6 ms·
Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79
- ggm 1y agoIt could take up to 5 years to come into full effect, from my skim of the article. So, as revolutions in housing go, this is slow-burn. Needed, won't fix housing next month or even next year. Sometimes I wonder if a state went out and bought the input supply stocks (wood, particleboard, roofing materials) and sold them below cost at the longer base-line price, but exclusively to builders constructing homes, if they could prevent a grey market re-sale to the less housing oriented market. The problem with trying to drag supply prices back down is making secondary markets between your rate, and the market rate. I am not believing there is an actual shortage worldwide of either construction grade lumber, or other inputs: Its shipping related, its logjams backing up because .. well .. the wheels fell off at the start of 2020 and we haven't got momentum back up. Oh right. Ships. So maybe the state has to buy ships.. which demands steel.. which is hard to get right now...
- hamdingers 1y agoThe California housing crisis is a result of restrictive local policy preventing housing starts, not a shortage of materials.
- hopelite 1y agoThese are not hard things to understand or solve, it's just that the majority of people don't want to understand them or face reality and the politicians will always serve up these kinds of con artist lies to placate people. You cannot add ~60 million foreign national people to the US population in the last 25 years without severely impacting the housing situation when the USA has only built 1.1 million housing units on average over that period; most of those being locked into high prices due to the massive inflation over that time. What makes it even worse is this obsession with both concentrating populations and jobs in urban centers, while at the same time being concerned with climate change and environmental protection. They are mutually exclusive things. This is an iron triangle issue, you can only have two of three things: affordable housing, immigration, climate/environment protection.
- outside2344 1y agoI don't understand why this is a iron triangle situation. Higher density housing -- and a lot of it -- solves for all three, right? If not, why not?
- xmprt 1y agoIt's because the triangle is missing the secret forth vertex: single family housing with a big private backyard and a lawn in the suburbs that's only accessible by car.
- gfehhffvvv 1y agoI don’t understand, why is urban concentration anathema to environmental protection? It seems instead to be in service of it?
- pixl97 1y ago> They are mutually exclusive things. Source: You made it up. Being closer to where the things are so you can walk significantly drops the amount of fuel needed for transportation and opens up public transportation as a workable option. > USA has only built 1.1 million housing units on average over that period; That's a government issue, not a practical one. How many housing units did China build in that same amount of time?
- hopelite 1y agoPlease go back to reddit with your nonsense
- cd4plus 1y agoWhat an incredibly weird take. Higher density cities are better in virtually any environmental metric per capita. This is widely supported
- mothballed 1y agoEven as measured by pollutants per breath inhaled?
- zdragnar 1y agoAren't there a lot of people in the Palisades still waiting for permits to rebuild from the fires almost a year ago? It's utterly absurd looking from the outside that officials are claiming the permits are being "fast tracked" even now.
- pixl97 1y agoI mean, it was 16,000-18,000 homes that were destroyed? That's a hell of a lot when you consider that all the other new builds are still in the queue to be permitted too.
- smelendez 1y agoSure! But you could treat it as an emergency and staff up. It could even be through a mutual aid system the way utilities team up to do repairs after disasters, borrowing permitting experts from other jurisdictions.
- pixl97 1y ago>borrowing permitting experts from other jurisdictions. I don't think those people exist... State/City budgets have already been cut lean on this stuff and most places that aren't in the middle of a disaster are many months behind as it is.
- zdragnar 1y agoThe cost of permits alone would easily pay for the extra staff and overtime. Most places in California charge what, $1-3k per house?
- greesil 1y agoI bought some furniture from a guy in Ben Lomond and he told me that after the CZU fires, permitting was the bottleneck for most folks, to the point that even four years after the fires some people still were waiting. It's insane. IMO the bottleneck here is likely staffing. If someone wanted to streamline this they'd actually allocate some emergency funds statewide for this.
- thordenmark 1y agoonerous and overly burdensome regulations make it nye impossible to build in this state. The environmentalists have a throttle on California. That is coupled with the wealthy not wanting their home values to go down with new low cost housing built anywhere near them. These add up to skyrocketing home prices in CA.
- SilverElfin 1y ago> That is coupled with the wealthy not wanting their home values to go down I keep hearing this criticism but I think it’s less about home values and more about how many people - wealthy and not wealthy - simply value their quality of life and don’t want that to be damaged by forced rezoning.
- smegma2 1y agoA large majority of SF residents support upzoning: https://growsf.org/pulse/growsf-pulse-october-2024/#allowing-more-homes-citywide https://growsf.org/pulse/growsf-pulse-october-2024/#allowing...
- standardUser 1y agoMultifamily housing developments take years to plan and build anyway, especially in California and especially in these urban areas.
- ggm 1y agoNo single thing will fix housing, and lots of things will interact to make any fix complicated and slow. The fast single things like forms of eminent domain and retrospective law changes turn out to incur massive legal cost to enact. Short of seizing property and approvals for already lodged designs which were turned down for local opposition, it's all about time now. Time to start doing things under a new legal planning system.
- ecshafer 1y agoSB79 is a great step forward for California. Hopefully other states implement similar (and more aggressive) bills in their states. My dream world would see an elimination of local zoning as we do in the US, and a move to a zoning system more like the Japanese use. I would also love to see states adopt a Land-Value Tax to help incentivize development. Similar to SB79 I have always hoped for a bill that enforced something like within 1 mile of a school, all roads need to have cross walks, lights, and side walks to help kick start walkability in the US.
- cyberax 1y ago[flagged]
- brokencode 1y agoIf you want rural, then don’t move to a metro area with millions of people.
- cyberax 1y agoAh. But that is the trick! You have to move into dense helks, because it is the only place with decent jobs.
- brokencode 1y agoSo basically you want to reap all the benefits from living in a big city without any of the downsides. California has been trying this for decades and it really isn’t working out, except maybe for people with very high salaries. Increasing density is the only realistic way to address housing affordability.
- cyberax 1y ago> So basically you want to reap all the benefits from living in a big city without any of the downsides. Yes? Why is that bad? And I want everyone to be able to do the same, and not get crammed into microapartments. > Increasing density is the only realistic way to address housing affordability. No single large Western European or American city lowered housing costs by increasing density within the last 30 years. Your _only_ option to reduce housing costs is to reduce the population. It's as simple as that.
- outside2344 1y agoHonestly hope Senator Scott Wiener runs for governor
- epistasis 1y agoHe's such a huge technocrat, it would be a big departure from most governors. A huge policy nerd with tons of good ideas and a powerful staff devoted to trying out new things is almost better than we deserve in California. (I will say that Wiener has had some missteps, on AI and restaurant fees, but they are pretty small compared to the good policy that he's gotten through.)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- doctorpangloss 1y agoAh yes, the technocrat who missteps on the most obvious political and policy wins…
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ddxv 1y agoI think Prop79 will be good long term but it will take decades for the changes to be felt. I hope that something with a bit more immediate shows up this year as well. Relooking at prop 13 seems to be one option.
- jamestimmins 1y agoI agree with the sentiment, but sadly even in its watered down form, SB79 was the result of a brutal legislative battle over the course of years, and even then it barely passed. Getting Prop 13 overturned is about as likely as California seceding from the US. Actually, it might even be less likely than that.
- harmmonica 1y agoI think getting Prop 13 repealed along the lines of Prop 15 (basically for investment property) may actually happen. I think the pro group is much more organized today than they were in 2020 and so it will stand a much better chance of succeeding. That said, I fully agree with you that Prop 13 repeal for homeowners will "never" happen. The backlash would obviously be massive. But if they could keep it for homeowners and repeal it for all other types of property, including land, then that could be a major improvement because property owners would have to improve their properties to a "highest and best use" or sell it to pay the taxes.
- doctorpangloss 1y agoProp 13 is getting repealed practically speaking through time, as the main beneficiaries of the low taxes die; and the taxes they dynastically transfer to their kids get capped; and as those kids choose to sell those homes and move to New York. There is no one simple solution to e.g. poor performance of US public schools. Repealing Prop 13 isn’t going to close the achievement gap, it’s not even going to slow the fall of performance since 1993, let alone the pandemic. So not only is Prop 13 sort of being phased out naturally, the repeal would simply put a bunch of renters against rising costs from landlords in the places that actually matter like LA and SF, and you know, as much as I hate Prop 13 in principle, everything has settled on a delicate homeostasis where the people who want to get it repealed fully - which will never happen - will get way more than they bargained for.
- wewewedxfgdf 1y agoIt's all just to help the property investors - the mom and pop landlords, the mega corporate landlords. "If we, your landlords, own a LOT more housing, surely you can see how that will trickle down to YOU eventually owning a house. It's obvious isn't it? Our goal as investors is to build so many houses that prices will crash and everyone will be able to afford a house to live in. That's what we deeply want for all, and that's why we need to end zoning laws."
- epistasis 1y agoWhen people have a new home to live in, it's a huge help to them. There's this weird tendency to treat people in new housing as not people, as non humans. In reality we have a massive housing shortage, and tons of people living in crowded situations, and massive displacement of the working class out of California. All those people exist, are real, and are helped massively by new housing. One doesn't have to own a home to be a human with needs.
- wewewedxfgdf 1y agoYou'll own nothing and be happy, eh?
- epistasis 1y agoWhat are you talking about?
- bickfordb 1y agoYou can invest in a REIT fund if you believe this is a good asset class. Real estate investing is not a conspiracy
- xmprt 1y agoIt's crazy how the same property investors and mega corporate landlords who apparently stand to gain from this were fighting it tooth and nail for the last decade...
- troad 1y agoI'm not intimately familiar with Californian zoning, but I have to say, all this talk of the 'seventh Regional Housing Needs Assessment cycle' reminded me of the Five Year Plans used in socialist countries. I wish the people of California the best of luck exceeding dwelling quotas in the upcoming seventh cycle! :P Edit: I forgot how sensitive people can be to the word 'socialism'. I am not trying imply - with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer - that California is the Soviet Union. I am just genuinely amused by the language being used, speaking as someone with family history of living under socialism.
- jitl 1y agoIt’s quite common in the affairs of humans to plan recurring work on a schedule. It’s not quite as common to vote on the schedule and how to do it, but at least California seems to be a democracy in this respect.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ambicapter 1y agoSo you're not implying that CA is the Soviet Union, but you are drawing the parallel with whatever socialist country you have a "family history of living under"? Gee, I wonder what that means. Seems like a distinction without a difference.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- harmmonica 1y agoJust to give a little insight on this legislation, it has been described, rightfully so, as a boon to for-profit real estate developers so it's one of the least socialist things California has done in recent memory. It's stripping away local control and more or less forcing municipalities, in the limited geographies where this legislation applies, to allow housing to be built with far fewer government regulations. Frankly I'm shocked it passed, but just goes to show how bad the housing crisis has gotten. That of course doesn't rebut your comment about RHNA reminding you of socialism, but bringing up socialism when this thread is about legislation that's about as capitalist as you're going to get in California is a bit ironic. Edit: I'm not criticizing you by pointing out the irony, but since you said you're not that familiar with California I thought I'd mention how capitalist this legislation is.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y agoLove to see it. It's great to have rural low-density for people who want it, but if you're building public mass transit in a big city, you really gotta commit to density.
- epistasis 1y agoExactly this. So much money for transit has been completely wasted because the zoning around stops is hilariously low. We shouldn't be spending any money for trains on places that are not fully committed to having 4-7 story apartments all around the stops.
- ummonk 1y agoGreat for much needed housing, but this will poison the well for public transit and cause NIMBYs to triple down on opposition to public transit expansion…
- OptionOfT 1y agoI was literally thinking that. I wouldn't be surprised if Orange County's rail now comes to a halt.
- jitl 1y agoHow much more tripped down can they get? I think they’ve been tripped down on it for decades.
- MarkSweep 1y agoYeah, I fear this. This will also make pedestrian bridges that connect housing to transit some that NIMBYs dislike even more. For example.
- yongjik 1y agoThat could happen. But on the other hand, all those new housing will create more people living around stations, providing more ridership and more revenue for public transportation, and hopefully more stations along the way. Also, these new people would vote. The old NIMBYs are already opposing everything; how harder can they go? The demographic change might be enough to change local politics in some places.
- fyrn_ 1y agoRight but SB79 will never go into effect in counties if existing homeowners vote to prevent public transit ststions to stop the upzoning..
- SilverElfin 1y agoSounds a lot like replacement theory. New people come in, replace and marginalize the existing ones, who will be left with a changed neighborhood and no voice?
- 762236 1y agoThis doesn't cover Atherton's train stop, based on their estimated map, which is interesting.
- amluto 1y agoAtherton’s train station has zero trains per week that stop there.
- aschleck 1y agoAtherton closed their station in 2020 and, through a great twist of irony, it will become a museum for the line that's still alive next to it: https://inmenlo.com/2025/06/16/community-interest-meeting-on-atherton-train-history-museum-set-for-june-19/ https://inmenlo.com/2025/06/16/community-interest-meeting-on...
- HDThoreaun 1y agoThe residents of atherton saw this coming and closed their train station to get around it
- jeffbee 1y agoAside from the other reasons, Atherton is also below the 35k population threshold so the influence of SB 79 would be minimal even if the train station was open.
- dcrazy 1y ago(Sorry, this was supposed to be a reply to a complaint that people should be allowed to have “nice things” like suburban-style housing.) > The bill only applies in urban transit counties. These are counties with 15 or more passenger rail stations. This includes the counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. That already excludes most of the rural land in California. Some of those counties are still pretty big, however, so the next bit is also important: > Within these counties, areas within a half-mile of most of the following stations are now designated as transit-oriented development (TOD) zones: > Areas within a half-mile of all heavy rail (e.g., BART) and/or very high-frequency commuter rail stations—defined as stations that run 72 or more trains per day—are designated as Tier 1 TOD zones. > Areas within a half-mile of all light rail (e.g., the San Diego Trolley), BRT, and/or high-frequency commuter rail stations—defined as stations that run 48 or more trains per day—are designated as Tier 2 TOD zones. > In smaller cities, defined as cities with a population of less than 35,000 residents, only the quarter-mile area of the TOD zone is covered. And if a county becomes an urban transit county after January 1, 2026, only heavy rail, light rail, and eligible commuter rail will be covered—not BRT. It is bad planning to build this kind of transportation and expect the area within 1/2 mile of the stations to stay “suburban,” (which really means single-family; there’s plenty of apartment buildings in suburbs around the world) much less “rural.”
- jerrybmarchant 1y ago[dead]
- silexia 1y agoHow about if we just greatly reduce government's power to regulate building of all sorts? You would see vastly more construction then.