47 ms·

Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

• retrocryptid 4y ago
  Cool! Maybe I'll be able to build an earthship in rural California now!
• p0pcult 4y ago
  This seems like a way to reduce homelessness and fix the housing market in one fell swoop.
  • miniman1337 4y ago
    not sure if its going to "fix" the housing market, but its a step in the right direction, away from nimbyism.
    • p0pcult 4y ago
      Fair point, perhaps I should have said "achieve a lower equilibrium price point." Maybe that would have been wordy and technical enough for HN?
    • HDThoreaun 4y ago
      My understanding is that California is short around a million housing units. Truly a staggering number that will take very long to catch up on. Not sure how many units are being allowed by builder's remedy but it surely isn't the full million.
      • TedShiller 4y ago
        It’s not short anything. Other states have housing.
        • fosk 4y ago
          Somehow we have grown a whole generation of people that thinks they are entitled to live wherever they want, when that has never been the case in world’s history. I too want a penthouse in Manhattan, who do I need to mail to demand I am given a penthouse in Manhattan? California clearly doesn’t have the capacity to serve the current population, let alone an increased population. All services are 3rd world quality, besides a few rich enclaves.
          • HDThoreaun 4y ago
            Somehow we have grown a whole generation of people that thinks they are entitled to tell their neighbors what they are allowed to build. I too want everyone around me to have a one story house so I can look over them from my balcony, but guess what, that would impede on their property rights. California absolutely has the capacity to serve the current population, they just need to fix the shit show that is their housing policy.
  • anovikov 4y ago
    Fixing homeless requires removing homeless, not adding homes. It's a law enforcement problem, not an economic problem.
    • p0pcult 4y ago
      I suppose, through a certain carceral and inhumane viewpoint, your approach works too.
    • nicoburns 4y ago
      I mean, it stands to reason that there also need to be homes for those people to live in. Unless you're planning on executing or imprisoning them instead.
      • fundad 4y ago
        you know that's the plan
      • anovikov 4y ago
        I think large-scale, cheap to maintain, gulag-style camps are the best solution to homelessness.
    • travisjungroth 4y ago
      Remove them to where?
    • twiddling 4y ago
      I assume you have a FINAL solution?
  • LewisVerstappen 4y ago
    > reduce homelessness Is the homeless problem due to the cost of housing? Or is it moreso due to fentanyl?
    • lalaithion 4y ago
      If they had homes, it wouldn't be called homelessness. You can take fentanyl in an apartment.
      • m00x 4y ago
        It's a lot more comfortable to take drugs at home, too. They would take homes if they could.
        • LewisVerstappen 4y ago
          SF/LA has numerous programs that will give you housing if you're homeless. The issue is that many of the homeless refuse to take up these programs and insist on staying in their tents.... so... no?
          • m00x 4y ago
            I'm from Vancouver so I'm pretty familiar with this issue. They give you housing but don't allow drugs. Being able to own your own place where you can do drugs helps. These people are addicts and homeless. We can cure homelessness with more homes, but we also need to help them get rid of addiction.
          • metalforever 4y ago
            no, dealing with this issue with a friend in SF right now, theres a waitlist and its long.
    • sonofaplum 4y ago
      it's due to the cost of housing, as evidenced by lower homelessness rates in places where housing is cheaper.
  • rcpt 4y ago
    As long as Prop 13 is on the books we're pretty fucked but yes this is huge
    • deepakhj 4y ago
      I think another attempt to reform prop 13 will happen in 2024.
      • rcpt 4y ago
        Yes but I don't think it'll affect residential.
• MichaelZuo 4y ago
  " And in the Bay Area, our time is almost up. HCD has made clear than any housing element that doesn’t zone feasibly for new housing especially in affluent areas will have their housing elements rejected. If they’re still in a rejected state by the deadline, their zoning disappears. If a city creates a good housing element and HCD approves, the builder’s remedy turns off and their local zoning is restored — but the projects approved under builder’s remedy will remain. San Francisco frantically sought to avoid this, especially since HCD drew extra fire on the city and announced a special investigation into the slow housing approval process of San Francisco’s political system. The first ever housing investigation of its kind. Supervisors in the city cried they were being targeted and bullied by the state — but it worked. Fearing total loss of the highly sacred power to approve housing in San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Department & Commission, and the political activists of the city assembled quite a radical (but potentially lemon) housing element. One that proposes to upzone corridors in SF’s wealthier and lower density westside, something that was long believed to be politically impossible a year or two ago. HCD reviewed SF’s housing element and said it “largely compiled” with the state’s rules, even though it was heavy on promises. As such, SF will not be subjected to the builder remedy on Wednesday. Shockingly, only a few other Bay Area jurisdictions can claim to keep their zoning as of writing this: Emeryville, Redwood City, and Alameda city. " It's difficult to tell who's backing what.
• thepasswordis 4y ago
  Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, how you can landscape it, what kinds of cars you can keep in your own driveway, what you can do in your leisure time on the property etc. It is insane. I honestly hope there is a property-rights case that abolishes all of this. If I own the property, then it's mine. If I want to collect old VW busses and park them in the front yard, I don't care what effect this has on my neighbors property value. This is my home. If you don't want to deal with living near other people, move to the country.
  • ethanbond 4y ago
    For what it's worth, most zoning is created by property owners, too. Gotta preserve their investment at the expense of our nation's growth.
    • gretch 4y ago
      As a property owner, I've always found this to be remarkably short sighted. If the city booms, land value goes up. E.g. Manhattan. Trying to keep your small suburb a small suburb isn't maximizing investor value. edit: to responders, yes I'm aware houses have other value. My comment is in response the parent comment that specifically addresses investment value protection aspect.
      • dahfizz 4y ago
        Some people just want to live in a small suburb
        • Ar-Curunir 4y ago
          Except when that small suburb is in a not-small town (Eg: many parts of SF, Berkeley Sunnyvale, etc.)
• jvanderbot 4y ago
  In principle, I hate this. Cities should be able to plan their own growth. In practice, coming from CA, I am 100% onboard. It's a mess of red tape and bullshit lawsuits.
  • ketzo 4y ago
    Yeah, it's a hamfisted solution, but only because it has to be. And as the state government has said -- cities can still plan their own growth! They just have to plan some growth rather than none, which, obviously, is the sticking point.
    • trilobyte 4y ago
      Exactly right. The cities had a long time to implement less clumsy plans but kept caving to local political groups funded by wealthy people. I'm not against those people having their opinions be part of a solution, but up until now it's been almost entirely driven by that group, and they were unwilling to give up enough to find workable middle ground. It was always token concessions. Maybe this will be a wake-up call.
  • toast0 4y ago
    > Cities should be able to plan their own growth. They are able to plan their own growth, but they aren't able to refuse to grow. Or at least, not through zoning; being located where potable water or sewer/septic are at capacity is probably still valid to restrict new building.
    • thegrimmest 4y ago
      Why not? if a low density community wants to plan to remain low density, who are the rest of us to stop them?
      • arrosenberg 4y ago
        American citizens with the freedom of movement? If you want to remain low-density go settle where California City is, I guarantee you will stay small. Santa Monica, however, is going to have to build housing.
• la64710 4y ago
  Soon the peaceful suburbs of California will look like congested cities like Seoul or Mumbai with a whole bunch of slums thrown in between.
  • 40acres 4y ago
    I can't wait.
  • nluken 4y ago
    I mean, California already has both a massive homelessness problem and a major housing shortage. The prices from the latter have driven a ton of migration out of the state. Is your solution to just do nothing?
    • la64710 4y ago
      Yes migration is good.
  • thebradbain 4y ago
    This is reactionary. Not even Los Angeles, the biggest city in California, is anywhere near being a dense metropolis.
  • gretch 4y ago
    When I visited, I found Seoul to be an amazing city. While there was higher density there, I would not describe it as 'congested' because they had planning for how to manage (mostly) foot traffic. I would be very happy if Sunnyvale/Santa Clara started to look a bit more like seoul.
  • recursive 4y ago
    Better a slum than literally camping on the sidewalk.
  • GalenErso 4y ago
    Have you ever traveled to Seoul? If you want your own undisturbed 10,000 sqft domain, like a British lord of old, you can move to Idaho. Or pay a huge premium to compete for a limited pool of available low density land.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• stephenitis 4y ago
  I feel slightly hopeful. Feb 1st is the deadline and court challenges need to see their way through.
• cvalka 4y ago
  This is fucking awesome. As cool as it gets.
  • TedShiller 4y ago
    You like crime?
• jeffbee 4y ago
  For a slightly less breathless take on the ambiguities of the law, see https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/a-primer-on-californias-builders-remedy-for-housing-element-noncompliance/ https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/a-primer-on-californias-...
• david2ndaccount 4y ago
  From my observation, these new housing developments are built without adequate parking and without improvements to the streets, leading to congested messes and worsening already bad traffic. How people can see this as a positive is unknown to me.
  • GalenErso 4y ago
    Denser cities lead to less traffic on a per capita basis, not more.
  • duped 4y ago
    One of the problems with new construction in some places (eg LA county) is that new construction has a requirement of too many parking spaces, not too few.
  • pjdemers 4y ago
    On my street, a parcel with one home was just rezoned for 24 homes - with zero on site parking. 24 homes without parking will add ~ 50 cars to on street parking. There is room for maybe 30 cars on the local streets without having to cross a 6 lane highway. Interesting to see how this will play out.
    • r00fus 4y ago
      Any public transport worth speaking of? If not, then maybe prices will be impacted for the new development unless they all taxi/uber everywhere...
  • forthwall 4y ago
    Building neighborhoods with parking can lead to worse traffic, the further out you build things, the more likely people need to drive. Roads cannot become infinitely wide, so if there's a shopping center in the middle of a city, but houses spread out for tens of miles, all those people in the radius will drive, causing more traffic. If everyone is in a denser location where more trips don't need to be done with driving, people will opt out of a car, or use a car way less, thus less congestion. San Jose is mostly zoned single family homes with lots of parking, yet there's plenty of traffic. Maybe it's the ample space devoted to parking and driving that's the real problem, as it forces you to drive. I think the next step is providing more services closer to people in these upzoned areas, as well as good transit to commercial centers so they can opt out of driving entirely.
• withzombies 4y ago
  For these cities that lose their local authorities, does that include building code requirements for things like parking minimums and mixed commercial/residential buildings?
• jxramos 4y ago
  > The city councils and zoning boards had zero authority to deny the projects. Zero. How did this authority come to be in the first place? How did cities magically get this authority to dictate how people should build. I imagine such laws didn’t always exist, how far back does this stuff go? Likewise how did states get authority over the cities on local matters that have to be obeyed?
  • dgoodell 4y ago
    I think it started in Euclid Ohio and went to the Supreme Court.
    • jxramos 4y ago
      Spot on, look at that. Good memory there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Realty_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Re....
  • arrosenberg 4y ago
    In the US states are the ultimate unit of law (at least pre civil war). States can supersede the authority of their cities and counties with near impunity since there is no Bill of Rights between each state and its constituent parts.
    • jxramos 4y ago
      That’s interesting that we have county and city governing bodies at all. It’s natural things like those bodies would unfold but to go this long with the state staying out of these affairs and stepping in when needed is pretty fascinating to see in real time like this.
      • arrosenberg 4y ago
        Up until 10-15 years ago the California legislature was far more conservative and pretty much on board with restrictive housing practices.
• londons_explore 4y ago
  The logical move would seem to be to submit lots of proposals for super tall massive ugly developments on Wednesday. No need to actually have the cash arranged to build them. Propose 100 floor tiny apartments everywhere. Then, they get approved. Then the city gets it's zoning laws in place and regrets the approval of your massive ugly development. But then you go to the city with an offer... Send in a new, more reasonable plan. If they approve the new plan, great. If they don't, you're gonna build what they originally approved, and they hate.
  • andys627 4y ago
    This isn't far off from how it works. You can get prelim approval. But I believe you need to have final submittal 6 months later.
  • ecf 4y ago
    It’s this type of poor-faith discourse that has led to some of the, “California-bad”, sentiment you see in the news. Same energy as states who pay for their homeless to come to California and then blast hit pieces about how terrible California is to live in.
• DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
  So when and if this takes effect, what do self proclaimed YIMBYs think is going to happen to everything in these cities that aren’t housing? Schools, roads, grocery stores, public transit, parks, etc. Is the thinking that they’re just going to magically be expanded to meet the massively higher density than these areas were ever planned to built for?
  • zaptheimpaler 4y ago
    Eventually, yes. More housing will certainly create a reason for other services to expand where there was no reason to change before.
  • villagevanguard 4y ago
    Yes.
    • ssabev 4y ago
      King. Gigachad level response
  • ketzo 4y ago
    I mean, I don't think the YIMBY movement always speaks with a single voice, but I do think there's an understanding that infrastructure will have to keep up. The thing is that in order to expand infrastructure, you need - public pressure and demonstrated need for that expansion - tax dollars to fund the expansion and the quickest way to get both of those is... to build more homes and put people in them. I don't think there's any magic involved, just time and necessity.
  • soperj 4y ago
    Because suddenly overnight all the single family housing will be replaced with townhouses?
  • arrosenberg 4y ago
    The cities will have increased property taxes (at full rate, not 1978 rates) which they can use to expand services. It'll take a few years of pain, but that's the price cities like Santa Monica get to pay for trying to avoid doing their fair share.
• irrational 4y ago
  > a very old law from the 1990s LOL. It's things like this that let me know how old I am.
  • lttlrck 4y ago
    I wasn't sure what to make of that either. I guess??? LOL.
  • gregschlom 4y ago
    Haha I had the same reaction. I was expecting some law from the 19th century.
    • skyyler 4y ago
      It is from the 1900s, which sounds worse than "20th century".
  • Aloha 4y ago
    When they said 'very old law' I expected something before the 30's, lol
  • ketzo 4y ago
    I think the author of this newsletter is actually younger than the law -- so maybe his perspective showing a little :D
  • berniedurfee 4y ago
    Yeah, I resemble that comment. The 90s feel like last week.
• jeffbee 4y ago
  The "local control" freaks have misapprehended the entire situation. The state of California is not analogous to the federal system of the United States. Cities have no powers other than those granted by the state, no natural right to exist, and continue to exist only at the sufferance of the state legislature. The legislature can disincorporate any city with a simple majority. Cities like Santa Monica should be relieved if land use planning is the only power they lose. The state would be well within its rights and powers to conclude that the existence of Santa Monica is not in the public interest and to assign their lands to Los Angeles.
  • epistasis 4y ago
    One of the few things Twitter does well is turn city council meetings into a digestible summary, and it is absolutely hilarious to see all the upset, privileged citizens thinking that if they just fight back hard enough, the law will not apply to them. And it's sad to see the loca politicians that pander to this obviously incorrect belief, as several politicians that did try to follow state law were ejected by their constituents. And to some degree, the citizens have been right, when fighting individual projects. Delay a project long enough, and the financial incentive to build can be eliminated, so the developer moves on. Frivolous, baseless lawsuits are a great way to do that. But when it comes to fighting the State, there is no financial incentive to disappear and make the State stop fighting. There is only the law.
• kqr2 4y ago
  How would the builder's remedy work in a place like Atherton if the homeowners form a pact and refuse to sell to any developers? E.g. if Marc Andreessen (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andreessens-opposition-housing-project-nimby/671061/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre...) and Steph Curry (https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/29/steph-curry-shoots-his-nimby-shot/ https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/29/steph-curry-shoots-his-ni...) form a coalition with other residents then they can effectively keep the city down zoned even if builder's remedy is applied?
  • MichaelZuo 4y ago
    The writer does indirectly allude to this: " There’s a lot of questions still unanswered, though. This will all be legally challenged since we’re in new territory with the HAA. Many developers still can’t believe it and aren’t sure to propose nor have readied capital to propose projects. Other builders since the Santa Monica news appear quite excited to build apartments in exclusive, expensive enclaves they’ve always wanted to. There’s a political question too about whether HCD will let substandard housing elements through just to not anger cities and incite backlash. " Very likely the 'political question' will not be limited to 'whether HCD will let substandard housing elements through'.
  • whimsicalism 4y ago
    I am excited to see how well a coalition of rich people performs once they start getting massive bids.
    • fragmede 4y ago
      Especially when they fight with each other, as neighbors do. The wealthy aren't always a monolithic block of undifferentiated piles of money so, not that I know what the future holds, but imagine you've been squabbling with your neighbor for decades; you've always wanted to move back east. What better giant finger to that neighbor than selling your multi-acre estate to be replaced by a 30 or 100-unit apartment complex?
      • 4y ago
• fishtoaster 4y ago
  The part that I'm sure many here are skimming for: > HCD reviewed SF’s housing element and said it “largely compiled” with the state’s rules, even though it was heavy on promises. As such, SF will not be subjected to the builder remedy on Wednesday. (But it's an interesting piece in general and you should read the whole thing for important context!)
  • ketzo 4y ago
    The whole "heavy on promises" thing makes me nervous. But the HCD has been super intensely focused on San Francisco in particular -- the article mentions the special investigation they opened into the city's Board of Supervisors -- and so I'm hoping that if they think it's good, then it's actually good.
• zetazzed 4y ago
  I strongly recommend Darrell Owens' substack (and Twitter). He's a young guy who got involved in housing politics in Berkeley back in high school and is studying data analytics. The blog has real data analysis of housing issues, not just polemics or the latest gossip (though there is a bit of that).
• undert0wn 4y ago
  The article doesn't specify that it will open to commercial zoning. Just that there is no limit to residential. So if someone has the capital there is no height limit to build in a residential area... I don't see much changing here. Most people won't add on a second, third, or fourth floor. New builds however... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• causi 4y ago
  I get not wanting to suddenly put an extra five hundred families onto a road that was only designed for a hundred single-family dwellings. What I don't get is being so nimby that you'd rather have your streets utterly full of homeless people and human waste.
  • nxm 4y ago
    I see tons of homeless surrounded by tall residential apartment buildings.
  • PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    I don't think that it's a preference either/or for nimby people. It's important to steelman arguments to better understand the incentives of people. My understanding is that there is a personal desire not to have one's personal life rapidly disrupted by increased demand of communal resources such as road space. There's a desire to consistently put off this rapid change. The second-order effects like an increased presence of homelessness doesn't intuitively have to do with not building an apartment: you can reason to yourself as a homeowner that these are people not even from your suburb community, but strangers invading it and ruining it, adding to the notion that more people decreases your quality of life personally.
  • rr888 4y ago
    I dont see why new million dollar condos will help homeless at all.
    • HDThoreaun 4y ago
      20% of them are for low income only.
      • creeble 4y ago
        Below-average income, not low income. Homeless people typically have zero income. They will qualify for exactly zero of the new housing these "unzoning" laws permit.
• patientplatypus 4y ago
  This makes me happy. If you want to end homelessness in California build affordable housing everywhere and hire the homeless to be go-fors on construction projects. There is absolutely no reason that there should be sub five story buildings in downtown San Francisco when there are people living on the street. Imagine if people could start building these cool buildings from AI: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-01-31/architects-embrace-ai-art-generator-midjourney?srnd=premium https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-01-31/architect... but for large scale residential housing. You could have a whole new generation of architectural firms building the future of urban living. Oh and we just figured out how to make Roman concrete https://www.popsci.com/science/roman-concrete/ https://www.popsci.com/science/roman-concrete/. You have no idea how exciting this is.
• jmyeet 4y ago
  It's easy to despondent at the political norms and the status quo in the United States at present but honestly what you're seeing with what CA is doing here gives me hopes that good things can still happen. For a bit of background, a big problem with housing in the US is that people became property owners and the whole system became financialized so the voters became incentivized to oppose housing to increase the value of their own homes. They also voted themselves massive generational tax breaks (eg Prop 13). The net effect is that almost all the polices you see around this are demand side, making it easier to buy a home. Why? Because this increases values. It's ineffective and everyone knows it. They just don't care. But what CA is doing here is one of the first large scale supply side policies with actual teeth and it's great to see. These cities have really fucked around and are now finding out. You see the same tactics too. Complaints about "maintaining character" and focusing new housing on poorer areas, which are both exclusionary and discriminatory policies. Well-intentioned laws in CA have been effectively weaponized to fight more and new housing (eg CEQA). Approvals processes can take years and really add to the cost. Even things like parking minimums are intentionally used to kill higher density housing (eg in LA). The builder's remedy mentioned here bypasses all local zoning and allows a court to approve plans. When Santa Monica fell out of compliance it saw approvals for thousands of new units. I really hope this happens in much of the Bay Area. What I find particularly disheartening is many self-identified "progressives" are the biggest NIMBYs. Denying people affordable housing is state violence.
• gumby 4y ago
  This is a great article about great news (except for the first sentence calling it "A little known law" -- it's been quite contentious). Palo Alto has fought these rules and I'm glad they will be enforced. When I first moved to Palo Alto in the early 80s it had a very progressive climate: a couple of SRO buildings, lower average income than some of the neighboring towns, a lot of social support programs, and decidedly un-fancy retail. But the flood of gold-seeking people who showed up for the dotcom boom allowed the real estate interests to seize control of the city council and in general made the town much snootier. The SRO hotels turned into boutique hotels and a lot of long term residents were ejected. Well those assholes are reaping what they have sown, thank goodness. Perhaps we'll recover some of the chill experimental vibe thanks to an influx of new people. I hadn't realised the housing shortage issue stretched back decades. It sets an interesting context for Prop 13 (basing the tax base on the purchase price, not generally on assessed value) since the zoning rules were so exclusionary. Basically, shows that the State's tax difficulties are themselves the consequence of exclusion. I wonder how this will work outside the dense areas. For example, Calaveras county has a shrinking population, but the main sources of jobs and taxes is construction. With no constraints on construction will there be a small boom in new development, tearing down virgin forest in order to make empty developments?
  • kevinburke 4y ago
    It won't make economic sense to try a builder's remedy project in lower land value jurisdictions, especially when you consider the legal headache. This is why we saw so many in Santa Monica and few in, say, the Inland Empire.
    • TulliusCicero 4y ago
      Right, and I mean the Inland Empire doesn't have anywhere near the housing shortage of the coast anyway, right?
      • yellowapple 4y ago
        That, and what housing shortage it does have is largely a downstream effect of the housing shortage of the coast.
• danans 4y ago
  For all of California's huge dysfunctions (which are frequently the side-effects of its huge successes), this is a good example of what the state gets right. To people who are freaked out that this is going to turn into the opening scenes from Pixar's "Up", more often than not, in suburban areas, this will just result in a few dwellings per lot, imagine 2-3 town homes on what is now a .25 acre single family lot.
  • kevinburke 4y ago
    The 20% affordable component of Builder's Remedy means you need to propose at least 5 homes so one of them can be affordable. That said, a "missing middle" program is a really helpful thing to help cities get their Housing Element into compliance so if you think there is a place where this density would be helpful, send a comment to your city council and cc HousingElements@hcd.ca.gov.
    • HDThoreaun 4y ago
      It can also be 100% affordable to moderate income although that's almost assuredly less lucrative.
      • danans 4y ago
        Perhaps it's less lucrative, but it would still allow for increasing the housing stock without putting a 50 unit building in the midst of an existing SFH neighborhood. Developers will also need to weigh the desirability of what they build into the equation. There's quite possibly a sweet spot of desirability and affordability at 3 dwellings per lot. As an example, I live on a multi-dwelling lot (effectively town-homes without shared walls) in a predominately SFH neighborhood. It's very high density by California standards, but it's quite desirable and not apartment-block style living.
        • crooked-v 4y ago
          Unfortunately, many California cities are so incredibly far behind what's actually needed for equitable housing costs that the only practical way for them to catch up is a lot of 50-unit buildings built yesterday.
• jedberg 4y ago
  There is a developer in Cupertino who has been fighting with the city for years, who got awfully quiet lately. Now I know why. I suspect they have a plan for an absolutely massive high rise behind my house that they will be submitting at 8am tomorrow morning. My neighbors are going to be pissed.
  • nemo44x 4y ago
    Yes, people here celebrating this don't understand at all that all this does is give developers more power over communities they have no interest in but money. And of course, the politicians that they will fund/bribe to make this happen. We just went from democracy to oligarchy in this case.
    • HDThoreaun 4y ago
      No, what this does is give developers the power to bring affordable housing to california. Them making money is just the incentive to do it. Silicon valley was already an oligarchy since housing affordability ensures only the wealthy can afford to vote in local elections.
    • matchbok 4y ago
      They are building housing for people and are risking millions. How dare they make some money! How rude of them. Hint: Developers don't have power over communities, rich homeowners do.
    • mullingitover 4y ago
      So much of the problems with housing in the state stem from the fact that lots of community members are valuing their investment in their own house over everything else. Housing can either be affordable or it can be a good investment, it really can't be both. At this point the market has been so perverted by entrenched interests blocking new development that I would be okay with a dictatorship of developers for a solid decade. It might be enough to dig us out of the hole we're in.
      • 4y ago
• silksowed 4y ago
  ocean sky scrapers on the west side of the bay area? hard to even picture this
  • epistasis 4y ago
    The coastal zone is also subject to Coastal Commission oversight, which I believe could override the Builder's Remedy, though the legal specifics would probably have to be settled in court, IIRC. Chris Elmendorf has written on this, if you want details. But the prospect of a long lawsuit or a long decision will be enough to kill nearly all Builders Remedy projects in the coastal zone, as it would jack up the risk of success far too high to pay for the profits, most likely.
    • silksowed 4y ago
      ahh makes sense. not sure how far in the coastal commission would have control, but even a 10 story building far enough in would drastically change the landscape of say the sunset district in San Francisco
  • deepakhj 4y ago
    Dense housing on the coast would be more democratic than expensive single family homes.
• tdiggity 4y ago
  Sounds too good to be true. I’m skeptical that cities won’t just add more rules and reviews that end up extending the process 2x or more (plus more review fees!)
  • hardtke 4y ago
    Exactly -- have any of the houses in Santa Monica actually been built?
    • kevinburke 4y ago
      It takes about a year to get permits in most cities in the best of cases, and we're in uncharted waters here, legally, so I would not expect anything to break ground for years.
• varelse 4y ago
  [dead]
• Udo 4y ago
  So in theory californians could now build walkable/cyclable european-style cities?
  • epistasis 4y ago
    If they could gather enough capital to buy enough land and build enough in a neighborhood to allow this, they get part way there. Commercial buildings, such as small corner stores, daycare, etc. would still be banned in purely residential neighborhoods. US planning is really abysmal and detrimental to quality of life, and it's nearly impossible to get people to even realize it because of car brain. I'm hopeful that we can adopt eco-districts in some area and start to turn this around, but it will be a 50-100 year project to correct US planning.
• kris_wayton 4y ago
  The headline makes it sound broader than it is. Rather than "CA Cities", it's actually "will eliminate the zoning ordinances of the vast majority of cities throughout the Bay Area". Still pretty broad, of course.
  • jeffbee 4y ago
    Yes, a common misconception. The RHNA process is conducted on a rolling calendar. SANDAG had to close their housing elements in April 2021. SCAG cities had a deadline in October 2021. ABAG cities are due today. AMBAG is not due until December 2023. Edit: RHNA: regional housing needs allocation SANDAG: San Diego Association of Governments SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments AMBAG: Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
    • sparky_ 4y ago
      Can you expand these acronyms for those of us not familiar with the ins and outs of California real estate?
  • dang 4y ago
    Can anyone suggest an accurate, neutral title, preferably using representative language from the article, which fits within HN's 80 char limit? If so, I'll be happy to change it above. (We usually do this ourselves, but I find the details here a bit disorienting and don't have time to concentrate on it)
    • rsaz 4y ago
      I think just changing "California" to "Bay Area" would be reasonable for now. If the article is correct, zoning is being completely eradicated, but I'm not sure why the poster decided to say it was for all of California.
      • CydeWeys 4y ago
        Because it's a statewide law. It is all of California, soon enough.
• famahar 4y ago
  Will this allow people to turn their homes into a business. I can see this radically transforming communities and making cities more lively and walkable.
  • steveklabnik 4y ago
    No. This purely allows construction of residential properties.
• RangerScience 4y ago
  Fun fact: Scott Wiener, one of the authors/drivers of this law, is brother of Zach Wienersmith of SMBC.
• tsuru 4y ago
  I don't live in the area but I like the idea that the codes are updated to match the population. I hope there are some provisions for "access to sunlight" as the buildings grow -- something like Japan's Nisshoken policies... or I'd like to hear how that isn't a good idea for city planning.
  • robertlagrant 4y ago
    I think New York has sky elevation plane rules for this reason.
  • kevinburke 4y ago
    The provision for "access to sunlight" is a code requirement that every bedroom needs to have a window. If you are concerned about access on your property, you can purchase a height easement from your neighbors.
• Camillo 4y ago
  IMHO the insistence on below-market-rate quotas is counterproductive in terms of the actual housing market (though it's probably necessary in terms of political feasibility). The BMR housing is _already built_: there is plenty of old, un-renovated housing in cities like San Francisco that ought to rent for far less than it does, were it not for the fact that quality housing is in such short supply that high-level demand spills over. Concrete example: does your SF apartment have poor insulation? Single-pane windows? Creaking floors which are not level? In continental Europe, _that_ would be your low/medium income housing. Instead it's full of tech people because they have nowhere else to go.
  • fragmede 4y ago
    And ridiculously bad sound isolation. So many neighbor problems go away if you can't hear your neighbor coughing in their bedroom from your bedroom in the dead of night. And no in-unit washer dryer. And no dish washing machine. And no living room because it's been converted into a bedroom to be able to make rent. And slow Internet that's from a provider with notoriously bad customer service.
• gfodor 4y ago
  Weiner is DSA so this isn't too surprising given the long winding march they've been taking (and succeeding) to destroy everything here. Most likely the net effect will be more people leaving behind California as it plunges into the abyss. The comments here embracing what is actually a play for anarchy when it comes to building is a good sign of what's to come for the state as a whole. I don't think there's really any path to correcting it at this point, since it's basically just smarter to leave. edit: I'll happily take any downvoters on a 10 year long bet that California will continue to see a net outflow of the wealthy and continual growth in crime absent a flip back, however temporarily, to Republican rule at the state level. Easy bet.
• ericmay 4y ago
  I loathe the suburbs and car-only infrastructure. It's backwards, bone-headed, and downright treacherously stupid. In addition to zoning reform we should nationally remove mandatory parking minimums. Hell, if anything we should de-zone strip malls and any new development that practically requires a car to get to (implementation details fuzzy). But I do have sympathy for people who move to a location or community for the aspects of that location or community and want to preserve that. It's immature to not consider that. We're also essentially just setting goal posts for what development is ok or not ok and I do think this will give further rise to private developments and incorporations that can't legally be challenged here - i.e. more gated communities. There is real harm done, and it is anti-democratic in some ways to take state or national laws and have those supercede (micromanage in this case) local building rules or regulations. For example, where I live you have to go through local neighborhood zoning review to do things like change your door or even tear down or modify your home. We live in a historic neighborhood. Previously the government in the 60s or so wanted to tear it down and build a highway through it. In this case, the local community stopped the government from imposing a monumentally stupid new construction which would have "increased GDP" and whatever other simplistic bullshit economic metrics people use. Certainly with that being said this doesn't also blanket excuse local entities from being "anti-development", but we probably shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a community neighborhood is walkable and charming with cute little shops and maybe mountains nearby or a university, guess what? It's just expensive. Develop somewhere else. Otherwise when a big corporation or the governments wants to come through and "increase land value" you will just have to do what they say with no recourse.
  • LargeWu 4y ago
    Cities can in fact maintain zoning powers if they can prove that their zoning regulations are equitable. Protection of a historic neighborhood could theoretically be allowed, but must be balanced with other interests.
    • ericmay 4y ago
      Yea but that's just "who knows" which is no more right or wrong than local residents deciding that something should or should not be. Easy example: we are going to put a highway through this historically black neighborhood because the interests of the residents must be balanced with the economic interests of the state and the jobs created by new highway construction. And now we have lost those neighborhoods and we're dependent on cars.
• vondur 4y ago
  Has this been challenged in court? I can see many areas in the state would not be happy with this. And those people tend to be wealthy.
  • kevinburke 4y ago
    There's no case law around it but there will be soon.
• squokko 4y ago
  I don't really see what's wrong with the residents of a town saying "town's full, go away." The properties in CA are expensive because it's a highly desirable place to live. There are other states with open arms welcoming new growth. I don't have a problem with either.
  • rcpt 4y ago
    If 100% of owners don't want to sell or build then nothing changes with this law. But trying to control what your neighbors do? Sorry but property rights end at the property line.
  • kevinburke 4y ago
    This attitude has led to pretty much everyone I grew up with not being able to afford to live anywhere near where they grew up (or their parents), as well as rising homelessness, declining school population, and an inability to hire teachers, bus drivers or city staff. Also a strong case it is choking innovation in one of the most creative areas in human history. If you don't build then as people get richer they buy second homes, put homes on Zillow, merge lots into one and your population gradually thins out.
• BLO716 4y ago
  Honestly, sounds like a "drain the swamp" type event, to put it bluntly.
  • TulliusCicero 4y ago
    That slogan has been poisoned in the public consciousness, but the idea of it isn't a bad one. You do get problems like this in government occasionally where it's not exactly corruption, but things have degraded so much it looks corruption-esque.
• ChuckMcM 4y ago
  FWIW this has been a pretty epic journey and is a great way to illustrate how government can work, even when people with money are united against it doing so. Still, the accusation that California should "do what they purport to believe in" still has quite the bite. As the 5th largest economy in the world it should be possible for California to demonstrate a reformed health care policy that is more in line with other developed countries but has not been able to. Just my $0.02.
• dakial1 4y ago
  Won't this generate a free fall in house prices in the bay area? Good opportunity for a "big short" move?
  • flaque 4y ago
    Possibly the opposite. If you own a home on a lot that previously you could only build one or two units on, but now you can build N+ units, that lot is worth a lot more. You should expect rent to fall though, multiple studies (https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/224569/1/vfs-2020-pid-39662.pdf https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/224569/1/vfs-2020-pi... | https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf1434814a6f8f.pdf https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf14...) have shown that increasing rental units lowers rents. The math of this: a lot with 1 unit, worth $1m today, becomes a lot worth $3m and 10 units on it. So the cost per unit is $300k; unit price goes down, but value for the original land owner goes up.
    • dyno12345 4y ago
      yea but once anything starts getting actually built prices have to fall, that's sort of the point, and it's not like demand is so high that every house in the Bay Area would need to be replaced by an apartment building.
      • EricDeb 4y ago
        I mean look at new york the houses are still expensive despite the high rises
• jread 4y ago
  As someone who spent 5 years attempting to get through zoning including a purely subjective “design review committee” in one of these affluent cities, I applaud this. While I agree with the desire to preserve the character and uniqueness one’s town, that pendulum has swung so far over driven by older, established nimbies who got theirs decades ago, or their offspring who inherited both homes and excessively low prop 13 tax rates locked in decades ago. The wealth disparity this whole system has created is staggering.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• rcme 4y ago
  This has the real possibility to destroy wealth and land value. I understand the desire for more housing, but you absolutely need people in the community to be making these decisions. State-level officials don't have the ability to make informed decisions on important local issues like this. Unfortunately, I have first-hand experience with this. The state decided to build a (very) small bridge over a creek in my neighborhood. The purpose of the bridge was to make it easier to get to the highway. None of the residents wanted this bridge, but it was built any way. After the bridge was built, Google Maps started routing people off the highway during rush hour, creating gridlock and heavy traffic. As a result, you can't leave your house between 7-10 and 4-6. Walking on the streets is dangerous as drivers stuck in gridlock become increasingly aggressive towards pedestrians. And don't even think about trying to drive somewhere. It takes 30-45 minutes just to drive a few blocks. The irony is that this "shortcut" doesn't save any time. Google Maps routes people from the highway into town up until traffic is so bad in town that it... takes just as much time as the highway. So the beauty of this small town was destroyed for literally no reason. Property values have begun to decline as it is no longer a desirable place to live. Of course, prior to building the bridge, the state ran "traffic studies" that indicated there would be no impact to traffic in town. They had no incentive to really study the problem, however, as there are no consequences for them if they do a bad job.
  • CalRobert 4y ago
    Bummer, but people aren't cars and builder's remedy shouldn't apply to bridges on public roads? You just named a good reason to ban cars nearby though.
    • rcme 4y ago
      The point is that the state made a decision for the state’s benefit without considering the impact on the town itself. And this is natural: those in the state government have little incentive to care about the impact on the town. Also, ironically, the town has excellent train and bus coverage. Most don’t own cars. And if they do, they use them seldomly. We all moved here because we don’t like cars and wanted a place with good mass transit. Now all those benefits are gone. When people want housing change, I think they really want to transfer some of the wealth from landowners to other people. But in my case, no wealth was transferred. It was literally destroyed. Everyone is worse off.
• notyourwork 4y ago
  Am I reading this right? > Alternatively, 100% affordable to moderate income residents where rents don’t exceed 120% area median income. If the median income is $50k, using arbitrary number for example. 120% is $60k, so rent can be $5000/monthly. Is that right?
  • raldi 4y ago
    That's a poorly-written sentence. The law requires a certain percentage of units to be set aside for households making below 120% of the AMI, with rents restricted to be affordable to such families.
    • notyourwork 4y ago
      Got it - so it's sort of the same thing as the prior sentence. I'm semi familiar with the setup having lived in Mission Bay for a few years. Thanks for clarifying!
  • SethTro 4y ago
    No, they choose a percentage of income for housing, I think 30% or 35%, and calculate from that so 50K * 1.2 * 0.3 = 18K/year = $1500/month
• chung8123 4y ago
  This isn't removing zoning. It is changing zoning to someone else's view. There are still low income requirements for building. The state still has zoning powers.
• beambot 4y ago
  Is there a list of all SFBA cities and their status...?
  • flaque 4y ago
    Here ya go: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WG6X2sttiYltyGbWWfG4KCSOb7rkROyMhktNZEKxwU8/edit https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WG6X2sttiYltyGbWWfG4...
• crooked-v 4y ago
  Sadly this won't apply to San Francisco, which has made a very unlikely-sounding pinkie promise to allow 8,200 new housing units a year starting right now.
  • opportune 4y ago
    The SF plan does make some sense though. For example most of Lombard street through the Marina got upzoned. So all those old motor hotels can probably be converted into multistory housing.
• outside1234 4y ago
  LOVE IT! LET'S GO!
• fwungy 4y ago
  The only problem with "to each according to their need, to each according to their ability" is that need is infinite and ability is finite.
• Julesman 4y ago
  I grew up in Santa Monica and live here now. Except for getting around the height restriction, this really is good news. Here's one big reason why. Maybe half the houses and apartments in the city were built to last 30 years. They are literal tear-downs and should be replaced. It's that simple. There are lots of valid points to debate here but crap houses made of rotting sticks just need to go.
• ck2 4y ago
  That photo is just freaking me out. https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/d0404ccd-7832-449f-8f89-6d0179e860e1_2560x1707.jpeg https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/d... Reminds me of this movie quote > I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you… multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.
• myko 4y ago
  Great to see. NIMBYs need to go away IMO. So much space and no reason not to use it.
• Slighted 4y ago
  Hilariously, this thread has reached hundreds of comments in under an hour. Indicative of the kinds of people who use HN perhaps?
• xyzelement 4y ago
  I am not an expert in California but I don't love this concept in general. Here in New York, the Governor is attempting to drive higher housing density in certain places regardless of what the local people think and want. I think this is a sort of obvious effort at a form of gerrymandering - if the assumption is that the residents of higher-density dwellings are more likely to vote Democrat on average vs the current home owners, spreading high density housing around districts (vs concentrating them in the already-super Blue cities) locks democratic control over those districts with more probability/certainty. There are obvious concerns being raised about - traffic, ability of utilities to handle the extra density, school capacity, not to mention wishes of those (like me) who explicitly chose a suburban lifestyle for our family - when viewed through the cynical electoral lens these concerns aren't relevant to the decision which optimizes for power concentration at the expense of everything else. No idea if the same dynamics are at play in Cali.
  • darth_avocado 4y ago
    I generally agree with what you’re saying, but things have swung so hard in California that’s it’s impossible to build here. It’s only natural when everything boils over and it swings hard in the other direction. Eventually there will be equilibrium.
  • kevinburke 4y ago
    If the Governor is wildly successful your town's housing supply will grow by about 2% per year. That is not enough to do a gerrymander and it's not going to change your "suburban lifestyle." It will let more people afford to live close to one of the world's great cities though, instead of moving to a lower opportunity area like Jacksonville.
    • xyzelement 4y ago
      // our town's housing supply will grow by about 2% per year. That is not enough to do a gerrymander and it's not going to change your "suburban lifestyle." I don't get your math. If the town is very closely split as many of NY suburbs are, they may go 49/51 red or blue depending on the year. 2% a year is 8% growth (ignoring compounding..) between two presidential elections. That's enough to lock in the outcome if you can predict that incoming residents are bluer or redder (in this case, bluer) than the existing given how close it is.
• softsound 4y ago
  Looking at other countries like Japan with like barely any zoning laws, this looks great, I hope it leads to more mixed cities again and more walkable/liveable areas like before WW2. It is funny that America land of the free had so many restrictions, building up hundreds of zoning laws across the country did a lot of bad and led to a lot of urban sprawl leading to very poor cities and towns that literally cannot pay for themselves. I think we need some zoning laws though, and I'm sure these laws will come back faster then people expect mostly from bad planning or large bribes whichever. But hopefully some good helpful zoning laws will stick.
  • programmarchy 4y ago
    Another data point on lax zoning laws is Houston, which is awful and completely unwalkable. It’s not cool when someone builds a concrete plant next to your house either.
    • steveklabnik 4y ago
      One thing that's interesting about Japanese zoning is that I wouldn't describe it as "no zoning," (for that matter I wouldn't in Houston either because that's more rhetorical than reality but anyway). They key is that they don't do Euclidian, or exclusive zoning. You can build housing in almost every single one of their (iirc) fifteen different zoning designations. So to US norms, this feels like "no zoning," but it's still restrictive in many ways. Just not in a way that says "only housing here" or "no housing here." (again on that last one, in the vast majority of cases, but not strictly speaking all.)
    • ignormies 4y ago
      Houston has "zoning but we're not calling it zoning" zoning laws https://youtu.be/TaU1UH_3B5k https://youtu.be/TaU1UH_3B5k
  • LynxInLA 4y ago
    I'm not an expert, but I lean towards relaxing zoning laws but not getting rid of them completely. Look to Houston to see what happens when there are no zoning laws at all.
• outworlder 4y ago
  Great. Apparently there's nothing _preventing_ mixed-use buildings. But are there incentives? Having residential buildings on top of commercial ones is the secret for walkability in many European cities. Grocery shops and other small businesses are usually very close to where you live.
  • crooked-v 4y ago
    I think (without evidence) that most developers of mid-size apartment/condo buildings would inherently gravitate towards ground-floor retail when it's not banned by zoning (as it often is), because the comparative rarity of that kind of thing in the US would make it perceived as 'fancier' and thereby more valuable.
• this15testing 4y ago
  nice
• sgt 4y ago
  "San Francisco’s Sunset District will be upzoned for new, high density housing to help add 80,000 new homes via the housing element approved by SF city gov’t and the state." I don't understand that statement along with the photo. That is a high density neighborhood. The houses are very close to each other, many are double story, and I don't see many green areas in between. Did I miss something?
  • NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    If you think two-story houses are high-density, You Too Might Be Part of The Problem™.
    • sgt 4y ago
      Fair enough. But honestly I wouldn't be happy if my area (which has big properties, lots of space between each house) was de-zoned into an anarchy where developers could build 10 story "luxury housing", increasing traffic and noise. I guess the intention is good, but it won't work everywhere.
      • JacesArchivist 4y ago
        > I wouldn't be happy if my area (which has big properties, lots of space between each house) was de-zoned into an anarchy... It would work, you just wouldn't be happy with it happening In Your BackYard.
        • rootusrootus 4y ago
          It is nearly universal that people are a lot more accepting of doing things in other people's back yard than they are their own.
  • rockinghigh 4y ago
    The new zoning would allow buildings up to 85 feet, or ~10 stories. > Areas within a short walk of a rapid bus or light rail line — including stretches of Ocean Avenue, Geary Boulevard and Taraval, Judah and Lombard streets — could see developments 55 to 85 feet high. In other areas close to major bus lines, developers would be allowed to build unlimited density within existing height limits. Virtually everywhere else on the west side, up to four units would be allowed on every lot. https://www.sfexaminer.com/archives/how-will-san-francisco-s-western-skyline-change-to-add-80-000-homes/article_67d6e484-d222-5db3-b201-9a8af453f03b.html https://www.sfexaminer.com/archives/how-will-san-francisco-s...
• noobermin 4y ago
  Tbf, why are yimbys celebrating all over twitter? You do NOT want your enemies to know that they are about to fall, they might just fight back. At least wait until after Feb 1?
• jimnotgym 4y ago
  > The “builder’s remedy” is a very old law from the 1990s I know the old jokes of 'in the UK 100 miles is a long way, in the states 100 years is a long time' et al.... but this is stretching even that understanding of 'very old'. It goes on to mention laws of the 1970's, I guess that is time immemorial. 'Before the war' said a commentator, what is that, Classical Civilisation?
• TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > If they’re still in a rejected state by the deadline, their zoning disappears Does that mean they can build in parks and open space?
• yellowapple 4y ago
  Stop. I can only get so erect. I'd still prefer to tackle the motivations for NIMBYism (namely: by using land value taxation to discourage or outright eliminate the treatment of land as a speculative asset) rather than the symptoms, but tackling the symptoms is infinitely better than doing nothing at all.
  • pvarangot 4y ago
    It's really hard (maybe impossible) to completely stop speculation on land while at the same time being sure you can estimate your living expenses very long term when you buy a house (or rent, if there's rent control). If you think housing is a human right then you have to lock down taxes, otherwise it's like yeah it's a human right until it becomes "too expensive for you" and the government kicks you out of your house because you can't pay taxes. The human right is to establish a home, not to have to be a nomad constantly moving around to the places where you can pay taxes/rent. The problem is the current zoning laws are too individualistic. If let's say 20% of a block is ok to sell and allow high rises, if the building fits and meets neighborhood regulations they should be allowed to build it. In cities where you can do that, that usually convinces 60% more of the block into selling and moving out, since higher density housing zoning raises land prices. If you don't want to because you are in your last years, yeah that sucks. But you know what also sucks? Having to rent from slumlords or have 15 roommates in your prime while trying to contribute to society as a professional because your city decided to be a retirement community funded by commercial lease taxes from greedy tech companies.
    • jackson1442 4y ago
      Maybe there's room to make a safe harbor for your primary residence?
• nikhilsimha 4y ago
  What can one do to effectively support these laws?
• Labienus 4y ago
  It's unlikely to change development significantly. California NIMBYs still have enormous autonomy through CEQA. It enables any individual to contest developments for years, obligating developers enormous sums of money and time to study "environmental impacts". Last winter, the law was expanded through a ruling in Berkeley. If a development adds a sizable number of people, it can be seen as an environmental impact and denied. Development will remain costly, time consuming, and ultimately as unpredictable as the law allows. Wealthy and well connected developers might get by, but it won't be a Japan-like situation. For those wishing reform on an "environmental law" it will be a lot more politically costly. We'll likely get another Houston situation where "no zoning" doesn't imply what it should imply. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-environmental-law-hurts-housing/618264/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-... https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/01/how-environmental-law-is-misused-to-stop-housing/ https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/01/how-environmental-...
  • theGnuMe 4y ago
    I encourage you to read https://www.yimbylaw.org/law-journal/does-it-matter-that-ceqa-refers-to-applicable-planning-and-zoning https://www.yimbylaw.org/law-journal/does-it-matter-that-ceq... 20% affordable housing projects are exempt.
  • raldi 4y ago
    Perhaps not coincidentally, Berkeley's housing element was just rejected today (the deadline by which they needed it certified in order to avoid the Builder's Remedy). The provisions in this piece will kick in there tomorrow. As for CEQA, here's what a local law firm has to say: "In particular, the intersection between Builder's Remedy and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) remains untested. Jurisdictions may try to use CEQA to regain discretionary authority over Builder's Remedy projects. Whether that tactic will prove effective remains to be seen, given that CEQA may not be used to do that which other statutes prohibit. Pub. Res. Code, § 21004; CEQA Guidelines § 15040(e)." https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/builders-remedy-bay-area-will-soon-face-a-powerful-housing-tool https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/build...
• theGnuMe 4y ago
  Can’t wait.
• EarlKing 4y ago
  California is still in the middle of a drought, and politicians want to railroad the production of additional housing supply for more people when the state can barely afford to provide for the water needs of the population it has? Yeah, sounds like California.
  • captainzidgel 4y ago
    yeah let the homeless die off some more so i can keep watering my lawn
    • EarlKing 4y ago
      This has nothing to do with creating housing for the homeless. Homeless shelters already exist. This is about creating affordable housing for people moving into an area that can't support the population it already has. Until all the appropriations that were made for creating additional reservoirs start actually seeing results there shouldn't be ANY new construction.
• malcolmgreaves 4y ago
  Thank goodness!
• el_don_almighty 4y ago
  FIRE!... Water!... Sewage... Who covers the new costs for high-rise firetrucks, crews, and training? What about high-pressure water supply for upper floors and high-capacity sewage management for the suddenly increased, ahem... effluence of these new living spaces? What about suddenly dumping another 2,000 cars into a neighborhood without parking and traffic management for everyone leaving and returning at the same time? (magical thinking about mass transit?) Surface and sub-surface infrastructure costs remain the hidden barrier to expansion and they can't be wished away. Real zoning is about managing capital investments and leveraging infrastructure for dual use where possible. Yes, it can be used for evil, but at the root, zoning is actually about central social management of scarce infrastructure resources. So, I guess, hooray? You've unleashed a bunch of capitalist land barons who can now ignore local citizen oversight of their countryside and capital infrastructure spending? You may not be happy with today, but the impact of this change is not well considered and I suspect the 7-year wailing will come from every optimistic constituent whose childlike expectations were obviously never possible through simple inspection of the proposal
  • wyago 4y ago
    What makes you assume that urban infrastructure is net costlier per capita than suburban?
  • CydeWeys 4y ago
    All of the issues you just mentioned are much more expensive on a per capita basis to deal with in spread-out car-centric suburbs than in dense cities. Indeed if these are the issues that you actually care about them you should be championing as many people living in dense cities in possible. Such people use much less water, can much more efficiently be served by emergency services, generate way less car traffic, etc., etc. This law being enforced is a win-win as far as you're concerned.
• flerchin 4y ago
  Build baby, build.
• dcow 4y ago
  Before you get too excited: > HCD reviewed SF’s housing element and said it “largely compiled” with the state’s rules, even though it was heavy on promises. As such, SF will not be subjected to the builder remedy on Wednesday. Shockingly, only a few other Bay Area jurisdictions can claim to keep their zoning as of writing this: Emeryville, Redwood City, and Alameda city. SF zoned a bunch of the Richmond and Sunset (which aren't really "IMBY") for high density, sounds like. So no, this isn't going to radically change anything for SF.
• AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  Prepare for the 5+1 invasion! This will be an interesting experiment. Nothing makes progressive people conservatives more quickly than threatening their housing values.
• wakannai 4y ago
  Because California with its infinite water supply can definitely support an infinite increase in population, right? Higher density areas don't solve a single problem. They make areas less desirable. They displace wildlife (less green areas, because WE NEED MORE HOUSING). Pandemics love density. Higher density means more people, more local spending power, more local businesses, more demand for workers that translates into more demand for people and thus again yet again and so on and so forth. There's no end to this cycle. The answer is less population, not more.
  • kylehotchkiss 4y ago
    If the new construction is near the coast, more desalination plants is a solution. Most California water usage is agricultural anyways. Regarding wildfires, what we really need are more goats. Armies and armies of goats. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/goats-may-help-prevent-wildfires-in-california https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/goats-may...
• nilsbunger 4y ago
  We're hosting a Zoning Holiday party tomorrow in SF at SPUR center to celebrate! 25+ architects for all kinds of firms submitted 5-unit designs to us, and we'll showcase them at the event! It'll be a fun opportunity to meet likeminded property owners, architects, YIMBY advocates and developers. The event is open to all, just buy a $10 ticket. There will even be kebabs. Check out https://zoningholiday.com https://zoningholiday.com
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• xp84 4y ago
  This is GREAT news. American zoning laws, that have led to vast swaths of single-family-home-only zones, are an absolute disaster. There are plenty of car-dependent SFH-only suburban neighborhoods in existence where fans of SFHs will always be able to find them, and they're not going anywhere. I live in a SFH myself. But in congested cities, *no more of that crap needs to be built!* It's as inappropriate of a land use in a place like SF or Oakland as a 20-acre cornfield. A real city is better when you can walk to things near where you live, like offices, doctors, restaurants, etc. You get that so easily with housing on top, businesses below. And businesses interspersed with the housing. It just works.
• gradascent 4y ago
  I think this line from the article serves as a good summary: > We’ve never seen anything like this in California housing history where a residential building of any height, with any amount of parking, can be placed in the wealthiest communities in the world provided its just 20% affordable and is safe.
• Tiktaalik 4y ago
  > Old law proposes to turn the Bay Area's zoning system into something like Japan's in just two days. Would be exciting to see this flip switched because it would help resolve some debates at the very least. Clearly the housing market in Japan is dramatically different than that of North America and it would be very interesting to see if it is indeed the zoning that is the dominant reason for this difference. Many have pointed to the zoning as being the core thing that induces more affordable housing in Japan, and hand in hand with that is the notion that if we adopted a more Japanese style zoning that we'd see some of our housing problems solved, but there are many other differences between the housing economy of Japan and NA than just zoning. If we more closely mirror Japanese style zoning and we don't see the same results, it means there's more to it than just the zoning.
• omgomgomgomg 4y ago
  Can someone say if this is good or bad and for whom? Curious European wants to understand.
• refuse 4y ago
  I doubt many will see this comment now but... In my local community (rural area) the county changed zoning laws on people's residential properties. It's a damned nightmare. You can't rebuild a home or get approval for anything. According to the wording of the law, the county can sell the trees on your property (and you have to allow any heavy equipment on premise to allow this to happen) and they can supercede any water rights you have (water is not scarce here like in the SW). To be clear those last two points haven't been used...yet. The funny thing is that this happened along class lines in a 'progressive' county. Richer people have MUCH more forgiving zoning and many live right down the street from poor people who essentially don't own the land they live on anymore. The equity they used to have was wiped out almost entirely because nobody wants to buy their property due to zoning (!). Think they can get a loan now? What do you think happened to property values for the rich people? I'm honestly surprised somebody at the end of their rope hasn't gotten violent about this, it's outrageous.
  • rootusrootus 4y ago
    Given you are a brand new account with exactly one post, perhaps you'd feel comfortable sharing the location.
    • refuse 4y ago
      It's in Oregon, I'd rather not say where exactly because I live in a very, very small community and I'm not sure if it's a widespread problem in the county or a localized issue in my neck of the woods. A lot of this goes back to the 70's IIRC where Gov. Tom McCall passed a law to limit land use, which was great. Nobody wanted the sprawl you see on the East Coast or in parts of California, it's why Oregon still has a lot of nice areas with small farms and communities instead of shopping centers. Also of concern was, say, timber companies doing a harvest and then selling the land for a housing development or something -- this would also be terrible. Unfortunately, some more activist counties used this to deprive people of property rights which they bought into, I know there was a huge legal dispute over an issue along these lines just outside Portland in the 90's. We also had a ballot measure that was on tge books for about a year or two which would compensate land owners for lost value due to zoning changes, but that was thrown out pretty quickly. I'm not exactly sure how we got such clear class divides in zoning and if it was intentional or not, but the effect is black and white. Also of interest is how different counties handled permitting post-wildfires in 2020. There are many wildfire victims from my area who have been unable to rebuild because of permitting issues and what appears to be intentional obstruction by the county. A side note, I don't know any displaced wildfire victims that received the hundreds of millions in federal aid sent our way. FEMA didn't approve any loans even though hundreds of structures were lost in a poor rural area -- but they were happy to provide water and WiFi, which is...something.
• madamelic 4y ago
  Good for them. CA doing something good for once and walking-the-walk.
• BurningFrog 4y ago
  If this is allowed to pan out, it's the best thing to happen to California in decades. But I'll only believe it when I see it. I assume it's stopped in some way before any substantial amount of housing is built. I hope I'm wrong, but I just can't believe California will allow it.
• alexb_ 4y ago
  If you ever go to a local planning meeting, when the topic of building new houses comes up, the reaction of those living near is always blatant and horrific. Lots of talk about "low-quality" tenants "ruining the character". It doesn't take a genius to know what these people mean.
• MagicMoonlight 4y ago
  That is a fucking incredible law. They allow zero houses to be built for decades and then some meme law activates and suddenly 5000 houses are being built next week. Everywhere needs this.
• Gene5ive 4y ago
  Finally
• 1MachineElf 4y ago
  >Developers will be allowed to propose housing at any height and any density anywhere in a city, so long as at least 20% of the homes in the proposed building are deed-restricted to low income residents who make at or less than 80% the area median income. With neither of these percentages being 50, it sounds to me like this policy ensures gentrification.
• alexgolive 4y ago
  It's suspicious that I can't find any news articles talking about this. Seems like a super interesting, controversial, and timely topic to cover. Makes me wonder if this blog is misleading or inflating the facts.
• richwater 4y ago
  The gaslighting to convince people that living in sardine cans in 25 story buildings is healthy is palpable.
• parasense 4y ago
  Ah good ol' California! The home of ironies like "Let's build affordable housing" and simultaneously "not in my back yard". You can replace "affordable housing" with other things, like improved electrical grid power lines, or water storage reservoirs, and so on... and so forth...
• hnburnsy 4y ago
  > deed-restricted for low income households How does this work for resales? Do them limit what the owner can sell for or to who the owner can sell to?
  • jimmydddd 4y ago
    In NJ, an interesting point is that the owner can only get back roughly the original price of the house when they sell. So it's sort of a double-edged sword as sure, they get to buy and live in a home, but they can't reap the benefits of increased real estate values, which would otherwise be a great benefit for a low income family.
    • hnburnsy 4y ago
      Never heard of that are the restrictions permanent?
• fmajid 4y ago
  San Francisco's housing element is a sham, but their NIMBY-pandering supervisors have successfully kicked the can down 4 years. By then, the city will have gone sufficiently down Detroit's path of urban decay that there won't be any developers left willing to build there.
• sshconnection 4y ago
  It's worth noting the overlap of the people mocking San Francisco for having a homelessness crisis and those decrying upzoning for density and providing affordable housing.
  • rootusrootus 4y ago
    Has there been some kind of study showing overlap, or is this just an impression that you have?
• arnonejoe 4y ago
  Low income housing in Marin County, Orinda, Lafayette, Danville, Menlo Park, Atherton? Will never happen.
• cobaltoxide 4y ago
  I love it.
• jimmydddd 4y ago
  We've had these laws in NJ (USA) for many years now. The results are mixed. What basically happened is that if a several acre lot became available in a suburban town, the builder would petition to change the single familty home zoing to allow them to build a 100 unit condo buliding. My relatively small town had a population of about 7k people for many years, but then quickly shot up to 10k in just a few years due to many 100 unit buildings being built. NJ is unusual in that we have many small towns. The large builders learned how to take advantage of these laws and built legal teams that can easily defeat the lawyers representing the small towns. And the small towns don't want to risk millions of taxpayer dollars on a litigation with a small chance of winning. And the town always loses in the court of public opinion. The towns try to argue against forced over development, but the large builders change the narative to the town being racist/classist/greedy, etc. If you go to the K Hovnanian site and look at the map of their developments, NJ is full of red dots.
  • gowld 4y ago
    What's wrong with building housing for people who want a place to live?
    • jimmydddd 4y ago
      I agree it's great to build housing. But picture this scenario. You buy a 3 bedroom house on a quiet cul de sac with five other similar houses next to it. At the end of the cul de sac next to your house is a few acres of woods. A builder then builds a 100 town house 5-story building right behind your house. An entrance to the building is put in right next to your house and you now have 200 cars from the 100 units entering and exiting right past your house. The new residents can stare down from the fifth floor of their units into your once private back yard. And of the 100 units, only 10 or 15 are designated low-income.
• neycoda 4y ago
  How about some zoning laws to build adequate soundproofing? With efficiency being in homes being stacked, more stress and disruption and crime come from low quality and control in walls/floors especially in regard to soundproofing.
• slibhb 4y ago
  > That all changed with laws mainly passed by state senators Nancy Skinner (D - Berkeley) and Scott Wiener (D - San Francisco) in the 2010s to update the RHNA requirements. Cities now had to zone for a variety of equitable impacts, most importantly putting housing in affluent neighborhoods, away from toxic industry and in ways that were feasible for development. So for example, SoCal cities loved to zone for apartments on top of active, popular shopping centers that would never be torn down. This was no longer permitted. > And Wiener’s law SB 828 reformed RHNA so that the numbers had to more accurately gauge for population demand, lack of vacant housing and household formation which increased housing requirements tremendously. Places like Beverly Hills went from being required to build 3 homes over 8 years in the previous RHNA cycle to 3,000 homes now post-SB 828. As someone who is generally anti-woke, stuff like this is sobering. Laws drafted by woke politicians aimed at achieving woke buzzwords ("equitable impacts") led to something really excellent. A great argument for "the cunning of reason".
• olivermarks 4y ago
  'Here’s a brief rundown of cities’ housing element status by yimby activists who have been pressuring suburbs and cities throughout the Bay Area to abide by fair housing and re-zone their wealthy enclaves.' Should really be 'Yes In Your Back Yard' activists, not 'yes in my back yard'. Few of these 'activists' want to be sardined in with new, noisy neighbors in reality. How are the utilities infrastructures going to cope with all these extra water and effluent issues? California is pretty old and rickety underground, especially the SF sunset district. You can probably add smelly to noisy in these 15 minute car less city areas.
• StuffMaster 4y ago
  >The “builder’s remedy” is a very old law from the 1990s Yeah that ain't "very old"