NIX the NINE: A Remedy for Harmful Housing Policy
Our legislators are at it again,
relentlessly pushing housing bills that benefit developers while damaging
communities and ignoring the need for affordable housing.
Earlier this year, they wisely
rejected SB-50, Sen. Scott Wiener’s high-density housing bill. But legislators
have put nine more noxious bills on the table. These bills, along with dire
outcomes if they pass, are described in The Embarcadero Institute’s “2020
Housing Bills: Legislation in an Age of Uncertainty.”
You might recall, the Embarcadero
Institute exposed the exaggerated and inaccurate claim that
California needed 3.5M housing units to meet need. Put this housing bill report
at the top of your “must-read” list.
The nine bills have major problems
Here is a brief recap.
Click on the chart to enlarge it.
Lack of Funding
Lack of Funding
Since closing Redevelopment
Agencies, legislators have failed to provide a source of housing funds. They
present ill-conceived ideas like state-mandated up-zoning, infill, or
streamlining to make it easier to approve construction and make a profit, but
conveniently ignore funding or meeting the need for affordable housing.
Bad Timing
One city council member lamented
that neither she, colleagues nor staff have time to study the bills. They are,
appropriately, dealing with priorities—the impact of COVID-19, economic
consequences such as loss of tax revenues, racial justice, and police reform.
Lack of Community Support
If polled, most Californians would
reject claims that single-family homes are immoral and should be replaced by
dense, high-rise luxury units owned by remote syndicates to benefit real estate
investors. Affordable units are an afterthought in private development, added
to take advantage of density bonus laws and lower impact fees offered by state
and city governments.
Additional Shortcomings
The nine bills are filled with
developer bonuses and incentives that negatively impact residents and
communities—without meeting low-income housing needs. The language of the bills
is dense and often including undefined terms and inconsistencies.
- Up-zoning: Five bills take away local zoning authority. In single-family neighborhoods a developer could build “by right” duplexes and multi-family units on single-family parcels. (AB-1279, AB-2345, SB-902, SB-1120, SB-1385)
- Streamlining: Several bills remove CEQA environmental protections, which developers claim delay their plans and reduce profits. (SB-995, SB-1085, SB-1120)
- Developer Incentives: By adding a few affordable units, developers can increase building heights and density, increasing the number of market-rate units while overriding community standards and zoning codes. (AB-725, AB-1279, SB-1085, SB-1385)
- Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): As local authority is undermined and resources are strained, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is expanding power to dictate the number of units communities are required to build. In these times of cut-backs and budget woes for cities, HCD is expanding its staff of 900 to allocate, monitor and enforce aggressive Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) quotas. RHNA is set by appointed bureaucrats, not elected officials. (AB-725, AB-3040)
- One Notable Exception! Support SB-1299: A 10TH bill deserves support. Senator Portantino’s SB-1299 would require HCD to administer a program providing grants to local governments that rezone idle commercial shopping centers to allow workforce housing.
The Embarcadero Institute concludes, “The proposed bills still represent an override of local zoning codes and the land use element in local general plans.”
The Stakes are high:
As CalMatters columnist Dan Walters
(6/21/20) wrote about the California’s Public Employees Retirement System
(CalPERS), the nation’s largest pension trust is down about $13 billion. It
intends to borrow up to $80 billion “to fatten its investment portfolio in
fingers-crossed hopes that earnings gains will outstrip borrowing costs.” The
“fattening” is done by acquiring assets with a potential for lucrative returns.
What assets are in greatest demand
with skyrocketing value? Land and housing—thousands of backyards in
single-family neighborhoods. If residents and their elected local officials can
be pushed aside, the coast is clear for private and corporate investors to buy
up backyards as their next gold mine.
Who Supports these Bills?
Legislators received letters of
support from well-organized and well-funded agencies. For example, supporters
include the CA Building Industry Association, CA Chamber of Commerce, CA
Apartment Association, CA Association of Realtors, and CA YIMBYs. Millions of
dollars back the YIMBY marketing machinery, and the state agency is joined by
YIMBY Action, YIMBY Neoliberal, and YIMBY chapters in San Francisco, Mountain
View and San Luis Obispo.
Silicon Valley puts its thumb on the
scales with support from the Bay Area Council, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative,
Facebook, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and SPUR. In addition, SV@Home,
TMG Partners, and the San Francisco Foundation are supporters. These agencies
provided leadership for the MTC-driven CASA Compact, which created the
framework for housing legislation carried by San Francisco Bay legislators
(Wiener, Skinner, Chiu, Ting, and Wicks).
On the other hand, the people most
impacted by the legislation are not informed, organized or funded. Legislators
received about a dozen+ letters of opposition from city councils, a few
homeowner and tax-payer groups, Sustainable TamAlmonte, Livable California, and
The League of California Cities.
We defeated 50. Now we must
"Nix the Nine."
California voters are smart enough
to see through bureaucratic mandates that will take power from local
governments to fatten developers’ portfolios.
When SB-50 was defeated in 2019, The
Los Angeles Times (5/22) headline read, “Why did California’s bill to build in
single-family home neighborhoods fail? Suburban homeowners.”
Those homeowners were joined by
people of diverse ethnicity and geographic locations (inner city included) to reject developer-backed state
dictates. They united in support of community values, quality of life, and
decisions made by locally-elected officials. They rejected top-down,
one-size-fits all bureaucratic mandates that don’t meet the goal of providing
affordable housing.
The Strategy: Create an uprising to
NIX THE NINE.
Details about the
strategy, timeline, and action will follow in Part II.
Web
Link
Tags
AB725, AB1279, AB2345, AB3040;
SB902, SB995, SB1085, SB1120, SB1385, SB50
No comments:
Post a Comment