HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2018, 4:41 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
California is Forcing Through Affordable Housing Laws, Overruling Municipal NIMBYism

The State of California is (Finally) Forcing Through Affordable Housing Laws, Overruling Municipal NIMBYism


11 February, 2018

By Antonio Pacheco



Read More: https://www.archdaily.com/888853/the...cipal-nimbyism

Quote:
n recent months, legislators in California have begun a concerted effort to use state law to address the state’s ongoing housing crisis. The moves come amid worsening regional inequality that has pushed housing affordability outside the reach of many populations. Facing mounting pressure from a growing cohort of pro-housing YIMBY activists and increasingly grim economic and social impacts—including a sharp increase in the number of rent-burdened households and the number of individuals and families experiencing homelessness—state-level legislators have begun to take action where municipal leaders have thus far stopped short.

- Late last year, the California State Legislature approved a bundle of housing-focused bills in what amounted to the first key win for state-led housing reform efforts. The legislature passed a total of seven bills aimed at streamlining permitting, enforcing regional housing production benchmarks, and preventing municipalities from down-zoning parcels or rejecting by-right projects. Several of the bills also aimed to stimulate new housing spending for affordable units, including a measure that will allow for a low-income housing-focused $3 billion bond to go onto the November 2018 statewide ballot and a measure that institutes a modest levy on certain real estate transactions in the state in order to raise up to $250 million each year for low income housing construction. The two combined measures could make over $8 billion in new funding available for affordable housing production over the next decade.

- These bills followed the adoption in late 2016 of a streamlined Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance that legalizes backyard homes across the state while also providing minimum zoning standards for ADUs that homeowners and developers can follow when local rules do not exist. The shift has led to a surge in ADU applications across California’s big and small cities alike, as homeowners move to build new ADUs while also legalizing existing bootlegged units. In a blow to NIMBY activists, the move also essentially doubled the residential density of the state’s single-family zoned lots overnight, with the added benefit that ADUs developed in certain areas—historic districts, ½-mile from transit—could be built without added parking.

- A recent report from the University of California, Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation concluded that “ADUs are poised to play a significant role in alleviating California’s housing crisis and state, regional, and local leaders should continue to examine ways in which barriers to this type of development can be removed.” The report cited an explosion in building permits for ADUs following their legalization, with 1,980 units pending in Los Angeles for 2017 compared with just 90 the year prior. Efforts are currently underway to continue to streamline ADU development at the state level. Hopes of using state law to right California’s housing market were boosted further this year by the introduction of SB 827, a transformative new state law that would, among other things, override local planning code to raise height limits and boost density while abolishing parking requirements for lots located near mass transit.

- Specifically, for properties located within ¼ mile of a transit corridor or one block from a major transit stop, the bill would disallow height limits lower than 85 feet, except for when a particular parcel fronts a street 45 feet or less in width, in which case the minimum height limit would drop to 55 feet. The bill would also forbid height limits below 55 feet for all areas ½ mile from transit routes. The law, if passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, would also forbid the imposition of minimum parking requirements for parcels within a ½-mile radius of a transit stop or within a ¼-mile radius from a transit corridor. One of the bill’s strengths is that these provisions lump high-performing bus routes in with light and heavy rail infrastructure, making their potential effects across the state quite vast, as many of its major cities have extensive bus networks.

- Another potential benefit from the bill would be the dramatic increase in the number of new sites where deed-restricted affordable housing units could potentially be built if SB 827 and the affordable housing bond pass later this year, according to Brian Hanlon of California YIMBY. SB 827 would permit nonprofit developers to build affordable housing in many so-called “high-opportunity” areas throughout the state that currently prohibit dense development. The bill would also dramatically expand the production of deed-restricted affordable housing in cities with inclusionary zoning policies, since building market-rate homes also requires providing homes for low-income Californians, Hanlon explained. These changes could make deed-restricted affordable housing an additional major force in resolving the crisis by incentivizing—rather than requiring—inclusionary development along transit routes.

.....
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2018, 5:25 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
There is some discussion of this, beginning with post 8966, in thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...24868&page=451

The law in question was proposed and being pushed by San Francisco's Sen. Scott Wiener who believes it would cover most of the city (where there is a transit stop every 2 blocks in most nieghborhoods).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2018, 8:25 PM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,571
It's about time.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 12:43 AM
mSeattle's Avatar
mSeattle mSeattle is offline
Socialism 4 Extreme Rich?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,073
LOVE this! This is absolutely massive news. I hope that every bit of this goes through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 5:20 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,687
Really only the state has the power to force this issue. NIMBY backlash in California is formidable, but only at the local level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 5:46 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
I'm honestly wondering how the state legislature even has the political cover to do this.

I guess they're figuring that NIMBYism is mostly a low-intensity thing for most people, with only a small handful of people in each town who feel strongly enough about the issue to affect their vote. The state government touches on a lot of important issues and voters are considering those things at the polls, while zoning/growth issues are front and center for most local politicians.

I wish we had similar bills in Illinois. Chicago is producing tons of housing, but simply legalizing ADUs (granny flats) would go a long way towards adding much-needed housing in the walkable, transit-accessible parts of the suburbs.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 4:05 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
It seems almost too easy. Will it work? Won't CEQA still delay everything at excessive costs where affordable housing may not be feasible?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 4:13 PM
pdxstreetcar's Avatar
pdxstreetcar pdxstreetcar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,300
I just hope it doesnt shift the battle lines to transit... i.e. opposition to increased service, existing service, new rail lines. Its hard enough getting transit built as is. Now NIMBYs will even more view transit improvements as a trojan horse?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 4:18 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Nimbys aren't fighting Seattle's transit increases, like added bus frequency. That's despite stuff like parking requirements being fairly directly tied to bus frequency.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 4:24 PM
coyotetrickster's Avatar
coyotetrickster coyotetrickster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
It seems almost too easy. Will it work? Won't CEQA still delay everything at excessive costs where affordable housing may not be feasible?
My understanding of the legislation is it is applies to zoning. If the project is approved, it already has to have an EIR per CEQA. CEQA gets invoked when zoning exemptions are requested.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 5:49 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Here is a link to the actual transit density bill: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201720180SB827
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2018, 3:07 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Quote:
Facing mounting pressure from a growing cohort of pro-housing YIMBY activists and increasingly grim economic and social impacts—including a sharp increase in the number of rent-burdened households and the number of individuals and families experiencing homelessness—state-level legislators have begun to take action where municipal leaders have thus far stopped short.
About time. This museum mentality has to go. Build housing and provide affordable units along with decreasing the overall price of units (via the extra supply). The cities are limited by the museum mentality. Time to jam construction down the throats of municipality NIMBYS.

And yes, grim and social impacts it does have, sticking with the anti-construction mentality that is.

With such demand, its time to provide the supply.

When you turn certain metros into un-affordable basket cases, people leave for other states or cheaper region. This is bad for the local/regional economy. Why should California have such economic leakage and drive business/residents away.

Quote:
These changes could make deed-restricted affordable housing an additional major force in resolving the crisis by incentivizing—rather than requiring
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2018, 4:43 AM
jpdivola jpdivola is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I'm honestly wondering how the state legislature even has the political cover to do this.
Yeah, I support this bill. But, I do hope the political elites in CA make an effort to sell the bill and don't just try to ram it through. In addition to getting through both houses of the legislature and signed by the governor, the bill will still have to withstand an avalanche of lawsuits.

Assuming it survives all that, the bill will almost certainly have to contend with a ballot initiative and efforts by NIMBY local municipalities to enact de facto zoning ( impact fees on new development, open space/historic preservation efforts, etc) restrictions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 4:07 PM
Qubert Qubert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 506
This law is what needs to happen in all big cities. Zoning needs to be under mayoral control in big cities and under at minimum county control in suburbs/rural areas. Letting city councils/community boards control zoning virtually guarantees that we'll never address the housing issue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 6:12 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I'm honestly wondering how the state legislature even has the political cover to do this.

I guess they're figuring that NIMBYism is mostly a low-intensity thing for most people
Scott Wiener, the state Senator whose bill this is, is gay and represents San Francisco. Formerly, he was a city supervisor representing the Castro District. He is somewhare unusual being, though a Democrat, a relatively conservative (for SF) Democrat. Recall that the Castro, though an iconic gay neighborhood, consists these days of multi-million $ renovated Victorian homes.

Anyway, as a centrist gay Democrat from SF, he has a lot of political cover on other grounds. We'll see whether he has enough. There is indeed a lot of screaming about this on the far left in SF (here, to be pro-development is seen as to be pro-developER which means pro-business, pro-monied elite etc etc) and Wiener may well have leftward primary opposition on a host of issues when he runs for re-election. The hope, though, is that San Francisco politics is being changed by the influx of well-aid, non-native techies displacing (and out-voting) some of the more radical elements. "Progressive" politics still holds sway in neighborhoods like the Tenderloin and Haight, but Wiener, as a state senator, now runs city-wide.

Meanwhile, the state legislature as a whole is not so left-leaning as outsiders may think. Though perpetually controlled by Democrats these days, a lot of those Democrats are from Southern CA including SoCal suburbs where there is considerable hostility to downtowners and their issues. There is a long list of issues the state legislature has passed that run counter to downtown politics. The best known and most upsetting to San Francisco "Progressives" may be the "Ellis Act" which allows a landlord who desires to get out of the business of rental housing to evict all his tenants and put the property to a different use. In a city where tenants have sacred rights, this is seen as the ultimate landlord option. And, while the city has passed measures forbidding conversion to condos and sale of the property as such being one of the uses to which the landlord may put the property, people get away with a lot after "Ellising" their tenants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:50 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.