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

California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 133 posts

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#111

Post by lotsoweiners »

eclipticplane wrote: post #19
mutator wrote: post #11

The discourse around high density housing does not make it clear what specific type of development do advocates prefer. Its likely that the market will have to decide for itself, but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments, targeted towards transient younger people, I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class, and families with kids/older parents looking for larger plac…

> but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments That's still a massive win. To replace 10 single family homes supporting 2-3 people each with a 9 story building supporting many multiples of that is a win for society. If the people chasing 3 and 4 bedroom apartments accepted smaller rooms, they could still be economical vs studio/1/2 BR apartments and condos.

> That's still a massive win. To replace 10 single family homes supporting 2-3 people each with a 9 story building supporting many multiples of that is a win for society.

Not if society wants to own their home.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#112

Post by lotsoweiners »

baron816 wrote: post #43
ec109685 wrote: post #36

In addition to condos next to transit, California should be fixing roads, so people can move further from their job. I know it’s unpopular nimby opinion but hoping people in these homes won’t be driving cars is misguided. Give them parking, fix roads for further commute and let people live where they want. Save money by reducing regulations on elevator size, allow for single egress buildings and ensure we aren’t kowt…

Robotaxis are good, but everyone owning a driverless car is bad. Imagine you get to your destination, there’s no parking (or no free parking), so you tell your car to just circle the block while you’re inside. You spend an hour there at the tanning salon, and the car has just been circling, using the street as a parking lot and creating congestion. What happens when everyone does that? I’m a big proponent of driverle…

Private driverless cars will surely be a thing in the future because people will want them and be willing to pay for them. I sure would buy a Waymo style car if I could. I think it would be cool if they could drop you off at your destination and then circle around until it finds parking.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#113

Post by ec109685 »

mayneack wrote: post #56
ec109685 wrote: post #36

In addition to condos next to transit, California should be fixing roads, so people can move further from their job. I know it’s unpopular nimby opinion but hoping people in these homes won’t be driving cars is misguided. Give them parking, fix roads for further commute and let people live where they want. Save money by reducing regulations on elevator size, allow for single egress buildings and ensure we aren’t kowt…

People who want to live in less dense houses farther from the city can already do that!

The commutes end up being awful.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#114

Post by nerdponx »

lacker wrote: post #93
avidiax wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really shows how limited the effect of this bill is, but it's still much better than nothing.

A big question is whether these areas actually turn into denser housing, or whether something else in the process manages to bog it down. Plenty of housing bills have seemed like a big deal when you looked at the area they impacted, but in practice they led to little new housing.

The problem we are seeing in suburban MA right now is that they're building the wrong kind of housing to address the greatest shortage, and doing it in a way that does not promote the long-term community well-being. Developers are jamming in large numbers of small "luxury" units with insufficient parking in a car-dependent area in whatever lot they can get their hands on, instead of density increasing organically throughout the immediate area around downtown, adding ADUs and replacing large single family homes with 2/3/4-unit condos.

Why is this happening? Because zoning boards don't allow reasonable multifamily development in densifying areas, so developers do the only thing they can do, which is build in already-built-up areas with looser zoning, and/or ram projects through using a state low income housing provision called 40B.

The effect is that while the apartment market for young professionals is going to continue to soften, the market for comfortable family dwellings remains brutal and increasingly unaffordable. There are 80+ unit apartment buildings literally surrounded by multi-lane stroads, while less than a mile away there are single family homes on quiet tree lined streets where you could easily have the same number of units in multifamily condo buildings and garden apartments, and still retain the comforts of suburbia.

So whatever poison pills are in here, it cannot be worse than the status quo in MA, in which the development is too much of the wrong thing and everyone loses in the end except the developers and real estate agents.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#115

Post by flomo »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #87
flomo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious exactly what neighborhood and how long did you live there? (duboce triangle, a long time) I know a bunch of people who live/d out there, they take muni downtown but mostly have a car. Perhaps you could regal in tales of your car-free lifestyle in the Sunset, but i'm not seeing it. Weiner wants condos out there and he does not give a shit about your bus ride.

he does not give a shit about your bus ride. As I pointed out earlier streetcar , not a bus ride. but i'm not seeing it Look harder. Pre-pandemic the L and N were the two busiest rail routes (and the busiest lines systemwide) even considering they share most of the underground portion with four other lines. Somewhere around 75,000 daily trips.

Yeah, I know, I take the N, it goes downtown, everywhere else you need a bus (or practically, a car). Sorry if that was confusing.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#116

Post by fooker »

stouset wrote: post #47
fooker wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter what you think scales. If you don't design infrastructure based on what people want, they are going to do it anyway. And things will be extremely chaotic. No amount of fees, fines, etc will change that.

If you design infrastructure based on what you think people want instead of what actually produces good outcomes, you end up with gridlock. Travel some time. Take a look at what’s happened in Paris over the last several years. See what’s happened in Utrecht and Amsterdam. These are far from the only examples.

The zeitgeist of what produces good outcomes tends to change somewhat fast. This is the line of thought that led the US to tear down railways, city center train stations, and built freeways through the middle of cities. They thought they were planning for good outcomes too.

I have traveled all over the world, and have lived in Amsterdam for half a year. I like that model sure, but doesn't change the fact that Americans want suburban sprawl. You should move to where you like though.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#117

Post by atcon »

SB79 was “meant to address two crises at once: The state’s long-term housing shortage and the financial precarity of its public transit agencies.”[a] The 3rd crisis is the enormous budgetary deficits the state and cities are also facing: San Diego has a $300m deficit, SF $728m, LA $1b, CA $45b. One suspects the 2nd and 3rd crises are the intended targets.

But it’s unclear how SB79 would fix transit’s fiscal cliffs. The SF BART system is facing a 2026 cliff and ascribes its steep revenue declines to high work from home rates and a struggling downtown area [c] The SD MTS system has a 2028 cliff LA Metro uses sales tax increases (measures M and R) to fund 50% of its budget (fare revenue funds only 1%), yet it still faces a 2030 cliff. RTO remains deeply unpopular and downtown commercial real estate has seen steep losses [d] However, SB79 does allow transit agencies to develop and acquire land adjacent to transit stops as an additional revenue source [e]

SB79 supporters seemed to be focused on lowering multifamily rental prices, but again it’s unclear how SB79 would accomplish this, since it still depends on market incentives to add multifamily units. Banks or investors won’t loan money to developers unless the net operating income (rent) is high enough to justify investment. The other factor is interest rates, but SB79 can’t change that. Many existing multifamily properties struggle to break even and now have the highest loan delinquency rate after offices [e] Manville points out new multifamily supply is constrained by recent “mansion taxes” (eg 2023 ULA measure in LA, 2020 Prop 1 in SF)[f]. Also, SB79 reserves only 10% of a multifamily building to low income and allows market rate rents in the other units.

SB79 would give even more leverage to institutional investors and developers over municipalities and communities. Their concerns are valid (eg zoning and development plans balanced over decades, gentrification, eminent domain, etc.) and shouldn’t be dismissed automatically as collateral damage in an attempt to drive down rental prices. One housing coalition estimates 2/3 of multifamily units in LA are owned by investment vehicles which historically have shown higher annual rent increases and eviction rates than local operators [g]

[a] https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/09/neighborhood-transit-...> [b] SF https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/30/san-francisco-budget-screw...> LA https://calmatters.org/commentary/2025/03/california-bails-l...> CA https://apnews.com/article/california-budget-deficit-18ff9c1...> [c] https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/FiscalCliff...> [d] https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/business/stressed-sf-commerc...> [e] https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/sb79-heads-for-n...> [f] https://www.trepp.com/trepptalk/cmbs-delinquency-rate-increa...> [g] https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/the-consequences-of-meas...> [h] https://knock-la.com/los-angeles-rental-speculation-4022d16a...>

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#118

Post by mayneack »

ec109685 wrote: post #113
mayneack wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who want to live in less dense houses farther from the city can already do that!

The commutes end up being awful.

Yes! That's the tradeoff and the market prices it in.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#119

Post by ec109685 »

mayneack wrote: post #118
ec109685 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commutes end up being awful.

Yes! That's the tradeoff and the market prices it in.

Or fix transportation and you don’t have an awful commute! Everybody wins.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#120

Post by smugma »

flomo wrote: post #78
inferiorhuman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those folks that he is up-zoning out in the avenues, they are driving. Different culture out there. Downvote reality to the left. To be clear I was out in the avenues.

Just curious exactly what neighborhood and how long did you live there? (duboce triangle, a long time) I know a bunch of people who live/d out there, they take muni downtown but mostly have a car. Perhaps you could regal in tales of your car-free lifestyle in the Sunset, but i'm not seeing it. Weiner wants condos out there and he does not give a shit about your bus ride.

e-bikes seem to have been invented for SF. They solve the hill problem and long lines at school drop offs. I see their growth continuing to reduce car needs in SF.

Sadly, I say this as someone who lives in Duboce Triangle and owns two cars.

Post reply on HN