California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

https://sf.curbed.com/2019/5/16/18617019/transit-housing-bill-sb-50-approproations-committee-suspense-wiener

by ilamont • 7 years ago

96 170 7 years ago

sf.curbed.com

In cupertino there was a similar drive and a similar movement to stop it.

The slogan for the people against it were saying "Don't turn cupertino into condotino!" There are a lot of condos in cupertino now.

mullingitover2• 7 years ago

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators. It seems like a ponzi scheme, even if it's not intentional: people who can't afford to live here move away, and are replaced by wealthier people who can. Eventually we're going to run out of wealthy people and the whole thing will come crashing down.

i_am_nomad3• 7 years ago

What does "crashing down" mean, exactly? Do you mean economic development will stall? Then that would imply that home prices will decline and/or people will start leaving the state. If so, then that's the market at work, solving the problem without government intervention.

mullingitover2• 7 years ago

By 'crashing down' I mean a stiff housing price correction.

There's already heavy government intervention in the housing markets, that's the problem: developers can't simply buy land and develop it to it's maximum potential. There are regulations that prevent the market from meeting demand, hence the skyrocketing prices that can't be addressed by increasing supply.

conanbatt7• 7 years ago

Its a market at work but it puts a cap on how much CA can grow. CA is already losing out enormously domestically. CA thrives demographically only on immigration, otherwise it would constantly lose people.

Also the quality of life is not guaranteed by prices: SF is the only place i know where millionaires step on human shit on their way to work daily.

imtringued• 7 years ago

Americans are fleeing SF in masses already.

JumpCrisscross• 7 years ago

California's housing crisis benefits existing homeowners, and this group has the greatest sway with legislators

Because they vote. New York renters are a powerful contingent. Because they vote.

A large fraction of California has self-selected out of the political process. That is the root of a lot of its problems.

B-Con• 7 years ago

Also because they exist. People who would move to CA but don't because of the housing problem can't vote to fix the issue.

mochomocha2• 7 years ago

In immigration-heavy places like the Bay Area, a lot of renters don't have the right to vote.

conanbatt7• 7 years ago

Large fraction of renters are foreigners. Around 27% CA population, twice the national average.

If they could vote, they would change this.

2 things that would wreck california here are:

1) restricting immigration (they lose suckers)

2) liberalizing immigration (suckers get bargaining power)

bashinator• 7 years ago

About two-thirds of the population in NYC rent[0]. Renters in New York are a powerful contingent because they're the majority. Compare that with 45% in the Bay Area as of 2010[1].

[0]https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/... [1]http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm

notJim2• 7 years ago

The thing is, there's so much capital floating around with nowhere to go that it's not clear to me when it's going to come crashing down. It's not just real estate speculation, it's also venture capital feeding exploding tech valuations which results in all these new millionaires who buy up what little real estate there is.

cgy13• 7 years ago

And where are we going to find teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagemen, plumbers, etc. to service the wealthy homeowners when none of these professions pay anywhere enough for people to live on in places like the Bay Area? Soon places like this will be a mix of billionaires, FAANG workers, the retired, and nobody else.

gph3• 7 years ago

Probably find them living in tiny capsules and/or shipping containers down by the docks or maybe on top of that superfund site that rich people are starting to get weary about living on/near.

magduf12• 7 years ago

I honestly don't see the problem here.

It's simple: teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagement, plumbers, etc. won't be able to live there. Nor do they need to.

These people can live somewhere else, far away, and commute in. To entice them to make this ridiculous commute, their pay will have to be extremely high, and they'll probably want shorter hours too (so they can spend half their work-time commuting), so they'll have to hire twice as many people.

So if some wealthy homeowner needs a plumber, it's no problem. Remember, plumbers are usually contractors. They can call up the plumbing company, who will send a plumber who will drive 2-4 hours to get there, and the same amount to go home. This will result in an enormous charge just for fixing a leaking pipe. But that's OK, because the homeowner is wealthy, remember? They can afford $3k for a service call. If they can't, well maybe they need to rethink where they're living, and sell and move someplace cheaper.

Some jobs just don't even need to be done. Baristas, for instance, aren't really needed. They can be paid a fortune to drive 3 hours each way every day, and this can be reflected in the coffee prices, but will wealthy people pay $30 for a latte? If they do, fine: baristas can commute. If they don't, oh well, the coffee shop can go out of business (or maybe have self-serve lattes), and the wealthy homeowners can go without.

The same goes for teachers. If the wealthy people aren't willing to pay enough taxes for teachers to have $250k salaries to live there, then they don't really need to have teachers, and their kids can go without an education. Maybe they can send their kids to boarding school somewhere cheaper.

Seriously, I think that if people stop fretting about these lower-paid people, and just let the chips fall where they will, the problem will resolve itself one way or another. Either the wealthy people will cave in and get local government to approve more affordable housing construction, or the local real estate market will collapse because people don't really want to live in a place where there's no garbage collection.

mochomocha2• 7 years ago

Don't worry! San Francisco has thought about the problem of course. They're building housing dedicated to teachers. Mountain View is thinking about doing the same. One step closer to feudalism (or when people working in mines used to live in housing owned by the mining company). The ineptitude of local politicians catering to NIMBY is boundless.

xvedejas7• 7 years ago

Upzoning helps the homeowners who are upzoned, though I don't know how many of them realize it. Land can be sold at much higher values to developers if it's upzoned, and so its market rate is generally higher. It's those homeowners whose property isn't upzoned which are left out of the economic benefits.

yholio2• 7 years ago

Upzoning increases the value of the land, but decreases the value of pre-existing built square footage, since it's no longer an exclusivist area. If you have a brand new mansion built to the highest standards on the premise that it will be located in a tranquil neighborhood you might be on the net losing side if an apartment building is approved next door.

In any case, you need to tear down your existing home in order to realize any gains, which few people are willing to do.

01100011• 7 years ago

I'm curious what voter turnout is like for renters vs owners.

With only my friends as data points, owners are more likely to vote.

conanbatt7• 7 years ago

I can tell you what the turnout of CA foreigners that vote: 0%.

And CA is 27% foreign born population.

dannyr• 7 years ago

Homeowners vote often and also are more engaged. They show up to hearings more than renters.

This is the problem with renters. When they don't like how things are going, maybe they feel helpless, they just move to a different city.

hedora• 7 years ago

I know of no one that is against putting up more housing near transit. People that live near the new construction will see their property values and quality of life rise due to more walkable businesses nearby. People selling existing houses on up zoned lots should also be able to charge a premium, knowing the developers are putting in >>$10M of housing units on the lot.

I wish I knew which legislators blocked this so I could donate to their opponents.

rcpt2• 7 years ago

Anthony J. Portantino

manfredo6• 7 years ago

"We'll do anything to solve the housing crisis!"

"How about building more housing?"

"Anything but that!"

5trokerac3• 7 years ago

This can go for just about any social problem.

"We have to do something about X!"

"Here's what sacrifices you can make to help..."

"Oh, I meant we need to help, not me."

manfredo6• 7 years ago

I'm totally fine with apartment buildings going up next door. That was literally the case 2 months ago. I was happy to see more housing stock being added.

Zombiethrowaway4• 7 years ago

People currently living there don't see it as a "housing crisis". They see it as "too many people coming here, trying to change our single family house peaceful residential neighborhood into bigger buildings".

So "how about limiting influx of new people / new development?"

"Sure, let's do that"

I understand newcomers may disagree with that approach, out of understandable self interest.

But implying people currently living there are clueless or more selfish by defending their interests?? Trying to make newcomers sound morally superior? Come on.... You can do better that than that.

manfredo6• 7 years ago

So their plan to solve the housing crises essentially involves trying to keep new people out of the SF Bay area? Keep in mind that this is an area that heavily prides itself on being diverse and inclusive.

People aren't clueless for defending their interests, but they absolutely are being highly deceptive in the way they are going about it. Many even go so far as to try and claim that increasing housing supply will actually increase prices. There was even a ballot initiative to ban market rate housing construction in central San Francisco.

qwsxyh3• 7 years ago

But implying people currently living there are clueless or more selfish by defending their interests?

Somebody defending their interests doesn't make them not selfish.

kelnos4• 7 years ago

The thing that I will never understand is that the incumbents with this attitude are still hurting themselves with these policies. Even if they own a home and are protected by Prop 13 from large property tax increases, they still have to contend with all the rest of the problems that the housing crisis brings. Perhaps the fear of change overrides common sense, but I find it hard to believe that, rationally, the neighborhood "changing in character", or home values dipping the slightest bit, would be worse than the other negative realities that NIMBYs still experience here.

i_am_nomad3• 7 years ago

This bill would have created enormous resentment on behalf of homeowners, the ones who would have watched ugly four-story boxes go up in their neighborhoods. They would have wondered why the problems of the big cities were being dumped onto them, and the answer is found no farther then Weiner's list of campaign contributors.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/129655/scot...

esoterica2• 7 years ago

The McMansions are uglier anyway. Is your right to not look at ugly boxes more important than other people’s right to have a home for less than $2 million?

i_am_nomad3• 7 years ago

This bill doesn't propose upzoning the kinds of neighborhoods where the "McMansions" are. Those houses are generally speaking way out in the suburbs and exurbs. SB 50 targets regions close to major cities, and most of that are "old growth" neighborhoods.

And, to your second statement: if people do indeed have a "right" to a home less than $2 million, they can exercise that right. It just might not be in Palo Alto.

newsoul2019• 7 years ago

> other people’s right to have a home for less than $2 million?

No one has such a right. If you want to buy a home for under $2 million, there are plenty of these in the East Bay and East San Jose. No shortage at all.

danem• 7 years ago

If it were truly only addressing the problems of big cities, then why would developers feel the demand to build in more suburban areas? Clearly this isn't only a big city problem.

cgy13• 7 years ago

Oh no not the poor homeowners that are being heavily subsidized via Prop 13. I'll be sure to shed a tear for them.

mnm1• 7 years ago

But opponents of the legislation argued that the changes anticipatedunder SB 50 would have unalterably diminished the quality of life in many California neighborhoods dominated by single-family home development.

Interesting. The quality of life in such neighborhoods seems to me to be some of the lowest in the nation. Sure there are worse places but overall, in my experience, such neighborhoods have no stores, no desirable public lands where people spend any time, and really nothing at all other than houses and ghost streets. One needs a car to go anywhere. There is nothing to do, no one to see, and no one to interact with. It's no wonder people who live there end up using drugs and coping with a ton of anxiety and depression. It's one of the worst places to raise teenagers and young adults especially ones not old to drive. Having lived in such neighborhoods all my life, I still can't understand what people are talking about in regards to the quality of life. The quality of life is shit. But I can see putting up with that for more money. I guess that's what they mean by quality of life. Low taxes and home value appreciation.

notJim2• 7 years ago

Based on what I see on Nextdoor and from anti-housing groups in Seattle, I suspect quality of life is coded language for "undesirable" types moving in. If you make your city affordable, you don't get to live in an enclave where everyone has a 7-figure net worth and went to Stanford.

WillPostForFood5• 7 years ago

Yes, and the effects of that on local schools as well.

WillPostForFood5• 7 years ago

It’s totally fine you don’t like it, but many people do. They are choosing to live that way because they like the lifestyle, not for the money. If they wanted money, they’d do better by the passing of SB50, and developing multi unit dwelling on their lot. I don’t think you are helping push the discussion forward by mischaracterizing the opposition.

kelnos4• 7 years ago

Given that the majority of residential areas outside cities (and even some inside cities) are not sufficiently walkable to do without a car, you're basically suggesting that the vast majority of the US has poor quality of life. That may be true (I'd doubt it), but an extraordinary claim like that requires extraordinary evidence.

I personally prefer to live in a place where I can live my life through walking and transit, but I know quite a few people who prefer open, spread-out, commercial/industrial-free neighborhoods, and either don't mind or actively enjoy having a car and driving places.

dangjc• 7 years ago

The bay area will lose more experienced older workers if the only way to exist here is to share an apartment with other young single people. Companies should care about this.

WillPostForFood5• 7 years ago

Companies should move out of the Bay Area.

malandrew• 7 years ago

Yup. The more that move out of the Bay Area the better. There are a lot of other nice places to live. It would be awesome for those nice places to get good tech jobs.

drivingmenuts• 7 years ago

Aren’t they already biased against older workers, though? Older workers and startups don’t fit together well.

conanbatt7• 7 years ago

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

anon1m0us17• 7 years ago

The simplest solution to all this is limiting the number of houses a person can own. You only NEED one. Two is more than enough. Three is excessive.

It's not gold or silver or stocks and bonds.

People need houses to live in. Other investments don't have practical value. If people want to protect their assets, do it outside real estate.

xvedejas7• 7 years ago

I don't think multiple-home-ownership is the driver of the housing crisis. In my neighborhood in San Francisco, most homes are either owner-occupied or being rented out by the owner that owns one other house. So are you suggesting that the problem is solved in my neighborhood?

anon1m0us17• 7 years ago

Yes, I'm suggesting my proposal would solve the problem in your neighborhood. If you reduce the demand for something, the price falls. My suggestion clearly reduces demand for something, thus due to the laws of economics, prices will drop.

dgzl8• 7 years ago

This is an example of ridiculous government overreach. Should fit right in for California.

BlackRing• 7 years ago

Exactly my thought. This isn't about needs, it's about economic rights. If I can afford two homes and choose to buy them, I'm within my rights to do so. Attempting to limit the rights of people isn't going to go very well.

brianpgordon2• 7 years ago

It's drastic. I'm not taking a position either way because I don't know enough about the tradeoffs. But it's really bad out there, particularly here in SF; maybe worse than you realize.

When mobs of zombies start shuffling out of the Pacific and swarming coastal cities, you call the National Guard and impose martial law, "government overreach" be damned. And when things reach this level of dysfunction in the housing market, it is appropriate to start rationally examining practices we've always taken for granted in the past like unfettered real estate investment.

nomnomnom01• 7 years ago

Not just limiting but banning people that don't live in the country more than 70% of the time from living here. We n2eed to ban foreign investment.

anon1m0us17• 7 years ago

If a real estate agent in Australia helps a foreign buyer buy a house in Australia, it's a $400,000 fine, iirc. We are talking about stiff penalties.

ars• 7 years ago

limiting the number of houses a person can own

So your plan is to outlaw ..... renting??

Why?

anon1m0us17• 7 years ago

No. It's to outlaw the purchase of more than 2 pieces of real property. Renting is fine by me.

yholio2• 7 years ago

People need houses to live in

I'm sure very few owners of multiples houses let them empty and not rent them out so that people can live in them.

Houses are expensive, even outside their speculative value, in terms of raw materials, workmanship etc. So expensive that few people can afford to buy houses with cash.

If someone is paying that cash to build a house, then offering it for an affordable rent so that other people can live in them, they are providing a valuable service.

anon1m0us17• 7 years ago

as I posted somewhere else as well: https://www.fastcompany.com/90305242/taxing-empty-apartments...

There are lots of vacant homes. Foreign buyers are pushing their wealth to the west to protect it from their own governments.

So yes, another strategy to lower housing costs is to reign in foreign ownership.

just_myles• 7 years ago

I have seen a lot of luxury apartments springing up but, not actual homes people can buy. That is a problem.

xvedejas7• 7 years ago

It's largely illegal to build units that are sufficiently small to be affordable. Zoning requirements in most places have square foot minimums and amenity requirements (such as parking).

That said, even "luxury apartments" give the wealthy a place to live rather than bidding on existing housing stock, and so do relieve price pressure on older buildings.

chrischen3• 7 years ago

Who blocked this? I am a California voter and I do not recall having any say over this blockage.

rflrob• 7 years ago

http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

I believe the conventional wisdom is that legislators' offices pay more attention to calls than letters, and either of those are stronger signals to them than emails.

masonic• 7 years ago

  legislators' offices pay more attention to calls than letters

The opposite is true. Written letters prioritize over phone calls and they over emails. But overall, constituent communications on current legislation are largely ignored.

yonran• 7 years ago

From the latimes article, it was a state senator from the Los Angeles area: “Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, announced at the beginning of the committee hearing Thursday that Senate Bill 50 would not advance this year, meaning the bill would not be debated again until 2020.”

Edit: Here is a video of him saying that despite the crisis, he doesn’t think the bill is right, and maybe something better will come along https://twitter.com/BryanRAnderson/status/112911212601702809...

chrischen3• 7 years ago

As Chairman he blocked it from even being voted on... looks like I know who to axe on the next elections.

rcpt2• 7 years ago

Tell Sen. Anthony Portantino that you are unhappy that he abused his power to stop SB 50.

Tell Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins you want her to do everything in her power to get a floor vote this year.

https://cayimby.org/call/

neonate• 7 years ago

http://archive.is/KUDl1

jiveturkey• 7 years ago

lol for all the 1.1.1.1 users!

dang• 7 years ago

Url changed from https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-single-fa... to one that seems to contain more info and is less paywalled.

baggy_trough3• 7 years ago

It was an awful bill. It removed density limits in any jobs-rich area (so basically all of the Bay Area). It forced any single family zoned area to allow fourplexes.

This would have greatly changed the character of neighborhoods that people have lived and invested in for decades. If you can't see the political problem with that, well, you might want to learn more about California politics.

clairity4• 7 years ago

what's wrong with fourplexes? i live in a neighborhood full of them and think they're great. they add a lot of character without additional massing, and the additional density unlocks commercial areas that are a walk away.

baggy_trough3• 7 years ago

That's great that you like your neighborhood. Presumably you thought it was the best choice for you.

I don't want to live in a high density area, so that's why I chose to live somewhere else.

refurb• 7 years ago

Your explanation may be a reason why it failed, but doesn’t explain why it’s a bad bill.

Don’t you want to put more housing where the jobs are?

deogeo• 7 years ago

Jobs can move as well. And there's a good argument that more housing won't significantly ameliorate California's housing crisis: More housing results in lower prices only if it reduces demand. But if the pool of people competing to live there is much larger than the increase in housing (drawn from the entire US, plus some immigrants), then it won't make a dent in demand, and the prices will stay high.

fmajid• 7 years ago

If defeating NIMBYs was easy, it would have been done a long time ago.

steven111• 7 years ago

Thanks for writing. A veteran who has VA loan entitlement wouldn't be extending this benefit to anyone else, but he or she could look to have the new spouse as a co-borrower on a new VA loan. You can talk with a Veterans United loan specialist in more detail at (431) 300-7649 elijahcapitals@gmail.com

profreez• 7 years ago

Really insightful story. I do hope that we'll soon find a way to solve the California housing crisis!

California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked

Related Stories