California is once again turning to upzoning near transit as a solution to its housing crisis—a move that’s as politically fraught as it is familiar.
Last week, Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) unveiled Senate Bill 79, the latest attempt to ease restrictions on multi-family housing construction near major transit lines.
Backed by California YIMBY, Streets For All, SPUR, Bay Area Council, and Greenbelt Alliance, the bill seeks to eliminate local housing bans near rail stations and bus rapid transit stops, allowing for buildings up to seven stories tall.
“We’ve made massive taxpayer investments in transit, but cities are treating these systems like private amenities, limiting who can actually live near them,” said Brian Hanlon, CEO of California YIMBY, at the bill’s unveiling. “That’s fundamentally unfair. SB 79 will change that by letting more Californians benefit from the transit they paid for.”
The proposal is not Wiener’s first attempt to increase housing density around transit. His earlier efforts—SB 827 in 2018 and SB 50 in 2019-2020—ignited fierce debates over local control, displacement, and equity.
Both died in the Legislature after a combination of NIMBY opposition and concerns from affordable housing advocates and communities of color. Those opponents feared that upzoning without strong affordability protections would accelerate gentrification and price out longtime residents.
Still, Wiener remains undeterred.
“California has made a lot of self-inflicted policy mistakes that have driven our housing crisis. It’s time we fix those mistakes,” he said during a press event at Daly City BART station. “We can’t control what’s happening at the federal level, but here in California, we can choose to stop tying our own hands when it comes to building housing.”
Under SB 79, property owners near major transit could build up to seven stories within a quarter mile of stops and four stories within a half-mile. The bill also allows transit agencies to override local zoning on land they own near stations—a potentially sweeping change in land use authority—and streamlines the permitting process for qualifying projects.
Supporters argue that linking housing development to transit investments is common sense.
“If we want our transit systems to be financially sustainable, they need riders—and that means housing near transit,” said Nolan Gray, Legislative Director for California YIMBY. “You can’t pour billions into rail and then zone the surrounding area for single-family homes. It’s bad policy and bad economics.”
Data backs the need for action. According to the Othering & Belonging Institute, most California cities still ban more than one home per lot within a half-mile of major transit, even as the state pours billions into new lines. Los Angeles—despite its massive Metro expansion—is a prime example of these contradictions.
“We’re spending public money to make transit accessible, but policy decisions are keeping people out of those neighborhoods,” said one activist. “It’s exclusion by design.”
The stakes are undeniably high. California continues to struggle with skyrocketing rents, home prices, and a persistent homelessness crisis. Between 2023 and 2024, the state added nearly a quarter of a million residents, after years of population loss driven in part by unaffordability.
But critics—and even some cautious allies—warn that upzoning alone won’t solve the problem, especially without meaningful affordability requirements or protections against displacement.
“We’ve seen this playbook before,” said a representative from a coalition of affordable housing organizations citing a lack of outreach from Wiener’s office. “When you upzone without requiring affordable units, the market builds what’s most profitable—not what working families or low-income residents can afford.”
Housing justice groups have long argued that market-rate construction in historically disinvested neighborhoods risks repeating the patterns of gentrification.
“You put up a shiny new development near transit, and suddenly the families that relied on that bus stop for generations are priced out,” said a tenant advocate from Los Angeles. “We want more housing, but not at the expense of the very communities these policies claim to help.”
Senator Wiener insists SB 79 is different from his past efforts. “This bill focuses on our highest quality transit—not every bus stop, not every job-rich area. It’s more targeted,” he said. “But yes, we need to build—and we need to build in places where people can live car-free if they choose.”
Yet questions remain about whether the legislation—which notably lacks new affordability mandates—will produce the kind of housing California desperately needs. The bill allows single-family homes to remain fully legal, preserving existing structures, but offers no clear path for ensuring that new development includes units affordable to low-income households.
“If we’re serious about tackling this crisis, we need to pair zoning reform with real investments in affordable housing and tenant protections,” said one of the bill’s sponsors. “Otherwise, we risk creating transit-oriented enclaves of luxury housing, not diverse communities.”
SB 79 is expected to face many of the same battles that killed its predecessors—local control advocates, suburban homeowners, and community groups wary of displacement. The California League of Cities has already signaled its opposition to further preemption of local zoning.
Still, the political winds may be shifting. California’s worsening housing crisis, climate mandates, and renewed focus on equity could force lawmakers to act where they previously hesitated.
“We’re running out of time—economically and environmentally—to keep doing nothing,” said another supporter. “We either build near transit, or we keep pushing people farther away and making the crisis worse.”
The ultimate question is not whether upzoning near transit is part of the solution—it is—but whether it’s being done thoughtfully, with an eye toward equity, affordability, and inclusion. More market-rate housing near BART stations won’t solve the housing crisis if the people who need homes the most can’t afford to live there.
California has a choice: build a future where our transit investments serve everyone—or repeat the mistakes of the past, where policy choices deepen inequality and displacement. SB 79 is a start, but without broader reforms, it risks becoming yet another missed opportunity.
I’d be more-impressed if the following things were true:
1) If the state was continuing to grow “organically” (e.g., without prodding from business interests). (It hasn’t been growing, and people aren’t even having enough kids to “replace” themselves – nationwide.)
2) If there actually is a “housing shortage”. (There isn’t.)
3) If existing public transit systems weren’t crashing due to lack of ridership. (They are.)
4) If the state stopped allowing communities to continue to build sprawl. (They haven’t.) And, if these new sprawling areas weren’t populated primarily by those who are abandoning the very areas that Wiener and company say that they prefer.
Absent these type of things, this seems more like a continuing attempt at gentrification to appease the financial backers of YIMBYs and their politician friends. In other words, the same thing that they’ve been trying but largely failed to do for years, at this point.
Key your comment: “Absent these type of things”
The problem is no one else agrees with you here and therefore you are making an inference unwarranted from the data or people’s beliefs.
“Here” meaning you, apparently.
And it’s not like one person totally agrees with another person on any particular issue, really.
But I suspect that (whether or not it’s explicitly stated), your “average Californian” (in places like Davis and the Bay Area) is more-aligned with my values regarding this issue, than yours.
That’s neither here nor there but I don’t agree. 70 percent of the public believes there is a housing crisis. What they are willing to do about it, I think there is less agreement.
I’m not sure that “housing crisis” was actually defined, in regard to any poll.
But if you want to talk about “popularity”, I’m pretty sure that each and every one of the Vanguard’s positions is in opposition to public opinion.
Have you seen who was elected president?
You really want to dive deep into the rabbit hole.
You keep saying that, and yet you keep responding to me.
Also, I would note that the media itself is essentially controlled by various (primarily business) interests.
If you want to see something closer to what the “public” would probably think regarding this issue, I’d suggest “48 Hills” (a San Francisco non-profit).
I like Tim Redmond, he does good work, but he’s on the margins of San Francisco politics, not reflective of the public.
Tim Redmonds is concerned about what you’re “supposed to be” concerned about – Affordable housing.
The corporate YIMBY movement is not.
I’m concerned with affordable housing but affordable housing (Big A, subsidized) is the not the be all and end all, and it’s not self-funded.
You have previously acknowledged that market-rate housing is not going to address low-income workers. I would agree regarding that.
But again, you’re not actually aligned with progressives, as you’ve already acknowledged as well.
I have a somewhat different opinion, though I’ve seen (first hand) how effective rent control is in regard to not pricing current residents out of particular markets.
As usual, Weiner is 100% arse-backwards. Muni is dying financially — so what good is housing if trolley service is cut in half? The answer is to build great transit so there is a demand for nearby housing. And we are *billions* short on our investment priorities. See: I-80 and our local politicians.
There are also is no housing crisis, that’s a term YIMBYs use. What it is: expensive to live in California, that’s what — and subsidizing a limited number of people as lucky lottery winners of ‘affordable’ housing is a scam. All it is: a method for politicians to act like they are fighting to give their constituents to give them free stuff so they will vote for them.