6 ms·

The appellate court ruling upholds a Marin County superior court ruling that building a house is not a housing development project, and therefore the Housing Ac

The 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 ago
Reading 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 ago
  Is 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 ago
    they 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 ago
An 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 ago
  Landlords you'd figure. Less competition. Less supply.
- m00x 4y ago
  I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    It'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 ago
    It'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 ago
    but she is lying to you!
skybrian 4y ago
Was 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 ago
  The 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 ago
  There'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 ago
  It 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 ago
Building a McMansion does not increase housing supply where it matters unless you also believe in "trickle down" economics.
- jamestimmins 4y ago
  Are you assuming that a home was knocked down to build the mansion? Otherwise you’re arguing that x + 1 == x.
  - function_seven 4y ago
    I 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 ago
    No, 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 ago
      Though there were no tax breaks being discussed regarding the case, but rather just the permission to build at all.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Housing supply very much matters in Marin County!!
- zbrozek 4y ago
jeffbee 4y ago
This 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 ago
  They 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&sectionNum=65589.5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

codefreeordie 4y ago

Reading 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 ago
Is 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 ago
  they 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 ago

An 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 ago
Landlords you'd figure. Less competition. Less supply.
m00x 4y ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  It'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 ago
  It'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 ago
  but she is lying to you!

skybrian 4y ago

Was 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 ago
The 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 ago
There'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 ago
It 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 ago

Building a McMansion does not increase housing supply where it matters unless you also believe in "trickle down" economics.

jamestimmins 4y ago
Are you assuming that a home was knocked down to build the mansion? Otherwise you’re arguing that x + 1 == x.
- function_seven 4y ago
  I 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 ago
  No, 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 ago
    Though there were no tax breaks being discussed regarding the case, but rather just the permission to build at all.
BurningFrog 4y ago
Housing supply very much matters in Marin County!!
zbrozek 4y ago

jeffbee 4y ago

This 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 ago
They 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&sectionNum=65589.5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]