Special to the Vanguard
Sacramento, CA – Another major union, the District Council of Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ of Northern California, released a letter this week endorsing SB 423, Senator Scott Wiener’s legislation to extend SB 35 (2017), one of the state’s most successful tools for accelerating development of affordable housing. They join a large and growing chorus of union support for the bill, which together represent the majority of the state’s unionized residential construction 
workers.
The new announcement also follows Attorney General Bonta’s declaration earlier this week that SB 35 should be extended, made at a press conference Monday announcing a lawsuit against the city of Elk Grove for allegedly violating SB 35. “From where I stand,” Bonta said of SB 35, “it should be renewed.”
SB 35’s streamlined approvals have proved to be enormously successful at increasing affordable housing production in communities failing to keep pace with their housing goals—helping develop over 13,000 units of affordable housing and tens of thousands of high-wage jobs in the four years since it went into effect. With the law sunsetting at the end of 2025, Sen. Wiener’s new bill, SB 423, would extend its provisions—and add strong new labor standards signed into law last year by Governor Newsom that will ensure it continues to produce both affordable housing and stable, high-wage jobs for California workers.
“The growing chorus of support from California workers and housing leaders for extending SB 35 is a recognition that we cannot allow this critical affordable housing tool to lapse,” said Senator Wiener. “Our state has committed to building 2.5 million homes in the next 8 years, and the only way to do that is by partnering with workers. SB 423 will extend wage and healthcare protections to hundreds of thousands of construction workers that currently lack them, helping to build and retain the workforce we need to tackle our housing crisis.”
SB 423 is sponsored by the California Housing Consortium, California Conference of Carpenters, the Inner City Law Center, the Local Initiative Support Corporation, and California YIMBY.
I once again announce my complete support as a proud YIMBY for this crucial bill. I am tired of reading comments by Ron and Keith that say “to follow the money.” In response I saw “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” We all have the highly partisan and ethically flawed Republican SCOTUS to thank for keeping money in politics by claiming among other things that corporations are actually people and have most of the rights thereof. As far as I am concerned, the construction of more housing and in particular more affordable housing is a social justice issue that must be addressed in California and other states as well.
It’s head scratching what comments are allowed and not allowed on the Vanguard.
Your comment was not relevant to the topic and was also argumentative. So it wasn’t allowed. We’ve explained this to you before.
And Shwe’s comment is not argumentative?
His comment was multiple sentences and overall was relevant to the topic. Yours was not. We’ve explained this to you before.
I don’t believe I was being argumentative.
In my mind I was just attempting to pre-empt Ron and Keith. They have shown a clear pattern on this topic in the past. I know what’s coming. BTW rarely do I complain about the moderator and almost always abide by their decisions. I see both Ron, Keith and others’ snarky complaints about this site and sometimes even individuals like me on the Davisite. 🙂
Is anyone here defending the SCOTUS decision?
And if not, why are you implying that “follow the money” doesn’t apply here, as well?
You’re the one who brought it up in the first place.
Personally, I’m glad that the unions are becoming involved – as this makes it even less-likely that much will get built (as it will drive up the construction costs). (Which is the OPPOSITE of what you claim to support.)
Your comment is head-scratching, indeed. We both seem to be supporting the same thing (in both cases), but for opposite reasons.
But honestly, where is the council on this issue (e.g., making SB 35 permanent)? THAT is the question that should be asked. Do they disagree with the League of California Cities regarding this?
Given the fact that the council-submitted plan has already been rejected by the state, that they’d at least be registering the same concerns as the League of California Cities.