After signing into law Senate bills 9 and 10, Newsom said, “The housing affordability crisis is undermining the California Dream for families across the state, and threatens our long-term growth and prosperity.”
“Making a meaningful impact on this crisis will take bold investments, strong collaboration across sectors and political courage from our leaders and communities to do the right thing and build housing for all,” he added.
Senate Bill 9, introduced by Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, will allow lots zoned for single-family housing to have up to four units.
“SB 9 will open up opportunities for homeowners to help ease our state’s housing shortage, while still protecting tenants from displacement. And it will help our communities welcome new families to the neighborhood and enable more folks to set foot on the path to buying their first home. I’m grateful for the governor’s partnership, and our shared determination to turn the corner on California’s housing crisis,” said Atkins.
The White House came out in support of Atkins’ bill on Sept. 1, saying efforts to change zoning regulations to allow more housing “are consistent with the administration’s stance on the need for zoning reform.”
Senate Bill 10, introduced by Wiener, will allow local governments to approve multi-family buildings with up to 10 market-rate units, along with potentially four “granny flats,” on lots zoned only for single-family homes.
On Friday, 27 cities in the San Gabriel Valley signed a letter urging Newsom to veto the bills, and the Los Angeles City Council on Aug. 18 passed resolutions in opposition of the bills.
“SB9 and 10 are the third annual attempt by San Francisco Sen. Scott Weiner to destroy local control over multi-family and single-family zoning in the state of California. This council has unanimously voted to oppose essentially the same bills twice before and we should do it again,” Councilman Paul Koretz said.
Councilman Mike Bonin, who voted in support of the resolutions to oppose the legislation, said that while he sees the problems, including systemic racism, involved in single-family zoning, he looked to which groups oppose and support the bills.
“I look at who’s behind (the bills) and who’s opposed to them and when I see the affordable housing organizations here in Los Angeles saying this doesn’t do it for us, that concerns me,” Bonin said.
Housing Is A Human Right, a division of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, came out in opposition to the bills and conducted a statewide poll that found 63% of Californians oppose SB9 and 67% oppose SB10.
“We know that (the bills) will cause developers to target our low- income Black and brown communities … there is no requirement for affordable housing or homeless housing, and given that we have 161,000 people who are homeless in the state of California, over 60,000 in the county and over 40,000 in the city, it is absolutely unconscionable to have a housing production bill that would not provide for our homeless community or for people who desperately need affordable housing,” Susie Shannon, policy director for Housing Is A Human Right, said in a call to Wednesday’s City Council meeting.
Councilman Paul Krekorian called the bills “trickle-down housing policy” and said it was a myth that building dense market-rate housing will bend the economic curve and benefit poor people by increasing the supply of housing.
“It was an absurd notion when Ronald Reagan proposed it. It is an absurd notion now,” Krekorian said. He advocated for proposing a bill that will offer different solutions to the housing crisis.
While some housing advocates opposed the bill for not including requirements for affordable housing, others, like the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, support the measure for its potential to increase the number of homes in California. The Terner Center’s analysis of the bill found that it could create 714,000 new units statewide, including 127,000 in Los Angeles.
Los Angeles Councilman Gil Cedillo voted against the City Council’s resolutions to oppose the bills, saying the Senate bills included opportunities for the city to address concerns.
“We must now act and act affirmatively and build our toolbox so that we can take the actions necessary to build housing,” Cedillo said. “At the end of the day, the prospect of not disturbing or disrupting these communities, not challenging these communities who want to maintain the apartheid that exists in the city is simply an argument for the status quo.”
Councilwoman Nithya Raman voted against the resolution that opposed Senate Bill 10.
“If we’re going to tell Sacramento to stay out of our way when it comes to housing policies, then we in Los Angeles have to be willing to do the work ourselves and all of the data that we have right now points to the fact that we haven’t been doing it,” Raman said.
She noted that the Los Angeles Department of City Planning told council members Tuesday that 71% of the residentially zoned land in Los Angeles is for single-family homes only, and any new multi-family construction has to be limited to 29% of the city.
–
Kay says
CA people must be the most ignorant voters of all. They had a chance to recall this more on.
Stinger says
Projection.
Kay says
CA people must be the most ignorant voters of all. They had a chance to recall this moron.
Barbi says
… the ghetto-ization of our California neighborhoods, by the hand of a limousine liberal who lives in mansions and gated communities, Gavin Newsom doesn’t represent California, he only represents certain people –
William says
“Compared to other states, California has a large agriculture industry (including fruit, vegetables, dairy, and wine production),[35] but at less than 2% of the GDP, it makes a relatively minor direct contribution to the state’s overall economy.” Wikipedia
Yet, California’s agriculture uses 80% of the water and is 2% of the economy. Let that sink in.
We export a lot of that which is like shipping our water out of state inside an almond.
So, if we all quit using water period, California would still be running out. We all went “low flow” and “desert landscaping” so they can flood rice fields in the Sacramento Valley to sell to Japan. Meanwhile Japan has been shipping us cars. We used to make them in Michigan. GM just closed a plant or two.
What’s wrong with this picture?
William says
Will they have strict building codes for the added units or just do it yourself shoddy construction.
As it is now, SF homeowners don’t comply with most codes.
But, putting that all aside, WHERE IS THE WATER COMING FROM?
Claire says
Very good point, William. We don’t have an unlimited supply of water, but it’s used as if we do.
Claire says
Have you checked out Lake Mead?
William says
I wonder if the low water level affects the structural stability of Hoover Dam. With all the weight and pressure of the water gone, will the dam shift or crack?
Same thing happens with an empty swimming pool if left empty too long.
Tim Scott says
Question: do you think homeless people only start using water if they get a home?
The people are already here. They either get a house (probably with a lawn) or they get a house where lawn used to be.
Ultimately, 80% of water usage is agriculture, so all the “suburbia we must conserve” efforts in the world aren’t gonna save us.
Claire says
There are no provisions in SB9 that require new housing to be affordable, continuing the cycle of the construction of new units that are out of reach for many working-class families. Every human being, whether homeless or not requires water to live as we all know. I have been homeless, and I am a senior, and I know there are many variables when it comes to housing the un-housed. These bills don’t cover this issue. Aside from all of this, where is the water coming from?
Magnetlady says
What will this do to Real Estate TAXES? R.E. Taxes are going up every year. What’s this going to do to property owners with AR-1 Zoning? Agricultural properies are needed in the A.V., will they be rezoned too? Many homes in my area can have a ”Granny House”, but that’s it.. Subdividing property is very EXPENSIVE to do.
Tim Scott says
If you add another building to your property the value of the property goes up, so the tax will go up as well. What would you expect? If you buy a second property with a house on it you would have to pay tax on that second property out of the income you make from it. That’s kinda how we keep the lights on.
A whole lot of the faux upper crusty houses that have been built in the past couple decades, like the big boxes out on the west side, have basically no yard so the owners there will not really be able to do much with this, but a lot of the older homes can convert back yard space that is nothing but a water and time sink into something of value.
Also of note: yeah subdividing property is indeed expensive, so it’s a good thing that isn’t what we are talking about here.
MFH says
And the destruction begins.
Cha Ching says
Time to buy stock in lumber, DeWalt, and Robertson’s Cement. Come on Covid go away. There’s going to be a lot of space needed at the ER for the DIY’s very soon.
Tim Scott says
“If we’re going to tell Sacramento to stay out of our way when it comes to housing policies, then we in Los Angeles have to be willing to do the work ourselves and all of the data that we have right now points to the fact that we haven’t been doing it,” Raman said.
That is a brilliantly accurate statement.
For all the whining about what developers MIGHT do, there is little doubt about what homeowners WILL do…and that is going to put a whole lot of ‘mother in law’ houses in play as fairly low priced rental options that also provide financial relief to individual home owners.
Parking gon’ be a problem though.
EXAV says
‘Bout had enough of the NIMBY whiners in California. They whine about mass homelessness, they whine about housing being built to alleviate homelessness. What they really, truly, only care about is every last nickel of their home equity. It’s not about people, they don’t care about people – they care about money, and only money. Look, the Brady Bunch days are over in the big cities. If you cant handle life in the big city, pack your bags and move to the boonies where you belong.
Tim Scott says
Agreed. And by “big cities” I mean anything over 50K. For cities of 100K to be saying “We can build a sprawling mess just like Los Angeles did a hundred years ago. Look how that turned out,” is just stupid. Yeah LOOK how that turned out and LEARN something.