The state of California is mired in a housing crisis. All involved seem to understand the need to put forward new policies to make it possible to build the housing necessary – and yet one of the most high-profile and aggressive approaches has failed two years in a row, and is now on life support in the State Senate.
SB 50 yesterday failed on an 18-15 vote. But the bill is not quite dead. Six senators did not vote on the bill and the Senate has agreed to consider the bill an additional time.
“The bill fell three votes short today,” Senator Wiener told the media yesterday. “We’re going to do everything in our power to pass SB 50 tomorrow.”
The proposal, which has been amended this year in order to gain formerly skeptical votes, would prioritize housing around transit and jobs-rich areas. Part of the controversy is it would require cities to change their zoning for higher density, multi-family homes like duplexes and four-plexes rather than single-family homes, and it hammers cities and local government that have put regulations and other barriers in the way of new construction.
One of his changes to address concerns raised by critics would give governments two years to create their own construction targets. But it would still require them to plan for additional housing.
In his comments on the Senate floor, he said that local zoning has created a system that has “de-prioritized housing.
“You can have the most streamlined process in the world and enormous funding for affordable housing, but if the zoning says you’re not allowed to build something, that’s the end of the process,” 
Senator Wiener said. “We’ve prioritized the way a neighborhood looks, that views are more important than who is actually able to live in a neighborhood.”
The problem still appears to be getting Los Angeles-area legislators to get on board.
An editorial in the Chronicle asked whether legislators will “have the courage to do something about” the housing crisis.
The editorial noted that Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins gave the measure a chance by getting it to floor, after Appropriation Chair Anthony Portantino, an LA area Democrat, attempted to kill it again.
The editorial notes: “Portantino represents the sort of affluent, exclusively zoned neighborhoods that drive the housing shortage by blocking development — and which loathe SB50 for its capacity to prevent them from doing so.
“Such impulses have ruled not just the suburbs but the state for too long. The Legislature has not passed a significant bill to boost housing production since 2017. Meanwhile, California has fewer homes per capita than nearly every other state, its housing production continues to slump and the recent growth of its homeless population accounts for more than the entire national increase.”
Governor Newsom has been supportive of the effort and he told reporters yesterday that, even if SB 50 failed, “we are not giving up” and noted that he expects to see “something big done on production this year.”
What that is exactly, he’s not saying.
“I want to see a big production bump. The spirit of SB 50 is something I support,” he said. “We continue to work with leadership, different constituencies and we’re hoping to get something big done.”
The key to whether this bill can pass will be LA-area legislators.
Some are concerned that is not sufficient protection against gentrification. Others are concerned that the bill would remove incentives for affordable housing. And of course many are worried that the bill would override local land use protections.
Senator Holly Mitchell, who represents South Los Angeles, said, “Housing policy has been plagued by racist historic policies. The intersection of race and class has a major impact on housing policy in the state and we can’t deny that or oversimplify our conversation about ‘we need housing.’”
Last week the bill managed to get the support of the United Farm Workers for instance, and a letter from Esperanza Ross said, “Too many California farm workers suffer from horrible and inadequate housing conditions built on a farm worker housing system created in the beginning of the last century.”
On the other hand, Alliance for Community Transit LA wrote in an article that “the reality is that as this bill moves to the Senate floor we have not yet seen a commitment to the amendments necessary to adequately strengthen the bill’s affordable housing provisions.”
Specifically, they worry “in its current form, the bill does not significantly protect communities most at risk of gentrification and displacement.”
Along those lines, Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, who represents San Diego, told the Bee this week that in general she supports the policy, but disagrees with the two-year implementation buffer.
“People are still upset and nothing is getting done,” Assemblymember Gonzalez said. “It makes me a little nervous.”
Given the January 31 deadline to pass the Senate, it seems unlikely that Senator Wiener can significantly amend the bill further to address these concerns.
Meanwhile, the state remains in a precarious position – they need to do something, something major, and they seem to lack the ingenuity to do it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Stick a fork in it – it’s done:
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/01/30/bill-to-overhaul-california-zoning-fails-in-senate-vote-is-dead-for-the-year-2/
Yes it is.
Not sure it would have had much impact on Davis, anyway. I read somewhere else that it mostly would have impacted cities larger than Davis.
I believe that state senator Dodd voted against it, as well. So, thank you for that.
Perhaps 40 million people in California is “enough”.
The next step would be to discourage the creation of more jobs than a given community actually needs. That’s what is creating the so-called “housing crisis”.
Sounds parochial, insular to me. Guess you have never read Donne… the “community” goes far beyond city corporate boundaries… county boundaries, state boundaries, etc., etc., etc. At least in my view.
Also, does not bode well for a growing economy, with so many “boomers” retired, or about to.
But, go with your bias.
You have a legitimate point, regarding “boundaries” of a given community.
One way to measure whether or not a given city has an “excess” number of jobs is to compare the number of inbound, vs. outbound commuters.
You seem to be implying that a given economy must continue to grow, indefinitely. And, that a “growing” economy means an ever-increasing number of jobs. That’s a recipe for housing shortages (and ever-worsening environmental problems), in a finite space.
Perhaps speaks to your “bias”, better than mine.
Do I understand you correctly?
No new jobs, no new opportunities, no additional people, no new businesses, no new anything… is that the goal? Is that “nirvana”?
Is “stasis” the goal?
Help me understand…
Not what I said.
But, are you suggesting that a given economy must grow, indefinitely? And, that a growing economy means an ever-increasing number of jobs?
Do I understand you correctly, regarding your support for the artificial creation of never-ending “housing shortages” (and/or sprawl)?
Gee, and here I thought that the creation of housing shortages was the allegation continuously made against slow-growthers. Turns out that’s a lie (but I already knew that).
Perhaps this could also be “explained”:
Are you suggesting that younger workers have some kind of “responsibility” to those who retired with overly-generous pensions? (In addition to paying off the resulting unfunded liabilities?)
While simultaneously facing their own reduced (future) retirement opportunities (e.g., the elimination of pensions, a social security system that’s going broke, an unstable stock market), unprecedented student debt, wages falling behind the cost of living, reduced value of a college degree, etc.?
Seems like a lot to ask of young people – most of whom don’t have time to spend on a blog.
Although this endorsement was essentially the centerpiece of a recent Vanguard article, I’m still wondering how the bill addressed “farmworker housing” in any way, shape or form. And, assuming that it did not, what the underlying reason was for that particular endorsement.
You think that farm workers only live on farms?
Did I say that, or did you?
And, how did that comment address my question?
If you don’t believe that farm workers only live on a farm, what was the purpose of this point? “ I’m still wondering how the bill addressed “farmworker housing” in any way, shape or form.”
Faulty logic, in your assumption.
I do, however, “believe” that farmworkers live in areas where there’s farms. (Which for the most part, would not have been impacted by SB 50.)
I also “believe” that farmworkers are among those who experience the most challenges regarding market-rate housing, which was (also) the primary focus of SB 50.
So again, I’m wondering what the reason was for that particular endorsement.
There are farm workers who live in Davis. There are plenty of farm workers impacted by this.
I’m not entirely sure of the impact it would have had in Davis, either.
Seems strange that farmworkers would purposefully live in the most expensive city within the region, when their work is focused outside of the city. (Assuming that they’re living in market-rate housing, which you haven’t addressed.)
Davis is on a transit line. It would be impacted.
In regard to my reference regarding “region”, I’m only referring to nearby areas which are definitely cheaper than Davis – such as West Sacramento, Woodland, Dixon, etc.) Again, it’s difficult to believe that most farmworkers would purposefully seek market-rate housing in Davis.
Regarding the impact to Davis, I understood that it primarily impacted larger cities (e.g., population more than 100,000). I could probably find that reference, if needed.
There was an aspect to it which was referred to (somewhat derisively) as the “Marin county exemption”. (I believe that the senator from that area ended up supporting the bill, presumably as a result.) Not sure if that “partial exemption” applied to Yolo county, as well.
But again, do you have any thoughts regarding the reason for the United Farm Worker’s endorsement, since it obviously didn’t address farmworker housing?
Or, is the “working theory” that forcing more market-rate highrises into the Bay Area will supposedly help farmworkers?
My explanation is that they disagree with you and believe it would help crate housing for their members.
Maybe so. Perhaps a “provision” that I didn’t notice in the bill. 😉
Perhaps any extra ones that aren’t needed for harvesting on a given day?
Personally, I wouldn’t count that as suitable housing.
But you know, it isn’t too far off from what’s supplied for urban dwellers in Hong Kong, these days. That’s what density ultimately results in – even for “middle-class” workers. San Francisco is heading toward this type of thing, as well.
Also represents an increasing divide between the wealthy, vs. workers.
The really ironic thing is when workers start believing that wealthy development interests are on their side.
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/05/the-coffin-homes-of-hong-kong/526881/
Please share your definitions of the terms… there are “workers” who earn mid-high 6 figures. There are some who are considered “wealthy” who have less than 6-figure earnings…
Your ‘construct’ is vague… are you willing to define the terms that you use as an ‘argument’?
As an example (In the simplest local terms), the people who own large apartment complexes (and peripheral sites that have been proposed for development) are generally “wealthy”, while the tenants who live in those complexes (or potential housing) are not.
On a broader level, do you recognize a “difference” between Mark Zuckerberg, vs. an average Uber driver? Or, are you requesting something more specific than that?
Technically correct response (with a question), and totally lacking in substance… figures… SOP
So, based on that,
has no meaning at all, and undermines all your other arguments in that post. In my opinion.
Your question is kinda like comparing … well, it is an insipid question…
Neither you nor I are uber drivers… and I, frankly, (although I’m not) don’t think you give much consideration to the homeless, uber drivers, etc.
So, are you asking me if I see a difference between the third deviations from the norm, on either side? Sure.
But that has nothing to do with the topic, and was it was silly question… you have still not answered my question.
By extension (and using your own definition), your initial question to me (to which I’ve responded) is also “off-topic” and “silly”.
In addition, one of the quotes you cited is not in the comment that you’re responding to, thereby further removing it from context.
As usual, it seems that you’re not interested in actual discussions (with me, at least). I realized that a long time ago.
Your conclusions regarding how I view Uber drivers and the homeless are baseless and completely without merit), and are bordering on a personal attack. To quote you, it’s S.O.P for you, as usual.