By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Sacramento, CA – In our cynical times, it is easy to forget that the legislative session just ended last Saturday. Had Governor Newsom signed a package of legislation before the election, it would have had to have been Monday or Tuesday and probably would not have impacted the outcome one iota.
It is not like the voters did not know that the governor was prioritizing housing—and so it is not surprising that, once the dust settled, the housing packages were among the first bills he signed.
While I am supportive of both SB 9 and SB 10, I am not a believer that these are going to be game changers. One of our readers suggested that SB 9 and SB 10’s signage means that we can forget the need for peripheral housing—while I actually would prefer that to be true, I don’t think it is.
Both measures are, in fact, supposed to make it easier to go dense, to go high without sprawl. We have seen extensive analysis of the impact of SB 9, but let’s look closely at SB 10.
Authored by Senator Scott Wiener, “SB 10 creates a streamlined process for cities to zone for missing middle multi-unit housing in a streamlined manner, without having to go through often-years-long 
environmental reviews.”
“California’s severe housing shortage is badly damaging our state, and we need many approaches to tackle it. SB 10 provides one important approach: making it dramatically easier and faster for cities to zone for more housing,” Senator Wiener said in a statement on Thursday. “It shouldn’t take 5 or 10 years for cities to re-zone, and SB 10 gives cities a powerful new tool to get the job done quickly. I want to thank the Governor for signing this essential bill and for continuing to lead on housing.”
SB 10 allows cities to “upzone non-sprawl areas” (areas that are close to transit or in existing urbanized locations, thus reducing vehicle usage and long commutes) for up to ten unit buildings, without having to go through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Cities will also be able to designate these projects as by right, meaning they can be approved ministerially and without a lengthy approval process. By allowing cities to choose to zone for up to 10 units per parcel, SB 10 makes it possible for cities to build significantly more housing in a way that makes sense within their local context.
While SB 9 has attracted a lot of controversy, SB 10 has attracted considerably less contention—in part because it allows but does not require cities to zone parcels for up to 10 units if located in a “transit-rich area.”
SB 9 was studied primarily by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, which argued that, while the bill could allow owners to expand to duplexes and fourplexes, under most cases the cost of new housing plus the profit selling or renting the property (and there are owner occupancy requirements) would not be financially viable.
“But despite the concerns of some of its detractors, SB 9 will not lead to the overnight transformation of residential neighborhoods,” the report said. “Differential owner preferences and limited applicability means that only a share of that potential is likely to be developed, particularly in the near term as awareness and capacity expands.
“As such, while important, the new units unlocked by SB 9 would represent a fraction of the overall supply needed to fully address the state’s housing shortage.”
Opponents clearly saw SB 9 as a bigger threat than SB 10.
Cindy Montañez, current San Fernando City Councilmember and former Assemblymember said, “Only after stepping back does it become clear that SB 9 is not primarily written for homeowners, as Atkins says. Large investors, yes. Blackrock-like entities, yes. Rental giants, yes. Pension funds, yes.”
How much of a difference will it make in a place like Davis where infill opportunities are dwindling and peripheral projects require approval by the voters—which has only occurred twice in six projects?
From the perspective of housing advocates, looking for a way to get more housing without inducing more sprawl, I see little hope that either bill will help.
The biggest problem is not necessarily just regulation—though we have seen in Davis how much it can bottle up processes, the bigger problem appears to be construction costs. In a place like Davis where we will probably be only talking about redevelopment—particularly in the downtown—it is going to be a slow and painful process, and the only way we get projects is when they are big enough to overcome the constraints of construction costs.
I double back to what I said last month—we need a mechanism to finance both affordable housing and redevelopment, and that doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. Without that, we may have tools presented by these bills without actual material with which to work.
.
The above quote from Why We’re Polarized by Ezra Klein does a good job of describing the housing dialogue in Davis. The final paragraph of the quote appears to describe the approach the Vanguard is taking in its coverage of the housing subject.
Is it any wonder that the discussions of housing are polarized?
What is the polarization in Davis? What are the “groups” in Davis?
The answer to those questions is that there really isn’t any middle ground with respect to the housing issue in Davis. We have the pro-housing group of UCD students and their allies on one side of the polarization, and the group of slow growth city residents and their friends on the other side. Very few people are “unaffiliated” in the middle.
The Vanguard regularly argues that housing is an important issue that people should be actively talking about, but for the most part, I believe the groups of people associated with the two sides of the issue are already very well defined, and most people in Davis want to talk about other things affecting their lives rather than housing.
I have told you repeatedly that NIMBY is a pejorative and you are not to use that term.
Congratulations on reading the headline.
As is YIMBY… all are pejorative and “profiling”… two strikes… in softball, you might be ‘out’… same with BANANA… yet, they can be ‘shorthand’…
It only has to make a difference “on paper”.
But I suspect that SB 10 will make a bigger (actual) difference in Davis’ “opportunity zone”. How did that happen, anyway?
I don’t agree that voters understood the magnitude of what they voted for (regarding Newsom and the Democrats in general). They will find out, over time. (But, they still might not understand the connection by then.)
The issue of housing for partisan races is probably third order at best. It shows up as first order for local races, but not a statewide.
One of the losing candidates noted that people (ultimately) get the government they deserve.
The polls I’ve seen indicate that the YIMBY bills were not popular. I don’t believe that voters understood the ramifications of what they voted for.
It’s all an indication of the corrupt system which exists, the money involved, related media coverage, etc.
But those who can’t see through all of that ultimately get what they deserve.
Of course, the system “traps” them into particular (limited) choices in the first place.
I, for example, would likely prefer Newsom over Elder.
For me, it was never about the “person”. Nor is it about The French Laundry – except for the REASON that he thought it important to attend. Honestly, does anyone give a damn if he wore a mask, there?
Nor do I care that he lives in a sprawling, multi-acre estate, except for the fact that it conflicts with the spirit of the bills he promoted.
Nor do I care that he sent his kids to private schools, while other schools were closed down.
(Maybe it is partly about “character”, for this guy. But, not all that much.)
“The polls I’ve seen indicate that the YIMBY bills were not popular.”
The only poll I have seen is the Binder poll. That’s not a neutral poll, someone hired them to do that.
Since you’re not in agreement with the “official” assessment of the impact of the new laws. What is your assessment of them and why do you believe so?
I’m working on mine and will post it soon.
I’m still not sure what’s in the finalized version of the SB 9 bill, or if it’s actually limited to duplexes on single-family sites. Either way, I believe that it will primarily be employed in places in the Bay Area, at first.
It will be interesting to see how this impacts newly-proposed developments (e.g., proposed sprawl).
Regarding Davis, I believe that SB 10 could have a bigger impact than SB 9.
But perhaps the biggest impact is that both bills could enable any community to more-easily accommodate RHNA requirements – at least on paper. (Which is all that really matters.)
Both of these bills will raise property values, and will ultimately encourage long-time property owners (or their heirs) to sell. Neither of these bills will result in affordable (or Affordable) housing. But it seems that this was not the intent of the YIMBYs and their allies in the first place. They are largely supported by the technology industry – even more so than the building industry.
Opinion, or do you have a cite?
I’ve cited it before. Did you miss it?
Here’s the first article that popped up, just now. [edited]
https://48hills.org/2021/05/the-big-yimby-money-behind-housing-deregulation-bills/
As someone who has worked for a developer in the bay area and developed homes in the Bay Area; I can say that I do not believe SB9 it will have much impact on the Bay Area (maybe possibly in places like Gilroy and Morgan Hill…which are in Santa Clara County but separated from the rest of the Bay Area by a greenbelt…the rural land south of Almaden Valley might be too expensive to lot split for duplexes) . I’ll detail why in my post about my opinion on the impact of SB9 and SB10. Much (if not all) of what is being built in the Bay Area right now is already medium to high density housing.
There is LOTS of older, single-family housing – even in San Francisco. Take a walk around there, and you’ll see quite a bit of heavy remodeling going on – even under the current law.
I have seen entire houses removed and replaced, there. Generally of the same type (but substantially larger and of course, more modern).
I don’t know how (both) SB 9 and SB 10 will impact these type of properties, going forward.
In Davis, there’s plenty of old, ugly and small housing that could be replaced. With substantial-sized lots that would accommodate it. The (Stanley Davis?) houses come to mind, in east Davis. (Just before Mace Ranch.) Actually, housing beyond both sides of Pole Line come to mind.
But I suspect that this will be centered around the “Opportunity Zone”, first.
As I think more about this, I see a possibility that SB 9 and SB 10 could “improve” housing stock in Davis.
While also attracting wealthier people.
Davis has some of the ugliest, cheapest old (e.g, 1950’s – 1960’s) housing in the valley. And yet, it’s “valuable”.
If that housing existed anywhere else, it would likely be a high crime zone.
Am I perhaps becoming a fan of SB 9 and SB 10? Maybe.
But, there will be displacement, as old-timers cash-in over time. Similar to what’s occurred in San Francisco and much of the Bay Area, where the middle class moved-out over time (with some still remaining, since they bought a long time ago).
In other words, the type of folks who wouldn’t be able to afford their own homes, today.
I lived in San Francisco for close to a decade. Most housing is already attached housing in San Francisco. Detached housing is going to prohibitively expensive to lot split and the lots are small to begin with so it’s going to be hard to get that minimum 1,200 sqft per unit if you split them and then try to put up duplexes.
There is a SUBTANTIAL amount of single-family housing in San Francisco. Entire neighborhoods of it, as well.
I suspect that it occupies more land (in total) than any other type of housing – even in San Francisco.
I am very familiar with San Francisco – probably more so than you.
Yes, there are lots of single family homes in San Francisco. Most are not detached but yes some are. But their lot sizes are very small (with some exceptions like Forest Hill).
The minimum lot size you can get down to is 1,200 sqft which will barely give you the minimum 800 sqft unit.
I was on the site selection committee for Habitat for Humanity in San Francisco (back when it was just San Francisco and not SF, North Bay and Peninsula all in one). We used to roam all around the city looking for possible sites for affordable housing. And this was back before Habitat built multi-family housing units so we were looking for lots that could accommodate single family homes.
How does lot size interact with SB 9 and SB 10? Is there a minimum for either one?
(I don’t know the answer to that.)
It limits how many units you can have
I just listed it for SB 9
O.K. – thanks.
Aren’t most single-family lots in San Francisco double that size, at least? Thereby allowing such a split?
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/12/12/house-on-tiniest-lot-in-san-francisco-selling-for-599k/
Most single family detached lots are large enough to split into 1,200 sqft lots. But you gotta remember the economics in this. You might be able to fit a two 500 sqft units on a lot…maybe 1,000 sqft units if you go up a story…add in a garage (I think it says it requires one parking space unless…there are exceptions) so now we’re talking 3 stories. The more stories the more cost prohibitive this becomes. Larger lots, more spread out square footage…the less cost prohibitive lot splitting and building duplexes become.
Seems to me that the YIMBYs should go after height limits, next.
San Francisco can easily accommodate a lot more height in regard to the wealth of the population (and those in the technology industry whom the city is attempting to accommodate).
They were building enormous apartment buildings (and condos) decades ago, including in single-family neighborhoods.
In other words, height is not a barrier, regarding costs. The only thing preventing this are height restrictions, which seem destined to increasingly change, if cities such as San Francisco are hell-bent on ignoring their own residents.
There really does seem to be a vast disconnect between the politicians (and the interests which support them), vs. residents. And when the media is “in on this”, you get Wiener, Newsom, Atkins, and their “SBs”.
Have you seen photos of Hong Kong (and its coffin apartments)?
Why am I thinking of the movie “Soylent Green” about now?
Ron,
You’re taking this all wrong. The bill doesn’t override height restrictions unless it prevents the planning for multi-family units UP TO 10 units/acre. So you’re not going to get crazy high number of units or crazy small units because there’s a limit to the kind of project SB 10 applies to. And remember this is only for parcels ALREADY ZONED FOR MEDIUM TO HIGH RESIDENTIAL USE. Unless the ordinance interferes with building a 10 unit/acre project….the ordinance is in affect.
As to SB9 and height? Again, all local ordinances are in effect as long as they don’t prevent the construction those duplexes.
Is that “proportional” to the size of the lot? In other words, a half-acre with 5 units can override height restrictions? Or, do you need a full acre (at least) for this to apply?
I don’t know what “medium to high residential use” means, or whether or not it can be changed. I would think so, since cities can change zoning and height limits irrespective of SB 10.
At least in “one” direction. Try to change it in the “other” direction, and see how fast someone claims that it’s a “taking”.)
From what I can tell, the biggest impact of SB 10 is that it eliminates CEQA review, if a proposal is at 10 units/acre or less. (And, that would preclude any cumulative impacts, as well.) But again, I don’t see what the minimum lot size is.
In any case, I have no doubt that loopholes are being searched for right now. Probably teams of attorneys out there, somewhere.
You’re making this far more twisted and complex than it needs to be.
Sure you can go up beyond the height limitations IF the height limitations prevent you from building 5 units on half an acre. You can build out 5 units and not go over 2 stories. Heck I think you do it all on one story. If so then a 2 story or 3 story height limit or FAR will still be in effect. Half an acre is 21K sqft. You can get five 3,00o sqft lots on half an acre. If yo do attached units it’d be easy….so you wouldn’t even come close to a height limit.
Medium density residential in Davis is 6-13.9 units/gross acre
Sure they can. But they can’t change them to prevent a property already zoned for up to 10U/acre development. If they want to increase height or density….that’s up to the city and has nothing to do with SB 10. SB 10 isn’t supposed to stop cities from making any new ordinances accept ones that prevent these projects from being built.
How often does CEQA come up for URBAN INFILL projects? Like I said you’ll may only need to do a Phase I or Phase II study.
As far as I can tell there isn’t a minimum lot size. But I don’t think there’s a need for a minimum lot size to be defined? I don’t see the point.
That’s kind of like saying the sky is blue and water is wet. Any time there’s a law, someone is going to try to find an advantageous way to use it or get around it.
Here’s the type of thing that it actually “is” about, and the reason for the choices that are presented to voters (as well as the “message” regarding housing, or just about any other issue):
https://prd.cdn.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying_Directory.pdf
This list/document is 882 pages.
Ron O…
Thanks for the warning on the size of the doc. True story (yes, I looked)…
Huge difference between ‘lobbyists’ (even if not paid, add ‘activists’), and “movers and shakers”. And how they go about their efforts.
Lobbyists you can trace to their ‘funding’… most ‘activists’ are just individuals who are ‘active/vocal’… many are actually ‘lobbyists’ with links, financial or otherwise, undisclosed. Activists, are therefore more suspect, as they have no obligation to disclose their backgrounds/support groups…
I’m not sure that local activists are “movers and shakers”, either.
But yes, there’s activists who are concerned about the school system (and their personal connections to it), the fiscal health of the city (and how it may impact their own pensions, etc).
But for the most part, I don’t believe that there is sufficient “personal payoff” for activists in regard to their own efforts. It would truly be an ineffective way to make money, at least.
Quite often, activists are not driven by that, and their own positions could conflict with that assumed goal. Of course, that doesn’t stop some from speculating (incorrectly). All part of the political b.s. that revolves around this, and the reason that most people don’t become “activists”.
Lobbyists, on the other hand – are PAID to influence Sacramento. They ARE the movers and shakers.
Who do you think Newsom was meeting with at The French Laundry?
I believe SB 9 will not have as great an impact on existing homes to the degree that alarmists have stated. SB 10 mostly just allows what cities have wanted to already which is grant bonus densities to transit oriented areas.
SB 9 makes it difficult to effect existing rental homes.
It can not effect homes that are designated as affordable housing
or are under Rent Control.
An existing home can not be effected more than 25% (basically one wall) IF A TENANT HAS BEEN LIVING IN THE EXISTING HOME FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS.
So think about this: If you have a house you’ve been renting out; you likely can’t just knockdown a wall and simply put an attached unit…most homes are fairly centered onto their lots. You’d have to wait for 3 years before you can knock it down to do a lot split and build duplexes. That’s 3 years without rental income. That’s cost prohibitive to lot split rental property and there’s no way you can split the lot and put up two duplexes with existing tenants.
Now if you inherit a property it’s obviously not as cost prohibitive. But you still need to be fairly well funded to pull off a lot split. Think about it…here in Davis if you inherit a house that you can easily and immediately rent out for $3,000 a month is it worth going a few months or more without rent, taking on the costs of demolition and then construction? So you’d end up with a duplex with each unit renting out for $2,200 or 4 units at $1,700 each? I mean sure if you can afford it, do it. But it’s fairly cost prohibitive to start. If I had to take a very general guesstimate, I’d say you’d have to take on about $1.6-$2M in construction costs/loans.
Where you will see an impact is on some new housing developments. Home builders are always trying to figure out a way to get more units per acre in a project. However a property owner and “no person acting in concert” may use SB 9 to do a lot split and build duplexes to any adjoining property in which they’ve already done so. But I can see some builders (mostly smaller and medium sized ones) using SB 9. Most builders sell lots to home buyers and then build their home. I can see them offering to build homebuyers a duplex on certain properties in their project (the ones not adjacent the builder’s other lots in their project) for a fee (or bonus lot…so to speak) after they’ve bought the lot.
I think you’ll see SB 9 used on more rural areas; on the edges of cities and unincorporated residential clusters with inexpensive older homes on quarter and half acre lots.
Meant as a friendly note: check the word “effect” vs. word “affect” (both are nouns, both are verbs)… but got your intent… and agree @ a ninety % level, as to the comment.
Words are important.
You, or your heirs can sell it to a developer.
Seems to me that a lot of houses in Davis would qualify, in regard to the bolded text. That’s R-4 zoning.
But again, a deep dive would be needed (far beyond the advocacy and/or downplaying of a Vanguard article) to see exactly what SB 9 and SB 10 would allow, and what will realistically occur.
Certainly, it’s not “nothing”. Otherwise, the deep-pocketed interests behind this wouldn’t have pushed so hard for it. They ALWAYS know what they’re doing, more than a blogger (or those who participate on blogs) know (or what they present, at least).
“Certainly, it’s not “nothing”. Otherwise, the deep-pocketed interests behind this wouldn’t have pushed so hard for it. They ALWAYS know what they’re doing, more than a blogger (or those who participate on blogs) know (or what they present, at least).”
They could be wrong. It’s easy to put down the Vanguard for you, but you ignore that the basis for the opinion is an actual study which did do a deep dive. So perhaps instead of personalizing this, you could simply argue yay or nay.
You could include a link to what you’re referring to, as I did above:
We’re referring to two bills, not one.
It would be helpful to have an article which fully discusses what’s in both bills, before deciding whether or not they should be “downplayed”.
Arguing “yay” or “nay” at this point is irrelevant.
I gave you the majority of the “meat” of what’s in SB 9. I mean, I guess I could have mentioned that it excludes historical sites and a few other things. Or I could have mentioned that it can go around CEQA but we’re talking infill and one lot…so it’s likely not much of a big deal. The text of the bill isn’t that long (the text is blown up huge).
SB 10
It’s not exactly that radical. As I said most cities are already trying to promote transit oriented infill projects. Basically this bill prevents cities from zoning multi-family housing (thus meeting the housing element requirements) and then having ordinances that make building the multi-family housing prohibitive.
Thanks, but listing the contents of a bill is not necessarily complete regarding definitions, impacts, etc. I don’t expect an answer to these “off the top of my head” questions.
Can those restrictions and ordinances be changed (to either accommodate SB 10, or conversely – to inhibit it)? In other words, a council could simply change them (at least in “one” direction), right?
Seems like the answer to the question above is “yes”, to accommodate SB 10.
What is a “transit-rich area or an urban infill site as those terms are defined”?
What size parcel does this refer to? Note that it LITERALLY states “any parcel”.
Not sure what this means. Does this mean that a local government cannot accommodate SB 10 after 2029?
No CEQA review – even if a city subsequently approves “blocks” of SB 10 approvals, I assume. No cumulative impact, etc.
Is land outside of the city boundary “open space” land under this definition? Or, can a council declare that it is not? Again, what if it’s in a “transit rich” area, however that term is defined for example?
I read the whole thing (at least as well as I could before losing interest). I forgot to mention that the owner has to live in the unit for 3 years.
I’m not sure what your question is. It’s a parcel of land surrounded by infill.
The way I sort of understand it is that the bill is giving local governments some time to adjust to the enforcement or overriding of their local ordinances.
No, but we’re mostly talking about one lot here or there surrounded by infill. So it’s not likely subject to CEQA in the first place or going to have a significant impact on the environment to the degree that you need anything more than a Phase I study.
–
I’m not sure how to make this question any simpler:
Again, is there a minimum lot size for SB 10? It’s not listed in the text you cited.
That would literally be every single parcel in a city, including those which have buildings on them. Is there some reason you believe it (only) refers to undeveloped land?
Yes, it refers to every possible single family home in a city. I never said it only applied to undeveloped land. I simply said that it’s impact would be felt mostly on undeveloped land (empty infill lots) because of the economics involved.
I haven’t done as deep a dive on SB 10 as I did with SB 9 (1,200 sqft lot. 800 sqft unit). I know what it’s intention is but not the specifics. I’ll get around to it eventually and I’ll let you know if I find it.
Thanks. I’ll see if I come across anything, as well.
Although SB 9 probably impacts a larger number of properties, it seems to me that SB 10 might have a much bigger impact (and could be more “financially viable”, as well).
Of course, SB 10 is not a “requirement” for cities, unlike SB 9.
It’s not like the Davis council (for example) would approve something that its own residents don’t want. That would be “cray-cray”, as the kids might say. 🙂
Again, you show yourself as uninformed.
R-1 is NOT one SF unit/Ac.!
Std Davis zoning codes… R-1-4 = 4 SF units/Ac, R-1-6 = 6 SF units/acre, R-1-8 = 8 SF units/acre. R-2 is ‘duplex’ (2 units/lot, one ownership of lot), etc.
R-4 = 4 units per acre.
1 acre divided by 4 = 1/4 acre lots.
In reference to this:
What (exactly) are you claiming is incorrect regarding my comment?
That you are incorrect as far as codes. Simple.
Maybe in “Ron’s world”, but that are not how the real-world zoning codes are written. Simple fact.
http://qcode.us/codes/davis/ see chapter 40, zoning.
As “exact” as I can get…
How do cities label the difference between areas that are zoned (for example), 3 houses per acre, vs. 4 houses per acre?
Do they just call them (all) “R-1-4”? Or, would the properties zoned as 3 houses per acre be labeled “R-1-3”?
Regardless, a lot of properties in Davis could be subject to lot splits in reference to Keith E.’s comment.
The label is unimportant regarding this point.
“The polls I’ve seen indicate that the YIMBY bills were not popular.”
Polls like the non-partisan PPIC polls showed that Covid was the number one issue Californians cared about but the high cost of housing and homelessness also rated quite high on the list of voter concerns. So I don’t know what polls you are citing. Maybe you could name them or post a link or citation.
Sure – here’s the first one that popped-up:
Opposition increases to 71% for SB 9 and 75% for SB 10 after voters learn more about those bills.
https://www.housinghumanright.org/sb-9-10-poll-results/
It’s not a neutral poll. It’s Binder. And if you read the language, it’s actually a push poll: “Opposition increases to 71% for SB 9 and 75% for SB 10 after voters learn more about those bills.”
Do you have one which shows otherwise?
By the way, the Los Angeles city council was opposed to both. I believe this was true in other cities, as well.
https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/affordable-housing/2021/08/18/la-city-council-opposes-bills-for-multi-family-housing-in-single-family-zones
Was there even a peep from the Davis city council?
I haven’t seen any poll other than Binder which is not a neutral poll and in fact a push poll as I showed you and you didn’t refute.
I don’t know what Binder is, nor have I investigated this poll with the intention of discrediting it. I was asked for a reference, and provided it.
https://www.livablecalifornia.org/sb-9-and-sb-10-opposed-by-l-a-city-state-voters-in-a-major-poll-and-1100-people-at-a-town-hall/
My “thing” is sprawl, so I’m not as concerned about this as you might think. In fact, I believe it will help meet RHNA requirements (on paper, which is all that counts).
I believe in a housing crisis about as much as I believe that laws should be eliminated to ensure proportional representation in prison (or in regard to traffic/parking enforcement).
I do believe that there’s an “affordability” crisis (for some). And that much of this is caused by disproportionate income, which is also disproportionately “represented”.
In any case, why do you suppose the LA council was opposed to it?
https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/affordable-housing/2021/08/18/la-city-council-opposes-bills-for-multi-family-housing-in-single-family-zones
By the way, what happened to this (related) bill?
https://www.livablecalifornia.org/sb-478-would-eliminate-cities-minimum-lot-size-standards-and-mess-with-far-for-no-good-reason/
Looks like it passed the Senate (30-6) and the Assembly (56-14) pending some stuff to clean up?
Here’s a link to the actual “Binder” survey that David discounts:
https://www.housinghumanright.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DBR-0721-CA-Housing-Results-V1.pdf
The actual description is wrong as well: “California Senate Bill 9 allows up to 4 buildings and a total of 8 market-rate units to be built on lots that are currently zoned for single family housing only, with no limit on the number of parcels used for this purpose in any neighborhood.”
I mean really? No wonder they get such skewed results. They report however, the pushed polled result in their summary. The poll is not a neutral poll conduct by a media, it is a “partisan” one. Why are you defending it?
Likely because it confirms a prexisting belief.
I don’t know if this poll was conducted prior to the finalization of the bills, nor have I seen a clear conclusion regarding the number of units potentially allowed on a lot in the final bills.
I do not find the survey itself to be a “partisan” one. Have you actually looked at all of the questions, the margin of error, the background of the firm conducting the poll?
You’re actually suggesting that the media conducts “neutral” polls?
Probably any poll that aligns with his views.
Seems to me that David “looked into” this one before I did, simply because he didn’t like some of the responses.
Ron – You are ignoring that the question that they asked is at best misleading and worst a fabrication. And yet you put the blame on me, when you are the one who has cited the poll and failed to account for the questions and structure. SB 9 may well not be popular, but the Binder poll is completely flawed and not a good measure of public opinion on this matter.
Do you ever read comments before responding?
By the way, you might “like” some of the responses. It has to do with far more than those two housing bills.
The first time I saw it was when I found the link (which someone asked me for, in the first place). Seems like you investigated it beforehand.
How’s that 1,800 percent claimed “rise in hate crimes against Asians” going, in the other article? Any fact-checking regarding that?
Due to uncivil behavior, comments on this thread are closed.