Single Family Zoning is now banned in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#31

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 3:31 AM UTC

esrauch wrote: post #28

dado3212 wrote: post #24

Just in case people don't understanding zoning laws, this doesn't mean you can't have single family homes. It just allows people to split existing lots (with criteria around 3 years of tenancy and some other caveats) and in general removes places where you can only have single family homes. As a general question, I think this means that people who currently own single family homes around the Bay Area are going to mak…

I'm not sure about that last part. In general the people who own single family homes in the Bay Area have had nimby opposition to more dense housing being constructed since more supply lowers prices.

More supply also increases traffic. This isn't just about everyone worrying about their housing prices (there are a lot of NIMBY reasons beyond that).

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#32

Post by javagram » Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 3:31 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #23

> A study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that the new law likely would add, at most, fewer than 700,000 housing units across California. A good, a pointless divisive bill that does nothing to fundamentally address the issues. It’s almost as if California politicians have discovered it’s better to have a bill that makes a lot of noise to make it seem like work is being done while simultane…

700,000 new housing units sounds pretty good for such a modest change? It does seem like more action will be needed in the future - perhaps once people see that CA isn't transformed into MegaCity One by this change, they'll be further open to options like the previous SB 50 bill?

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#33

Post by etaioinshrdlu » Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 3:32 AM UTC

I have to wonder if some of the more affluent neighborhoods/cities won't just find a way to stop this in their area. Does anyone have a sense of how effective this law will really be, particularly in cities with NIMBY attitudes?

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#34

Post by reactspa » Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 3:32 AM UTC

dado3212 wrote: post #24

Just in case people don't understanding zoning laws, this doesn't mean you can't have single family homes. It just allows people to split existing lots (with criteria around 3 years of tenancy and some other caveats) and in general removes places where you can only have single family homes. As a general question, I think this means that people who currently own single family homes around the Bay Area are going to mak…

There seem to be 2 provisions. If one's lot is smaller, one can have a duplex on it. If one's lot is larger, one can split the lot and have a duplex on each sub-lot (i.e. 2 duplexes total).

However, I can't find the guidelines for when one is allowed to split the lot into 2 sub-lots. I'm curious because I have a large-ish empty lot (8,000 sqft in a coastal town) and yes, would make out like a bandit if I'm allowed to split the lot into 2.

Anyone know the guidelines?

---------------

Update: could someone please clarify "criteria around 3 years of tenancy"... does this mean one has to have owned the lot for 3 years minimum?

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#35

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 3:33 AM UTC

0xB31B1B wrote: post #22

colechristensen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there ever been an effort of freeing up high density construction that resulted in lower housing prices? In the places I lived, new construction of big apartment complexes was correlated with prices going up. The new buildings charged more for rent, people paid it, and the surrounding housing followed.

Yes, seattle over the last 5 years, as well as down town Houston Texas have both seen construction booms and price declines or slower than average price increases.

> seattle over the last 5 years, as well as down town Houston Texas have both seen construction booms and price declines or slower than average price increases.

Not sure about Houston, but our price increases here in Seattle have been anything but "slower than average." But that isn't to say that the price increases wouldn't have been worse if they didn't build housing like crazy here.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#36

Post by javagram » Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 3:33 AM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #26

If I wanted to move to California and live in a single family home (my wife is from there), won’t this legislation just make those dwellings even more expensive now? Because California government says no more future supply. I get the urgency on addressing the housing situation in California, but this feels to me like “we must do something, and this is something, so we will do it”.

I think you're confusing "Banning single family homes" and "Banning single family zoning". Nothing about this law prevents you buying land and building a SFH on it, so your characterization as "no more future supply" is inaccurate.

It simply gives you the right to, in certain circumstances, build an additional home on your property.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#37

Post by pvg » Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 3:33 AM UTC

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28559517

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#38

Post by stephen_g » Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 3:34 AM UTC

Doesn’t sound like commercial use is included in this? This is more of a problem than I realised - I live in a fairly old suburb (in Australia) where I can walk to some small shops, cafes and restaurants, as well as having the option of two schools in walking distance if I had kids, and sort of take it for granted, but watching some videos about city planning recently (Not Just Bikes on YouTube is great, along with City Beautiful, Strong Towns etc.), I realise now that it is actually something that makes living here so enjoyable that I hardly even thought about. Then, getting an electric scooter sort of opened up a whole new world of exploring bike paths (I have hardly done any cycling since I was a teenager). Our city seems way better than most of the US and Canada at that, but could be so, so much better.

So this seems like a positive step, but I think in general the goal should be having mixes of single family houses, townhouses/terrace houses, and low rise apartments with small shops, cafes and restaurants, with good walkability and separated cycle paths. As much as I love the flexibility of having a car, looking into this now I do agree that in a lot of places we have actually sacrificed the freedom to not always need to own and use a car to get a lot of places…

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#39

Post by kangaroozach » Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 3:34 AM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #26

If I wanted to move to California and live in a single family home (my wife is from there), won’t this legislation just make those dwellings even more expensive now? Because California government says no more future supply. I get the urgency on addressing the housing situation in California, but this feels to me like “we must do something, and this is something, so we will do it”.

Thanks kinda the point. System is rigged in favor of the land owners, at the expense of renters and future owners. Perfect example of legislating supply constraints is Prop 13, which fixes the tax basis to the purchase price making people stay in their homes to avoid a huge increase in property taxes were they to move. This drives up asset values and land owners love it! Boomers retirement is based on this! And it’s even better for commercial property owners who can charge 2021 sky high rents while paying taxes as if it were still 1978.

Re: Single Family Zoning is now banned in California

#40

Post by kortilla » Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 3:37 AM UTC

dado3212 wrote: post #30

kortilla wrote: post #23

> A study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that the new law likely would add, at most, fewer than 700,000 housing units across California. A good, a pointless divisive bill that does nothing to fundamentally address the issues. It’s almost as if California politicians have discovered it’s better to have a bill that makes a lot of noise to make it seem like work is being done while simultane…

6% increase in housing units isn't nothing [1]. That said, I think you're right that more aggressive measures would need to be taken to resolve the shortage. Is there a link to recommendations that would have larger impact? I know CEQA's brought up a lot, but is there some paper that's been written around proposals and estimated housing units? [1] https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/california/housing-stat...

That’s effectively nothing when everything is so constrained already.

A 3bd/2ba house in Sunnyvale runs for a couple of million dollars. Do you think 6% is going to bring it down to 300-500k like other suburbs in the country (e.g. around Indianapolis, Atlanta, Dallas)?