As Mayor of San Jose, the third largest city in California, I learned first-hand what it took to get new housing built. I took on the special interests and slashed taxes and fees on new housing, and now
thousands of new homes are
under construction. Under
my leadership, the city cut permitting times dramatically and created a pathway for infill projects that complied with zoning to get permits without fear of bogus environmental
COST OF LIVING INDEX BY STATE
lawsuits — all to get new affordable homes built faster. The city is now using new technology in our building department to process the approval of low-cost backyard cottages faster, and we are on track to make major reforms to our building codes that would make it easier to build starter homes… (more)
Wiener may have gone too far if he wants non-YIMBY votes to get him to Washington. Going after the coast, farmers, and continuing to boost his trickle down theory in spite of the facts, may prove to be his undoing.
The lack of affordable housing is a complex problem. And every complex problem, as the saying goes, has an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. In this instance, free market fundamentalism has long provided one such answer — the notion that invisible economic forces will solve affordable housing crises, if we only step aside, wait patiently, and let them work their magic. It has, of course, never worked out that way; but free-market apologists have always found a way to blame the world for its failure to conform to mechanistic economic models. This has kept their totalizing theories roaming the earth like zombies, providing intellectual cover for their policy application, and forever eluding the grave where bad ideas go to rot. And in recent years, these zombies have gotten a makeover and started to pop up in unexpected places.
The Bay Area is a land hospitable to technoutopianism and invigorated by the perennial search for hacks and technological fixes for life and its vicissitudes. It should then come as no surprise that it was here that the current iteration of the YIMBY movement came to be. Folks dismayed by the region’s high housing costs looked around and rediscovered a simple technical solution: deregulation. In their account, land use controls had inhibited housing construction and constrained supply, leading to higher housing prices. This intuitive connection was made by reference to single-family-home districts and to a history of exclusionary zoning practices— a move that gave the movement’s deregulatory platform the semblance of a progressive plea. Thus framed, YIMBYism gained traction and was promulgated across the country in the name of social equity by useful zealots and self-interested cynics, willfully or blissfully unencumbered by the weight of historical counter-evidence, the contingencies of context, or the nuances and limitations of contemporary housing research. Before long, the old wine of deregulation started showing up in YIMBY bottles at the table of housing policy debate and, increasingly, it was the only drink on the menu…
Several assumptions undergird the deregulationist push to override local land use controls and to undermine, in the name of housing affordability, the influence of communities in the development of their neighborhoods:
Lack of affordable housing stems from a lack of overall housing supply;
An increase in overall housing supply will make housing affordable to those in need; and
The relaxation of land use regulation provides an effective means to stimulate the new construction…
The political appeal of peddling deregulation—a straightforward policy solution that just happens to redound to the benefit of the real estate sector—has been plain to see (as it ever has). We hope that the new administration will part ways with its predecessor and take the less expedient path of tackling the affordability crisis as it exists in the real world and not as real estate interests and its YIMBY mouthpieces would like it to.
California peach farmers are expected to take a multimillion-dollar financial hit and lose vast quantities of crops after Del Monte Foods plans to permanently close two state plants.
Del Monte-owned plants in Modesto and Hughson will permanently close and leave hundreds of workers unemployed by April 7, according to a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification that was filed earlier and obtained by SFGATE. Hundreds of employees will lose their jobs, including 571 general laborers at the Modesto plant alone.
But the California farmers who grow fruit for the factory are also taking a financial blow. Farmers in the Central Valley, as well as Yuba and Sutter counties, face a $550 million revenue loss from 20-year contracts to grow peaches with Del Monte, according to the Sacramento Bee. Many farmers haven’t made substantial profits from the orchards that Del Monte asked them to plant just a few years ago. Now, about 75,000 tons of peaches will likely go to waste, lcoathe outlet added.
“Two-thirds of the growers are going to be, basically, just left out to dry,” Sarb Johl, a farmer in Yuba County, told the Sacramento Bee… (more)
If you failed to notice the negative effects of re-zoning all of California yet, this may catch your attention. Food shortages may be coming as farmers leave their farms. If re-zoning farmland and raising taxes on farmers to get them to leave their farms for AI power production and housing concerns you, please make that an important conversation to have with your state and federal representatives and the candidates who are running to replace them. NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT !
By J.K. Dineen : sfchronicle – excerpt (includes audio track)
A rendered aerial view of the proposed development that would stand 23 stories tall, or more than twice the city’s height limit, on San Francisco’s Embarcadero.
In 2014 San Francisco voters delivered a strong message at the ballot box: No tall buildings on the waterfront without our approval.
The “no wall on the waterfront” Proposition B referendum, which came on the heels of voters’ rejection of a contentious housing project at 8 Washington St., required developments on Port of San Francisco property to get the voters’ approval if they exceed existing height limits. It won with 59% of the vote.
But now, a dozen years later, in a political landscape dominated by YIMBY-backed laws aimed at forcing cities to build more housing, a proposed apartment complex on the Embarcadero is emerging as a test case of whether the powerful state “density bonus” legislation preempts the local voter-approved regulations…
Strada Investment Group is proposing to build 619 units at 555 Beale St., a port-owned parking lot about four blocks north of Oracle Park that in recent years has been used as a homeless navigation center. While the majority of the complex would adhere to the parcel’s 110-foot height limit, a tower on the northern part of the site would stand 23 stories, more than twice the current limit…
But the idea that SB330 gives developers carte blanche to ignore the will of the voters is not sitting well with the San Francisco Waterfront Alliance, a small group of nearby condo owners who argue that Strada should either go to the ballot to win approval for the project or redesign it to be consistent with existing zoning...
In February, Scott Emblidge, the group’s attorney, wrote a letter to City Attorney David Chiu and Port General Counsel Michelle Sexton arguing that the city should “respect the will of the voters.”
“When San Francisco’s voters enact local legislation, they are entitled to have the City Attorney respect and defend that legislation,” he said. “If a developer wants to erect a height-limit-busting tower on waterfront property, the developer can do so if, and only if, the developer asks the voters for permission.”
In a response, Chiu said his office “will continue to defend the legality of ordinances approved by the voters or the Board of Supervisors.”
“When the State Legislature adopts statutes that purport to preempt local ordinances, we provide confidential advice to city policymakers about the implications of those statutes,” Chiu wrote. “We identify legally defensible options to address the conflicts between state and local law.” … (more)
Produced by Residents 4 Localized Affordable Neighborhood Development
Needed Cleanup Legislation to Avoid Unintended Impacts and Ensure Affordable Housing – Needed Cleanup Legislation to Avoid Unintended Impacts and Ensure Affordable Housing.
Help Residents for Localized Affordable Neighborhood Development (R-Land) lobby for sensible fixes to SB 79 so that this new law works for, rather than against the provision of affordable housing, doesn’t bankrupt cities, and doesn’t foster higher density development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, thus increasing safety hazards. SB 79 sounds good, but will have horrible real world consequences and needs major fixes. This video provides suggestions for legislative fixes to avoid the unintentional consequences of SB 79. Call your State Legislator and ask them to sponsor and support legislation to:
Exempt cities with Certified Housing Elements since they have already planned where to put needed housing and how to meet affordability targets.
Close the luxury loophole and actually promote affordable housing development by requiring that any SB 79 buildings meet the affordability targets cities are required to meet in their Housing Elements. If the State says 40% of new units in a city should be affordable then 40% of the all units in any SB 79 building in that city should be required to be affordable, otherwise SB 79 undercuts the ability of cities to promote the production of affordable housing.
Exempt high fire hazard areas from SB 79. Increased density in high fire areas is a disaster waiting to happen.
Provide funding for the infrastructure SB 79 will require as a result of SB 79 densification of single-family neighborhoods, rather than in areas cities have identified as best able to handle increased density.
The Los Angeles City Council recently adopted a Citywide Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (No. 188,793) that establishes zoning incentives and streamlined procedures for the conversion of existing commercial buildings and structures resulting in the creation of five or more residential units. The original Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, first adopted in 1999, only applied to buildings built before 1974 and located in or near Downtown Los Angeles (DTLA). The provisions of the original ARO were expanded in 2003 to include four small areas of the city, now defined as Adaptive Reuse Subareas.
The updated Citywide Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (ARO) expands eligibility beyond DTLA to all neighborhoods within Los Angeles city limits. Under the new ARO, all buildings that are at least 15 years old are now eligible, if they are located in Multifamily Residential, Commercial, Parking or Public Facilities Zones1. Parking structures or parking areas within an existing building that are at least five years old are also eligible, as is any existing building of this age, subject to Zoning Administrator approval (Sections 12.24 X.1 and 13B.2.1 of the Code).
The intent of the updated ARO is to remove most Zoning Code barriers to the reuse of existing buildings, allowing many more applicants to apply directly to the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) to obtain their building permit. A few of the more significant incentives that have been added include:
More flexibility in how interior spaces may be reconfigured without counting as new floor area, either by adding floor levels or new additions to replace any space removed to create light wells, courtyards or other open space within the existing building
Unified Adaptive Reuse Projects that provide affordable housing are eligible for unlimited density in the new construction portion of the project.
Unified Adaptive Reuse Projects that provide affordable housing may add up to two new residential floors above an existing building
Minimum unit size requirements have been eliminated; units can now be as small as allowed by Building Code standards
A new rooftop story may be added, without counting towards a project’s building height or floor area, to provide new shared amenities or open space for residents… (more)
Financialization, not demographics, caused the cost of housing to explode
Solving the housing crisis has been a central plank of the Liberal party during their decade in power, but progress has been elusive. Despite recognition of housing as a “fundamental human right” and pledges of tens of billions of dollars to housing programs, homelessness has risen and affordability has worsened.
Rising property values have impacted every corner of the market. As home prices have surged, the rate of homeownership has declined across the country, while buyers remain in debt for longer periods of time. Tenants pay higher rental costs, and building social housing is more difficult because of the cost of land.
Policymakers and economists blame high housing prices for a severe supply shortage. This line of thinking led the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to call to double the rate of construction, to build 4.3 million new homes by 2035.
The CMHC’s proposal would increase Canada’s housing stock by 25 per cent over a decade, even though they anticipate population growth of only eight per cent, leading to “abnormally high levels of unoccupied housing units,” as the Parliamentary Budget Office observed. The CMHC’s projected payoff is surprisingly modest: they anticipate real housing prices would only decline to pre-pandemic levels.
These issues point toward a more fundamental question: What is the evidence that a supply shortage has created the housing crisis to begin with?…(more)
Audrey Denney at a campaign event. Photograph: Trevor Claverie/Courtesy of Audrey Denney
Audrey Denney is trying to win a House seat twice – first in a special election, and then again after the district is redrawn.
Districts 1 and 2 were re-aligned so now Chico is in District 1. Audrey Denny is running in District 1. https://audreyforcongress.com/
Inside an old Craftsman on the northern end of California’s Sacramento valley, Audrey Denney is spending the day on the phone – calling constituent after constituent to discuss rising healthcare costs, wildfire insurance premiums and cuts to benefits – and to solicit donations.
It’s the mundane way in which an epic, and uphill, battle for control of the US Congress is being fought.
Denney, a 41-year-old Democrat who has pledged not to take any money from corporate Pacs, is trying to win a region comfortably held by Republicans for nearly half a century. She’s trying to win it not just once, but twice, in what can rightly be described as one of the most chaotic and confusing election years in this rural corner of the state.
Last year, California’s first congressional district, which extends from the almond orchards and rice fields of the Sacramento valley to the forested and fire-prone foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades, was thrust at the center of a political firestorm.
The district was one of several remade under a bold redistricting proposal that redrew the state’s voting map to favor Democrats. Its new boundaries include counties to the west and south, making it competitive for Democrats for the first time in years. Doug LaMalfa, the Republican who had long held the district’s seat, was readying for a long-shot bid for re-election. Denney saw her opening.
In his radically redrawn new district, a Marin congressman gets thrown to the wolves.
By Joe Garofali : sfchronicle – excerpt
Representative Jared Huff Man
ALTURAS (Modoc County) — The Supreme Court has not yet signed off on California’s Proposition 50, which redrew the state’s congressional boundaries in order to boost the number of Democrats in Congress. But is not waiting. He’s already started visiting the most remote parts of his radically redrawn district, which is now set to include one of the most conservative corners of the state.
At times, it felt like a scene from a sitcom: A progressive congressman from Marin County trying to woo Trump-loving locals in California’s MAGA-iest corner. A place so right-leaning that the Democratic Party doesn’t even have a local chapter…
During a two-day barnstorm of the region that included stops to meet with a local Indivisible chapter, a native tribe and at a biofuel mini power plant.
Huffman, clad in a fleece U.S. Congress vest, assured Indivisible club members that he understands them…
Huffman spent the tour emphasizing that he’s fished on rivers here for years and that he’s not going to be pushing culture war issues. That may be more of a challenge in the future… (more)
State lawmakers criticized the governor for earmarking millions for the private art school amid a budget deficit.
Students and faculty of California College of the Arts weren’t the only ones shocked by the abrupt announcement Tuesday that San Francisco’s oldest art school would be closing and its campus taken over by Vanderbilt University.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, who caught flak from the press and lawmakers last year after securing $20 million in the state budget for CCA, was also caught off guard.
In text messages reviewed by The Standard, Newsom wrote that he “Had no clue” and was given “no heads up” about the 119-year-old CCA’s dissolution, which was announced in an email to students and faculty by CCA president David Howse…
In an interview Wednesday, The Standard asked Howse if he had notified the governor about the closure.
“We have been in touch with the governor’s office, and we’ll continue to keep in conversation with him as we go through this transition,” Howse said, adding that he had not spoken directly with Newsom.
A spokesperson for CCA said Howse notified the governor’s office of the closure Monday, the day before the news was announced publicly, and has a meeting scheduled with Newsom’s office next week…
All four Democrats on an education finance budget subcommittee voted against the governor’s request. Sen. Scott Wiener backed Newsom’s proposal.
Shortly after Newsom proposed the $20 million grant, $45 million in donations came in — half from the Jen-Hsun & Lori Huang Foundation and the rest matched by private donors. The contribution by the Nvidia CEO’s foundation was the largest donation in the school’s history by $5 million…(more)
More bad news for Newsom at a bad time for Newsom.
The president said he would roll out a new affordable housing agenda during a planned speech in Davos, Switzerland, later this month.
President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he wants to bar large corporations from purchasing single-family housing stock as part of his new affordable housing agenda.
“I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and I will be calling on Congress to codify it,” Trump said in a lengthy Truth Social post on Wednesday. “People live in homes, not corporations.”…
Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno , a member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee, wasted no time in announcing his plans to introduce legislation in response to the Trump administration’s proposal.
“Millions of young Americans have been locked out of the American Dream, @realDonaldTrump is finally fighting back,” Moreno posted to X in response to Trump’s post. “I will introduce legislation in the Senate to codify this into law.”
In the House, Republican Rep. Riley Moore, a member of the Appropriations committee, praised the announcement. (more)
How will Wiener and Company and the Democrats compete with that? What will they say or do to stop this?
