Special to the Vanguard
Throughout California, for-profit developers are racing to invoke the “Builders Remedy” – a provision in state housing law that allows developers to override local zoning laws and push through projects of nearly any size, almost anywhere they want.
The “Builders Remedy” is not new – but it has been given new life by a series of recent state laws like the proposed SB 423 which would make it easier for for-profit developers to strip local communities of any meaningful say in local planning issues. Even now, developers can tear down single-family homes and build multi-story, multi-unit buildings in their place.
“While we all agree that we need more housing of all types in California, developers should work with communities to build housing where it makes sense,” said Lafayette City Councilmember Susan Candell, a co-leader of Our Neighborhood Voices, a non-partisan 
coalition seeking to introduce a citizen-led ballot initiative that would restore the right of communities to shape future growth.
“It is essentially only developers, their hand-picked politicians and their so-called ‘YIMBY’ cheering section that agree we should create these units with zero input from local communities,” said Former Los Altos Mayor Anita Enander.
These laws also do not require developers to pay a penny in additional taxes for roads, transit, schools, parks or other services that the new growth in our communities would require – ultimately leaving taxpayers with the bill. California is already facing a $22.5 billion deficit due to a sharp decline in tax revenues, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office – the worst since the Great Recession. According to recent reports, as many as 12 of California’s 15 largest cities likely won’t be able to pay their existing bills.
“The state’s housing crisis certainly drives this kind of unrestricted power for developers, but that does not mean the solution is to give developers a blank check while leaving local residents with higher tax bills or silencing local elected officials who want to speak out on behalf of their residents,” said Palo Alto Mayor Lydia Kou.
Our Neighborhood Voices is a non-partisan coalition of residents and elected officials from every corner of California who believe that land use decisions should be determined by local communities and their elected leaders – not one-size-fits-all laws from Sacramento and for-profit developers.
To get these important questions in front of voters, Our Neighborhood Voices is organizing to qualify a citizen-led ballot initiative that would protect the ability of local communities to adopt laws that shape local growth, preserve the character of neighborhoods, and require developers to actually produce more affordable housing and contribute to the costs associated with it.
“Citizens have a right to have a say about what happens right next door to their home,” said Santa Monica City Councilmember Phil Brock. “But a provision like the ‘Builders Remedy’ takes this right away from neighbors and local elected officials and turns it over to for-profit developers. If we want a real and lasting solution to our state’s housing crisis, we need to put communities first, not developer profits.”
I agree, where can I sign?
Text of the initiative:
https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/21-0016A1-as-filed-w_TS.pdf
Major funding and support:
“the initiative’s proponents are United Homeowners’ Association co-founder John Heath, Yorba Linda Mayor Peggy Huang, Brentwood City Councilmember Jovita Mendoza and former San Francisco Planning Commissioner Dennis Richards.
Local officials listed as supporters on the initiative’s website are Gilroy Mayor Marie Blankley and Morgan Hill City Councilmember Rene Spring.
Major financial contributors to the initiative include $200,000 from Alameda retiree Reyla Graber, who has contributed to many Democratic candidate campaigns over the years, $50,000 from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in Los Angeles, and $10,000 from Dallas, Texas-based Roven Productions Inc.”
Source: https://gilroydispatch.com/initiative-targets-new-california-housing-laws/
I looked at the website provided. There are donations from many different people from a multitude of different backgrounds. It appears that this initiative will have a huge groundswell of support once it’s well known.
I can understand the Gilroy Mayor’s frustration. They built a ton of housing in the 90’s and 00’s. And since 2020 Gilroy has lost almost 10K people. So it seems absurd that Gilroy’s housing element is out of compliance (it may be due to lack of affordable housing….but…. I could be wrong but I think Gilroy has developed a fair amount of affordable homes over the years).
I would assume that Palo Alto is one of the many cities along the coast that is not sprawling outward, and where the state’s mandates are primarily focused.
When are Davis council members going to weigh in on this, and why are they (instead) essentially functioning as mouthpieces for the state? Has anyone even asked them this question, directly?
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/22/in-state-of-the-city-kou-assails-at-state-housing-mandates
Legislators receive campaign contributions from all kinds of groups. So what? That’s politics in the United States.
So I guess that should also apply to the Neighborhood Voices Coalition initiative and who donated to them as Don Shor pointed out above.
So as you say, “So what? That’s politics in the United States.”
Yes, that’s something that should be looked into. Is that the plan?
That does seem to be the plan, Keith:
To ensure failure.
But I don’t think it’s been fully thought-out regarding the ramifications of that, either. Right now, the state is trying to beat them into submission, but I doubt that’s going to be successful in the long (or even short) run.
What the Legislature has done is democracy in action. One might argue that it has been corrupted but the same can be said of the initiative process. (Just look at the donors to the Jarvis Taxpayer Association.) There are many forms of democracy, so claiming that one version is more “pure” is a false comparison.