- “We must create more housing near transit hubs and areas with access to jobs, education, and amenities. We must streamline the production of housing for all Angelenos. However, we must do so in a way that does not erode local control, diminish community input on planning and zoning, and disproportionately impact low-resource neighborhoods.” – Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has come out strongly against Senate Bill 79, urging Governor Gavin Newsom to veto the measure. The bill, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, seeks to accelerate housing development statewide by requiring cities to allow more multi-family housing near transit stops. Supporters argue it is a necessary tool to address California’s housing and climate crises, while Bass contends it poses significant risks to Los Angeles communities and undermines local control.
In a letter to the Governor dated September 17, Bass made her case. “I write to respectfully request your veto on Senate Bill 79 (Wiener). While I support the intent to accelerate housing development statewide, as written, Senate Bill 79 (SB 79) risks significant unintended consequences for many of Los Angeles’ diverse communities,” she wrote.
The Mayor emphasized her administration’s work on housing production and affordability, pointing to reforms and local initiatives already in motion. “As Mayor, creating more affordable housing remains a top priority, and I have cut red tape and spearheaded local initiatives, such as the Citywide Housing Incentive Program, to accelerate housing development,” Bass noted.
She stressed that housing near transit is critical but argued the state bill would override local progress. “We must create more housing near transit hubs and areas with access to jobs, education, and amenities. We must streamline the production of housing for all Angelenos. However, we must do so in a way that does not erode local control, diminish community input on planning and zoning, and disproportionately impact low-resource neighborhoods,” Bass said.
Bass also argued that the City of Los Angeles has already taken substantial steps toward meeting state housing requirements. “The City of Los Angeles has already made substantial efforts to align with state housing goals and increase housing development citywide and will continue to do so,” she wrote.
While the bill does allow local ordinances as an alternative compliance option, Bass said it falls short for Los Angeles. “While SB 79 allows for local ordinances as an alternative compliance, it does not provide a viable path for a pro-housing city like Los Angeles. For these reasons, I respectfully request your veto on SB 79,” she concluded.
The bill has drawn praise from housing advocates who argue that cities like Los Angeles have long resisted meaningful reform, contributing to California’s severe housing shortage. YIMBY groups in particular have called on Newsom to sign SB 79.
In a recent statement, YIMBY advocates declared, “In order to address our joint housing and climate crises, California cities need to be building more infill multi-family housing near jobs, schools, and transit. SB 79 will make it legal to build the multi-family housing we need near key transit stops. SB 79 will help address housing affordability by increasing the supply of homes in these areas, while also bolstering transit use, and the funding stability of public transportation systems.”
The tension between Los Angeles and housing advocates has been escalating. Earlier this year, YIMBY Law and Californians for Homeownership filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, accusing it of failing to comply with state housing laws.
The case centers on whether Los Angeles has properly rezoned enough land to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations and whether it has carried out other commitments in its state-approved Housing Element.
In a June analysis, YIMBY Law accused the city of attempting to cover up shortfalls through accounting gimmicks.
Their report charged Los Angeles with relying on “math tricks” to inflate its rezoning compliance, abandoning a sophisticated probabilistic model developed with academics to calculate realistic housing capacity and instead adopting looser methods that overstated how much housing could actually be built.
At the core of the dispute was Los Angeles’ obligation to rezone for at least 255,432 additional homes, including 130,553 affordable to lower-income households, by the February 2025 deadline.
YIMBY Law argues that the city failed to complete the specific actions it committed to in its Housing Element, such as updating 16 community plans and creating new programs, instead leaning heavily on the Citywide Housing Incentive Program (CHIP) and claiming it had “far exceed[ed]” requirements.
According to YIMBY Law, the city’s claims of compliance were based on flawed calculations that assumed major redevelopment on unlikely sites, including courthouses, city government buildings, and even the Central No. 9 Visual and Performing Arts High School. The group maintains that these assumptions are not realistic, and that the city’s revised calculations drastically overstated capacity compared to the earlier model.
Beyond rezoning, YIMBY Law also charges that Los Angeles failed to complete numerous Housing Element programs with concrete deadlines, such as reducing permitting times for affordable projects, creating senior housing incentives, and establishing a Citywide Housing Needs Allocation plan. They argue these commitments are enforceable under state law and not optional policy choices.
The lawsuit is now moving through the courts, with the city filing a demurrer seeking dismissal, and housing advocates pressing forward to compel Los Angeles to take further action. The case underscores why housing advocates are pushing so hard for SB 79. They argue state intervention is necessary because cities like Los Angeles cannot be trusted to meet their obligations without stronger enforcement mechanisms.
This puts Governor Newsom in the middle of a high-stakes battle over the future of housing policy in California. On one side, Bass and local officials insist that Los Angeles has made substantial progress and that state laws like SB 79 threaten to override community planning and harm vulnerable neighborhoods. On the other, housing advocates argue that the city is dragging its feet, playing games with its numbers, and preventing desperately needed housing from being built.
Newsom has positioned himself as a pro-housing governor, supporting measures like SB 35 that streamline approvals and override local resistance. At the same time, he has faced political pressure from local governments and officials who argue that Sacramento is going too far in stripping away local authority.
As the legislative session winds down, all eyes are on Governor Newsom.
Bass made her opposition clear.
“For these reasons, I respectfully request your veto on SB 79,” she wrote. Housing advocates, meanwhile, are demanding that he sign the bill to show that the state is serious about addressing its housing crisis.
The Governor’s decision will carry consequences not only for the state’s housing strategy but also for its political alliances, testing whether the priority will be local control or state-driven housing mandates in the face of California’s historic housing shortage.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Interesting – the mayor must believe there’s a chance that Newsom won’t sign it.
Other than the negative impact it would have on those reading this, I’m kind of disappointed that it apparently won’t impact places like Davis (and a whole bunch of other places). The reason I’m disappointed is that the state hasn’t yet done anything extreme-enough to cause voters to remove power from the state. (And we need all the help we can get from communities that would be impacted.)
We need powerful and wealthy cities like Atherton, Tiburon, Carmel, Santa Monica, etc. – to be impacted. Places like Marin, where Newsom purchased a $9 million dollar property (while holding onto his multi-acre compound in Sacramento).
Nobody believes that Newsom won’t sign it – it was among his signature bills.
That’s why I find this article surprising.
What does the mayor of Los Angeles hope to accomplish at this point?
She, and others like her, should have been letting her own constituents know about this – and encouraging them to get involved BEFORE the legislature approved it.
She should have been singling out any assembly member and state senator from the Los Angeles area who did support it.
There isn’t enough accountability occurring, regarding issues like this. Let the people know “who”, exactly, is voting to destroy the communities in which their own constituents live. Let them know (each and every day) the underlying business interests behind all of this.
LA was the one city that opposed SB 79.
Here’s what AI says:
“At least one hundred cities, or “dozens,” opposed California’s SB 79, the Abundant & Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, a bill that mandates increased housing density near transit corridors. This number may be even higher, as a digital democracy tracker noted opposition from nearly 100 cities (93 and counting).”
But if your claim was actually true, that’s even MORE concerning (and is the reason that something like Measure J exists). And it’s also the reason that Proposition 13 came into being.
Simply put, the type of candidates who end up on an actual ballot usually do NOT reflect the goals of the constituents they represent. This is a direct result of the money it takes to launch a campaign for what is essentially a low-paid, temporary job. Teacher and building trade unions are examples of why this occurs, in regard to the political candidates they support. (You already know this, as a political science major and local political gadfly.) You would do your readers a favor if you actually focused on the MONEY involved in state politics.
In any case, perhaps the amendments satisfied some of those hundred or so cities – don’t know either way.
I overstated my point. LA was the main and notable city opposing SB 79
that was actually impacted by it and took formal action. Anyway toward your main point, Mayor Bass was mostly being performative.
” . . . that streamline approvals and override local resistance.”
So resistance is a good thing if you’re fighting trump, but a bad thing if you’re fighting imposition of dense development. Got it.
RO is so right about this and has been all along. Though I don’t share his degree of non-development sentiment, the taking away of local authority is going to result in a statewide revolt. If Bass is fighting these insane state-down mandates . . .
Isn’t resistance always a situational rather than blanket concept?