When Senate Bill 9 (SB9) was passed in 2021, it was heralded as a revolutionary step toward solving California’s deepening housing crisis. By allowing homeowners to split lots and build duplexes, it was expected to dismantle single-family zoning and spur the creation of much-needed housing. But three years later, the results are underwhelming. California’s suburbs remain largely unchanged, and SB9 has failed to deliver on its ambitious promises.
In a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Christian Leonard calls the law “just symbolic.”
The law’s failure is not for lack of demand. Housing shortages have driven prices to astronomical levels, making homeownership unattainable for many. If SB9 had worked as intended, it could have unlocked the potential for 700,000 new homes, according to a 2021 analysis from the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation.
Instead, as Leonard finds, cities like San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland have received only a handful of applications, while accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have outpaced SB9 projects by a wide margin.
The reality is that SB9, despite its intentions, was poorly designed for real-world implementation, Leonard argues.
One major obstacle is its requirement that lot splits must be roughly equal. Since many single-family homes sit in the center of their lots, meeting this requirement often means tearing down an existing home—an expensive and impractical prospect.
Further, the law’s owner-occupancy requirement, which UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf called a “poison pill,” discourages many potential developers. Legislators feared that removing this provision would lead to rampant real estate speculation, but in practice, it has been a “poison pill” that has rendered the law ineffective.
Local governments and homeowners associations (HOAs) have also played a significant role in stifling SB9’s impact. Many cities imposed restrictive ordinances or created additional hurdles that make duplex projects infeasible. HOAs, which govern millions of California homes, have used their authority to outright ban SB9 developments, making it nearly impossible for homeowners in these communities to take advantage of the law.
Recognizing these flaws, state lawmakers are now scrambling to fix SB9. Senator Scott Wiener’s recently introduced SB677 aiming to address key shortcomings, including eliminating the owner-occupancy requirement and limiting the power of HOAs to block SB9 projects.
“SB9 was a huge, huge step for the state of California,” Wiener said. “And now we want to make the law as good as it can be.”
While this is a step in the right direction, it remains to be seen whether these reforms will be enough to unlock SB9’s potential. The history of California’s ADU laws suggests that it may take years of legislative fine-tuning before SB9 becomes a viable housing solution.
The slow success of ADUs provides both a cautionary tale and a potential blueprint. When California first passed an ADU law in 1982, it had little impact. Only after decades of incremental reforms—eliminating parking requirements, streamlining approvals, and preventing local governments from imposing excessive restrictions—did ADU construction begin to take off. Today,
ADUs are one of the few bright spots in California’s housing policy, with homeowners increasingly using them to provide rental housing and create multi-generational living spaces.
If California is serious about tackling its housing crisis, lawmakers must approach SB9 with the same persistence and urgency that they eventually applied to ADUs. The goal should not be merely symbolic victories, but practical, effective legislation that removes barriers and makes housing development both financially viable and legally straightforward.
Further reforms should focus on ensuring that cities cannot impose additional roadblocks beyond what SB9 already allows. More aggressive measures—such as state preemption of local zoning laws—may be necessary to prevent obstructionist cities from undermining the law’s intent. Additionally, financial incentives or grants could encourage homeowners to take advantage of SB9, offsetting the costs and complexities that currently deter them.
California’s housing shortage is a crisis decades in the making, and it will not be solved overnight. But if SB9 is to fulfill its promise, lawmakers must learn from its failures and take bold action. Otherwise, it risks becoming yet another well-intended but ultimately ineffective law—one that makes headlines but fails to put roofs over people’s heads.
There’s a housing crisis?
SB 9 was ruled to be unconstitutional for the charter cities which challenged it.
Which might ultimately impact the ability to enforce it against all cities.
Seems like something that the article should have mentioned.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11984016/judge-rules-california-split-lot-housing-law-unconstitutional
It was a trial court decision, only impacted five charter cities, and it’s unclear whether it will be appealed. That said, that seems to support the premise of this op-ed.
From article: “Recognizing these flaws, state lawmakers are now scrambling to fix SB9. Senator Scott Wiener’s recently introduced SB677 aiming to address key shortcomings, including eliminating the owner-occupancy requirement and limiting the power of HOAs to block SB9 projects.”
Sure – as noted in the article I cited, developers want to eliminate that in order to buy a property, split the lot, and sell the result (without having to be the original owner-occupant of the property). No connection or vested interest whatsoever to the neighborhood.
Wiener on the side of developers, as usual.
“ Wiener on the side of developers, as usual.”
How would you propose to build housing on a scalable level without developers to finance and build it?
What makes you think I support building (more) housing on a “scalable level”?
The state isn’t growing in the first place. THAT’s what the vested interests are unhappy about. (Even as they continue to build sprawl throughout the region, for those escaping “dense housing” in places like the Bay Area.)
In any case, if this type of thing actually results in the type of lot splits that developers and Wiener are pursuing, I suspect that’s when the voters of this state will remove control from the state. They have the power to do so, as they did with Proposition 13. There are efforts underway to remove that power, already.
Fortunately, I suspect that the type of thing the state has in mind would still not generally pencil-out. Except, perhaps, in a place like Altadena (thereby drastically changing the demographics of that area, prior to the fire).
“What makes you think I support building (more) housing on a “scalable level”? ”
Thank you. Exactly my point.
As you said to me the other day, does that come as “news” to you?
I don’t believe there’s a housing shortage in a state with a population that isn’t growing – especially since they’ve continued to build a lot more housing in spite of that fact.
Again, nationwide – the birthrate is well-below replacement levels. That’s actually quite incredible and unexpected at this point in time.
And with Trump in office (whom I don’t support), immigration is much less of a factor now, as well.
It doesn’t come as news to me, it’s a reminder to those reading that you are opposed to housing, period. The vast majority of people in this state are not.
The vast majority of people in this state are being lied to, by the vested interests telling them there’s a housing shortage.
Those sources never even tell us how they come up with any numbers.
But I would actually disagree with your conclusion, as well. The vast majority of the people in this state might believe that there’s a problem (for some people) in regard to “affordability” (in comparison to wages).
But when it comes right down to it, I don’t believe they actually want to do anything much about that.
“The vast majority of people in this state are being lied to, by the vested interests telling them there’s a housing shortage.”
Conspiracy theory
“But when it comes right down to it, I don’t believe they actually want to do anything much about that.”
I probably agree with you on this one
See the study below, regarding the “commonly-held belief” (which is in error).
And yes, there is actually a conspiracy, in a sense. That is, business interests have infiltrated politics (a long time ago, actually). Media is also a business interest.
You’re aware of the dollar amount of lobbying and contributions that occur just within state politics, right? It’s astonishing, and I’m kind of surprised that you never even talk about it.
Some claim that Newsom, for example, is too lax on utility rate increases, supportive of his allies who own a particular casino (but not for a different tribe), etc.
Here’s one example regarding the amount of lobbying (alone) – the first one that popped up.
https://calmatters.org/politics/2024/02/california-lobbying-state-government/
In short, there’s a reason that politics and politicians are not trusted. The more I learn, the more I realize that it’s even worse than most people think. (Maybe you should refer to what “most people” think of politics and politicians, before you start trying to paint me as a conspiracy theorist.)
I’m only an observer, and those observations are backed up by facts I can actually cite – without even using artificial intelligence.
Here’s an example of what I’m referring to:
Study Finds US Does Not Have Housing Shortage, but Shortage of Affordable Housing
“There is a commonly held belief that the United States has a shortage of housing. This can be found in the popular and academic literature and from the housing industry,” McClure said. “But the data shows that the majority of American markets have adequate supplies of housing available. Unfortunately, not enough of it is affordable, especially for low-income and very low-income families and individuals.”
“The researchers found only four of the nation’s 381 metropolitan areas experienced a housing shortage in the study time frame, as did only 19 of the country’s 526 “micropolitan” areas — those with 10,000-50,000 residents.”
https://www.aau.edu/research-scholarship/featured-research-topics/study-finds-us-does-not-have-housing-shortage
Which is why I don’t understand why DV/DG doesn’t attack things like corporations buying up land and using algorithms to destroy competition in order to boost rents/profits artificially and probably illegally ? That is how rents should be lowered, not by build baby build CA policy.
https://davisvanguard.org/2024/08/commentary-tight-housing-market-leads-to-collusion-price-fixing/
Apologies. You did do an article on that. What I meant was stressing that angel more than the building drumbeat.
*Angle
Anyway, I think it’s an angle many more people would get behind. Because it’s a modern mass anti-trust case. And people of both conservative & liberal bents should be up for supporting that. I know there have been some proposed bills to curb that, but haven’t followed how they’ve turned out.
*angle