By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Sacramento, CA – Early in November California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced plans to use the power of the state’s top attorney to enforce the state’s housing and development laws as a way to address the state’s housing crisis.
“California is facing a housing shortage and affordability crisis of epic proportion,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Every day, millions of Californians worry about keeping a roof over their head, and there are too many across this state who lack housing altogether.”
“California has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address its housing crisis thanks to the historic $22 billion housing and homelessness investments in this year’s budget. But it’ll only work if local governments do their part to zone and permit new housing,” said Governor Gavin Newsom.
The creation of the Housing Strike Force could be easily shrugged off as political show but it could also reflect the beginning of a new political front between the state and local governments.
The creation of the new 12 member Department of Justice task force will be aimed at more strictly enforcing pro-housing laws – which means that the state could initiate more lawsuits against local
governments that fail to meet state-imposed housing requirements.
Responding in kind was the League of California cities.
“The comments made during the attorney general’s press conference today, demonizing all cities for things they do not control, will not put roofs over the heads of Californians,” said Executive Director Carolyn Coleman.
She added, “Cities do not build homes, and for years have endured whiplash from the state’s scattershot approach to passing housing laws that are often in direct conflict with each other and counterproductive to our shared goals to increase housing supply.”
In a recent column from Dan Walters in CalMatters, he noted that the state has ordered San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors to provide “reasoning and evidence” in their decision to block an 800 unit high density housing project.
As Chris Elmendorf and Tim Duncheon point out in their latest blog post, the legislature has greatly strengthened the state’s Housing Accountability Act in recent years – a decision upheld in a major Court of Appeal decision.
However, they point out, “San Francisco evaded the HAA by using a different law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to put the downtown project on ice.”
As Walters notes, “Pro-housing groups have complained that cities often use the permitting process to stymie projects, even when they are being proposed for property zoned for housing, and recent law changes are aimed at preventing such arbitrary actions.”
Walters believes that the state pressure on local officials will likely come to a head in the coming year or so.
He writes, “Angered by passage of two new state laws that open up more land for multi-family projects, Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 10, some city officials are proposing an initiative measure that essentially would bar the state from overriding local land use laws.”
“Voters strongly oppose the new state laws that strip our ability to speak out about what is happening literally right next door to our homes,” said Bill Brand, mayor of Redondo Beach, as the organization released a poll that found strong support for the proposed ballot measure.
Walters argues, “On multiple fronts, therefore, California’s skirmishing over control of housing development is escalating into all-out political war as state officials increase pressure on local officials and they try to erect a legal wall to protect their traditional land use authority.”
Personally I don’t believe there is yet enough resources or anger on the part of voters to drive this through. It is also not clear which side has the most political energy – those worried about the cost of housing and the difficulty of finding affordable places to live near jobs and those worried about the stripping away of local authority.
This is an issue that cleaves the political left, dominant in California for the last 20 to 25 years in two. On the one hand, there are those worried that California’s housing crisis is pricing ordinary and low income residents out of communities in California, that this is leading to gentrification and that this forces people to live far from their place of work, adding to traffic and road congestion.
On the other hand, there are those worried about the environmental impacts of sprawl and density, that worry that traditional neighborhoods and quality of life will be diminished.
Will this become a strong enough issue that people will start voting on it over other issues? It is not clear yet. This is definitely a complex issue that cuts across normal ideological lines and if it continues to grow, it could lead to some realignment of political allegiances and alliances.
Yes they do.
And this too.
The pic at the top of this article doesn’t help those that want sprawl and/or denser housing.
Who wants street after street of that?
Apparently, folk in Daly City… Malvina Reynolds wrote and performed a song about it… called “Little Boxes”, as I recall… song was released in 1972…
(1) malvina reynolds – little boxes – Bing video
Listen to the lyrics…
I think I visited Daly City once… car was low on gas.
Filled up, moved on.
Spent lots of time in almost every other City/Town on the Peninsula over the years.
“And the people in the houses all go to the universityAnd they all get put in boxes, little boxes all the sameAnd there’s doctors and there’s lawyers And business executives”
Sounds like Davis.
“And the children go to summer camp and then to the university and they all get put in boxes…”
Sounds like Davis except that the children need to move away to get a house unless their doctor, lawyer and business executive parents give them money.
I prefer Malvina’s “God Bless the Grass”
God bless the grass that grows through the cracks they roll the concrete over it to try to keep it back, but the concrete gets tired of what it has to do it breaks and it buckles and the grass grows through
and god bless the grass the friend of the poor and the wild grass growing at the poor man’s door
God bless the grass
Ahhhh, Ron G…
You saw the ‘easter egg’… good job… when I saw the pic, immediately thought of Daly City…particularly as you drive by it on I-280…
Yes… Malvina could well have been writing about Davis. If she was still writing… perhaps, a bit of a prophet, whose writings are timeless, and fit many situations…
I’ll check out your other reference… from what you described, suspect I’ll like it..
Just checked… lyrics, right on… vocals not so much… her voice was weak… good referent…
I actually think her “non-traditional” voice makes this song more poignant and sharp.
It is one of those songs I’ll always remember, like Woody Guthrie’s song.
It’s usually these sort of outcasts who make the best songs and art.
You missed that by a decade – it was ’62. We used to sing it when driving into SF when I was a kid.
And in those days, they actually used real materials (e.g., wood).
Nowadays, you can’t even get ticky-tacky, especially during the supply-chain crisis.
“On the other hand, there are those worried about the environmental impacts of sprawl and density, that worry that traditional neighborhoods and quality of life will be diminished.”
You mean people like yourself. So are you ready to start voting Republican?
The interesting question is whose votes are the Republicans going to go after? Will they go for the renting poor or the indifferently housed? If they are smart they go after rich, housed people like those in Davis, because its doubtful they will get any traction with the people who think the Republicans want to deport grandma.
We may be seeing a rise in NPP’s… and/or “third parties”…
There is a ‘law’ of thermodynamics… the universe tends towards maximum entropy…
Although Republicans generally oppose increased density, they are even stronger proponents of sprawl than Democrats are.
The problem is that neither of the parties are willing to state that 40 million people might be “enough”. Nor is either party willing to oppose the business/labor interests that put them into office – which support continued pursuit of growth.
Party lines may not be as applicable regarding local elections, however. In that case, it could be either a Republican or a Democrat who is either a “friend” or “opponent” of restricted growth.
Just look at the local politicians, who are Democrats but support the state’s efforts along with proposals like DISC, Shriners, etc.
And of course, folks like Wiener are Democrats. And UCD’s “College Democrats”.
“Just look at the local politicians, who are Democrats but support the state’s efforts along with proposals like DISC, Shriners, etc.”
These are traditional Democrats who like policies that provide good paying jobs and housing.
They sound a lot like Republicans.