Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 461 posts

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#131

Post by joshlittle »

It’s a shame.

One only has to look at San Francisco‘s current zoning map to understand why this bill was important to solving the housing crisis in the state.

https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-02...

In San Francisco, most of the city is zoned RH-1 or RH-1(D). Areas not zoned RH-1 (Essentially residential areas that allow the construction of multifamily apartments and other larger condominium projects) are seeing an explosion of growth and change; mostly in lower income minority neighborhoods where developers can affordably purchase property.

It’s incredibly unbalanced; and senate bill 50 would have balance the scales to favor more housing options in some of these areas with stringent zoning for only residential single-family homes.

Even though Senator Wiener is from San Francisco, the city council itself came out against this bill. San Francisco is the densest large city in California, with a larger ratio of the population living in apartments then most other cities in the state. Sen. Weiner is pretty safe from backlash as a majority of San Franciscans understand that other cities around the state need to do their part in building housing just like San Francisco has over the last century.

For other politicians around the state, senate Bill 50 is Kryptonite. Like everywhere else in America, Politicians are elected by residents. The largest constituencies of voters tend to be those in single-family homes because mostly California lives in single-family homes. Very expensive single-family homes.

People do not want to change the neighborhood to drastically in a way that would alter the equity they have accumulated in their home.

The best way to not be reelected is to support this bill. Why support multi family apartment construction for people who do not live in their district? Very much the “I got mine“ attitude.

There is no panacea here. It’s going to take a ballot referendum, which is not likely to pass for the same reasons. Or change to the fair housing act. In the 50s and 60s, California zoning was indeed complicated with racial bias and exclusion. Above all else, it is the epitome of Systemic racism for the time period; and the biggest flaw in the fair housing act. As it turns out, the system is still working as originally intended. Fixing the fair housing act to cover residential zoning might be more achievable then anything California can do on it’s own.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#132

Post by zpallin »

exjdjeejfh wrote: post #76
yonran wrote: post #27

California has a more principled approach to housing capacity planning called RHNA, in which the state sets a zoning budget (like that proposed by David Schleicher https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/ ) and then delegates to local governments the responsibility to zone to allow enough houses to meet that budget. Unfortunately, the RHNA has numerous flaws including vastly underestimating the “need,” la…

Principled is a way of making it sound less terrible than 'restrained'. California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.

While Environmentalism is definitely classist, and CEQA has played a part in preventing affordable development in cities, there are so many other factors that boiling it down to environmentalism is absurd.

If anything, CEQA and other environmental regulations have contributed more to improving the quality of life for working class people and the poor than it has contributed to their detriment. California is the median for poverty in the US and also happens to be in the top 15 for quality of life while also being in the top 10 most environmentally friendly states. Because of that, I don't see a correlation between environmentalism and poverty.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#133

Post by xxpor »

potatoz2 wrote: post #120
p1necone wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's unique to environmentalists, turns out a big subset of everyone is selfish like that.

Selfish is the wrong word I think, people are myopic about density and assume its inevitably a negative. A number of cities have shown that's not the case.

It's me. Turn my neighborhood into Shibuya. That'd be amazing.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#135

Post by zpallin »

jxramos wrote: post #116
alasdair_ wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts. Most of the environmentalists that I know are very much in favor of increasing housing density and reducing commute time in ICE vehicles. Current housing policy does neither of these things.

I think he may be getting at urban sprawl being fought against in the bay area. Something along these lines perhaps, but I'm not sure. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/06/in-fight-against-urba...

CEQA requirements are exempt from affordable housing developments. And developing Coyote Valley has never been about affordable housing. Essentially all of the proposals to develop Coyote Valley have catered to high-income home owners and renters. Even the mayor said in that article that preserving Coyote Valley contributes to the city's affordable housing goals.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#136

Post by yyyk »

paulgb wrote: post #66
pdonis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> governments are the least-worst solution No, they're not, because while externalities and other forms of misaligned incentives are departures from the norm in free markets, they are the norm in governments.

It took governments less time to fix the Ozone hole (remember the Montreal Protocol?) than it took for the free market to converge on one type of phone charger that works on multiple devices. Unfettered faith in free markets and unfettered faith in governments are equally bad things.

CFC emissions took some time to subside after the Montreal Protocol. We also know there's a current Chinese source[0] which is still emitting CFCs in 2019. So I dunno if 'governments' have the advantage on that one.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#137

Post by deepakhj »

wahern wrote: post #88
btilly wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it will. One of the problems with housing is that local governments get less revenue from housing than business. That gives them every incentive to approve commercial construction and deny residential. Take away the financial perverse incentive., and there is a lot of money to be made by approving badly needed dense residential housing near existing commercial buildings.

Prop 13 also applies to commercial real estate. The difference is that commercial properties require fewer public services, so costs are less. But the real difference is that there's usually much less NIMBY opposition to changes in commercial zoning than residential. Talk is cheap. What matters is who shows up to zoning board meetings. People tend to only show up when it effects their neighborhood, not so much when i…

Zoning meetings happen in the middle of the day. The only people that can go are old people!

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#138

Post by 0xB31B1B »

potatoz2 wrote: post #121
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s unfortunate that the state senate doesn’t seem to want to treat the housing shortage with the urgency that it deserves. The state senators are probably making quite a bit of money off this housing shortage that they wouldn't make with an adequate housing supply on the market.

It's much likelier that they are responding to the voters that have the time and money to make their reelection difficult.

I think all 40 senators in CA own a home in CA and something like 65% own at least one unit they rent out.

This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#139

Post by bsimpson »

justinzollars wrote: post #86
Gimpei wrote: post #82

The SF board of supervisors has voted on resolutions opposing this bill several times now. If you care about housing and live in SF, take a second look at your supervisor. Their votes may not make a difference with respect to SB50 but they can certainly block housing in the city and too often they do.

They all need to go. Not one is a housing advocate. All spend their energy to limit housing. They say they are for affordable housing, but their mandates are designed to exclude both groups of people and housing.

It makes me sad that my supervisor got replaced with Dean Preston, whose entire persona is crafted around housing policy; yet, he is so staunchly against actually building housing.

He's the epitome of everything wrong with SF Supervisors: they pit communities against each other to create political gridlock and build voting blocs for reelection, but do fuck-all to actually solve San Francisco's problems.

No matter how many times they say "gentrification" in the same tone as "boogeyman," it won't refute basic supply-and-demand. Inaction just makes all the problems worse.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#140

Post by api »

yonran wrote: post #27

California has a more principled approach to housing capacity planning called RHNA, in which the state sets a zoning budget (like that proposed by David Schleicher https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/ ) and then delegates to local governments the responsibility to zone to allow enough houses to meet that budget. Unfortunately, the RHNA has numerous flaws including vastly underestimating the “need,” la…

I don't care if it's principled or not. It's obviously not working.
Post reply on HN