By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Oakland, CA – As California is in the midst of a “housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions,” back in September the AIDS Healthcare Foundation filed a lawsuit alleging that SB 10 is unconstitutional. The City of Redondo Beach later joined the lawsuit.
On Friday, AG Rob Bonta filed a brief in defense of Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), which allows local governments to rezone certain neighborhoods for denser housing, irrespective of local restrictions.
SB 10 was part of a package of bills passed by the legislature last year to alleviate California’s housing crisis. Following its passage, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court, arguing that the law is unconstitutional.
In this case, the petitioners contend SB 10 unconstitutionally “impinges on the local initiative power,” but Bonta’s filing argues the “Court should deny the petition for multiple reasons.
“As California families continue to struggle with the sky-high cost of housing, tackling our state’s housing crisis is a top priority,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Laws like SB 10 are critical to address California’s housing shortage and affordability crisis. We believe this law is constitutional, and we will continue to vigorously defend it in court.”
The legislature found, “California is in the midst of a housing crisis.”
Moreover, “Only 27% of households can afford to purchase the median priced single-family home [and] “[o]ver half of renters, and 80% of low-income renters, are rent-burdened, meaning they pay over 30% of their income towards rent. At last count, there were over 160,000 homeless Californians.
“A major cause of our housing crisis is the mismatch between the supply and demand for housing,” the legislature found. The mismatch between supply and demand 
“involves not just the amount of housing, but the type of housing being built. In recent decades, almost all of the housing built in California was large single-family development (which can be an inefficient use of land) and mid- and high-rise construction (which are expensive to build).”
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, California will need an estimated 1.8 million new homes by 2025 in order to meet housing demand. Yet on average only 80,000 new homes are built in California each year. Infill development—the development of vacant or underutilized plots in existing urban areas—is critical for local governments to address the housing crisis and meet state housing goals.
But as local governments look to increase the housing supply in their areas, many have found themselves hampered by state and local laws limiting rezoning in certain areas. SB 10 makes it easier for local governments to zone for infill development, specifically, smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units, if they choose.
In their brief, Bonta argues, “Petitioners’ claims are not ripe. Petitioners do not identify any local initiative that has been overridden under the auspices of SB 10. Instead, Petitioners assert only that some hypothetical city or county might enact a local law utilizing the provisions of SB 10, which might in turn contradict some local initiative, which might in turn unconstitutionally restrict those local voters’ initiative power.”
The brief continues, “Without any concrete facts to support Petitioners’ facial challenge, this Court is being asked to issue an advisory opinion about the hypothetical future operation of a law. There is no reason to decide Petitioner’s constitutional claim in a vacuum; any future actions under SB 10 that Petitioners believe to be unconstitutional can and should be evaluated in context.”
Second, even if the court were to be able to reach the merits of this case, Bonta argues that the claims fail.
“Petitioners’ opening brief engages in a detailed analysis of the initiative power, but puzzlingly omits any substantive discussion of the actual issue in this case—whether the Legislature can preempt local ordinances,” Bonta argues.
However, “It can, as courts have repeatedly held. Numerous cases hold that the Legislature can restrict, and even withdraw, the local initiative power to address matters of statewide concern. That is precisely what the Legislature expressly indicated its intent to do with SB 10, by allowing local governments to override local restrictions imposed by local initiative to zone for denser housing in transit-rich areas and urban infill sites.”
Instead, the AG argues, “SB 10 is a valid exercise of the Legislature’s power to preempt contradictory local laws. Here, SB 10’s grant of authority to local governments preempts any contradictory local ordinance limiting such authority, including those enacted by voter initiative.”
They add, “Petitioners may disagree with the Legislature’s policy decision to permit local governments to enact denser housing projects, but that policy is consistent with the California Constitution and decades of precedent.”
This is going to get much worse as currently the average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage has popped to 5.12% and that’s before the Federal Reserve has even really started their hawkish interests rate hikes. So far they have only hiked rates a quarter of a percent but much steeper hikes are coming in order to try and tame inflation. A recession is coming, both economic and housing, thanks in large part to the Biden administration’s policies.
Meanwhile, some cities are fighting back:
Except from the letter from the city of Pasadena to Bonta:
https://www.cityofpasadena.net/city-manager/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/Pasadena-Mayor-and-City-Response-to-AG-Bonta.pdf?v=1649347974928
https://www.marinij.com/2022/04/12/marin-planning-board-urges-tough-line-on-housing-mandate/
And despite what state officials are trying to force upon cities, the state’s population is no longer growing in the first place. How does the state’s efforts make sense, in light of this?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/californias-shrinking-population-has-big-impacts/ar-AAW3N5T?li=BBnbfcL
Here’s one more:
https://patch.com/california/shermanoaks/southland-cities-sue-block-controversial-housing-density-law
Also, in reference to Keith’s first comment, watch how fast “housing demand” drops going forward. The housing market is now (finally) acknowledged to be in a bubble, which is a primary reason that the government is raising interest rates.
What does housing density universal basic income and forgiving student debt all have in common?
Socialism ?
If the socialist party AKA Democrat party really wants to work on something work on the water issues how about we focus on building more dams that way when you put all these people in high density housing in urban centers and the socialist party takes away all her gas guzzling cars you can at least give them something to drink?
This is just one person tumble opinion
You really like to talk about things you have no clue about.
Want to know why we have a housing crisis? Everyone wants to stop housing. See above.
“A major cause of our housing crisis is the mismatch between the supply and demand for housing,” the legislature found.
At least the democratic dominated legislature understands basic economics.
Yet the cities keep fighting this stuff and they are cheered on by local denizens.
Meanwhile, not a peep from the housing activists (or their politician friends) regarding the actual cause of the “housing crisis”:
https://48hills.org/2017/11/housing-crisis-caused-much-growth/
And locally – there’s the DiSC proposal, which will create demand for 1,269 housing units (beyond the 460 units planned onsite, on prime farmland).
LOL. That’s just crap. The demand side is that people need housing. The reason that’s an issue is that there isn’t enough. You’re just obfuscating.
That’s just crap. The demand side is that people need housing. The reason that’s an issue is that there isn’t enough
If you can’t afford a house then move somewhere where housing is more affordable. As people move away to different locations and the demand subsides the price of a house would come down and if it doesn’t oh well. Doubling down on housing density only does one thing. It emboldens the control freaks.
Just one person’s humble opinion.
You mean like to Davis from San Francisco?
Like Zamora from Davis.
No I was thinking more along the lines of Homer Louisiana or maybe Avery island
My perfect place to live would be somewhere where they feed liberals to alligators
I suggest you stop posting about violence.
If I was a young person starting out today, I’d consider Raleigh, North Carolina (after watching this video, the other day):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llbsG_c3dOA
Though I personally prefer the mountainous West. (Which is a primary reason why I’m not all that fond of the Sacramento valley area – or anywhere in the central valley. Well that, plus the heat.)
In looking at topography maps, it appears that the entire California central valley is the one place in the West that’s essentially Kansas. Though at least the mountains are in sight, most of the time.
I believe that the official slogan of the entire area is, “at least we’re kind of near some nice places”. Alternatively, “we may be in a floodplain, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t simultaneously experience droughts”.
I know sarcasm doesn’t transmit well in text, but this one was so obvious that only the most obtuse would have missed it thank you for not deleting the post ?
In all seriousness, this seems like a good deal to me. Especially considering what it sold for, a few years ago (and with the amenities remaining). One of the news stories I just happened across. Previously owned by a geologist, who attended graduate school at UCLA.
An early adopter/leader in solar energy, to boot. I like the look of the town, and even its surroundings are interesting at least.
Buy yourself an entire town in the California desert, asking $2.7 million (but apparently willing to negotiate). With a hotel, etc. – not far from Las Vegas:
Millenials, pool your cash?
https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/tiny-mojave-desert-town-of-nipton-back-on-the-market/
O.K., last one of these that I’ll post for the day. (I suspect that an algorithm “feeds” these articles to me).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/something-had-really-been-missing-from-my-life-why-i-ditched-san-francisco-for-savannah-where-the-median-home-costs-just-285-000/ar-AAWhyRN?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=67acc21c43d648938301567111504567