they would have been told there was very high risk of rejection of the plan. This is just their "Hail Mary" attempt at still being able to get what they want and preserve / protect their risky investment choice.
- bdowling 4y agoAccording to the decision, the planning division initially approved the project but the neighbors appealed and the oversight commission reversed the approval. Hence the lawsuit and appeal of the trial court's ruling. Interestingly, the court left open the question of whether a project comprising a single-family home plus ADU would fall under the Housing Accountability Act. If the owners are still feeling litigious they may be able to file their original project proposal (5,000 sf. with ADU), get denied, sue the county again, and possibly get a different result.
- rkwasny 4y agoExcessive planning permissions are cancer, years of discussion if you can build a house on your own land.
- ericmay 4y agoI think these conversations and discussions would be much more interesting if we were talking about housing supply and demand in other states. It seems to me that California is unique. It has some of the best weather and natural beauty in the world. Infinite demand to live there. It’s always going to have a housing shortage.
- CPLX 4y agoThat's a ridiculous statement. Tokyo has the same population as the entire state of California. You could pack up Los Angeles and San Diego and turn them into nature reserves and fit the entire state population into the Bay Area trivially if people just learned how to green light some fucking high rise apartment buildings.
- simonsarris 4y agoI must say if you made the Bay Area look like Tokyo a considerable amount of what people call "natural beauty", which is in part landscaped beauty, would be reduced. (Not that you couldn't greatly improve the place with Barcelona or Paris style density! I agree the low-hanging fruit is absurd)
- ericmay 4y agoYea but Tokyo is in a different country with different rules, laws, cultural expectations, etc. I’d say before building skyscrapers in existing neighborhoods, California could dismantle highways and build them there instead. Then you get a win-win of more housing and fewer SUVs and trucks.
- CPLX 4y agoYeah let's dismantle the highways and put giant high rises on them. We won't build trains or some alternate method of getting people and things where they need to go of course, but that's cool because Californians don't need food and supplies they can exist just on vibes, man.
- 4y ago