Category Archives: deregulated housing bills

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

‘Everything rests on this’: Will taxpayers loan Bay Area counties $20B to fix housing?

By Kevin V. Nguyen : sfstandard – excerpt

They want us to pay for our own displacement is they plow down our homes to make room for the millions they claim need housing, in spite of the loss of population in the state.

Voters will decide on this massive new IOU in this upcoming November election

With state and federal funds drying up, banks lending less, and more cities facing budget deficits, tens of thousands of newly proposed affordable homes have been stuck in limbo, unable to get off the ground.

So come this November, Bay Area voters will not only be weighing in on the next U.S. President, but also, whether or not they should step in and loan the nine-county region a total of $20 billion to move those efforts along.

Last week, the commissioners of the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority—a first-of-its kind agency created in 2020—voted unanimously to put the bond measure on ballots to fund new subsidized housing projects, buy up existing homes to make or keep them affordable, and support housing-related infrastructure…

The bond would be funded by property tax increases, with an estimated tax of $19 per $100,000 of assessed value, which shakes out to about $190 per year for a home assessed at $1 million.

If voters approve this IOU, each city would receive a cut of the proceeds based on how much its jurisdiction pays in taxes. San Francisco, for example, would get about $2.4 billion to invest, while the city of Oakland would get over $720 million. The funds would be dispersed in the form of low-cost loans.

BAHFA estimates that paying off the loan would add up to nearly $50 billion after interest. The mayors of San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland all expressed support for the bond measure. …(more)

The MTC who can’t make the trains run on time and splurges on a multi billion dollar building in San Francisco, a the tax payers expense, not wants to sell us on a housing plan that is wants to charge us for by raising property taxes. At a time when property values are receding like yesterday’s tide.

Already people who bought into the ADU concept are shocked by their higher taxes, due to the recent rise in valuation of their property. How many property owners are willing to eat the higher taxes without passing their onto their tenants? Seriously? We are going to trust the MTC with more money when they are refusing to listen to us?

These are the people who removed single family housing from the state, killed the solar industry, want to remove our private vehicles and replace gas stoves with electric that will run on nuclear power and whatever else Big Energy can find to burn. MTC is trying to force us back into the lifestyle we just pulled ourselves out of. They want us to live in tiny homes and commute to tiny office cubicles to keep their computer vehicles working. They call this backward plan their vision of the future?

This is the anti-farm pro-housing gang that seeks to plow over our farms and ranch to build more housing. Who needs fresh food when you can live in tight close quarters and eat who knows what and look cool toting your life in a bag on the Muni on your way to the Mayor’s latest rave?

Newsom is moving this family to Marin but, they will not be living in one of those little units next to the 101 Smart Train station in San Rafael. They will be living on acreage and saving for their children’s future by building equity in their homes. What will we get? Another day older and a another month’s rent.

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

YIMBY Want to Raise Your Rent

By Marc Salomon : counterpunch – excerpt

Over the past decade, a new political formation has arisen in the US, the YIMBY which stands for “Yes In My Backyard.” YIMBY posit themselves as the antithesis of the NIMBY, “Not In My Backyard,” a constructed political bogey person, who YIMBY claim are responsible for the high cost of housing in the US. Starting in the Bay Area, the YIMBY movement has rapidly expanded to cities nationwide and attracted more funding.

Hardly a spontaneous phenomenon, YIMBY are the latest in a long line of housing and real estate booster political operations that seek favorable regulatory consideration from local governments that have historically regulated land use. From the media campaigns to encourage families to move from the cities to suburban sprawl after WWII to local real estate funded booster organizations that pushed “Transit Oriented Development” in the 2000s, such operators have continually repped for developers. There has always been some background level of pro-development organizing in play…

YIMBY are different, however. As a product of the post-1999/2000 deregulation of Wall Street era, the marriage of funding liberated by deregulation plus a libertarian capitalist housing supply side dogmatism has produced a message that is appealing if only for its simplicity: upzone the cities, deregulate land use approvals, relieve developers of carrying their freight through impact fees and housing prices will fall…

CoreySmith, executive director of the longstanding residential developer booster organization, The Housing Action Coalition, showed YIMBY’s hand at a San Francisco Planning Commission meeting earlier this year:..[when he state] “One of the challenges we face in San Francisco is we need the rent to go back up.”.

It is so refreshing to hear YIMBYs say this stuff out loud. Private developers have no plan for building new housing when rents actually go down. [as they have lately]…

In truth, in order to spur more development, lenders need to see housing prices increase before taking the risk to commit capital to development. Housing production only occurs when housing prices rise. Housing prices only rise during the second half of the up phase of the business cycle when greed eclipses fear.

This shows that the YIMBY are but developer lobbyists who demand housing at all costs, costs which are to be extracted from tenants through higher rents…

There might be good reasons for desirable cities facing torrential demand to entitle some market rate housing. Adding supply to push down price is not one of them. Instead of responding to the flood of shit, YIMBY are best contested by community based grassroots organizing for self determination in comprehensive, not lobbyist directed, land use planning.

The antidote to the shitstorm is “YIMBY want to raise your rents.”

Marc Salomon is a co-founder of the San Francisco Community Land Trust…(more)

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

URGENT — OPPOSE SB 7

This is an URGENT call to action. SB 7 is a terrible bill, and it needs to be opposed before it’s next heard on 6/26. Letters and calls should be in ASAP. Today if possible.  After a district court ruled against SB9 for Charter Cities, the density dogs have been working on a work around.

RELATED: COURT THROWS OUT PRO-DENSITY LAW SB9

What is the Problem with SB 7? This is a housing bill that makes HCD stronger and RHNA worse. SB7 takes recommendations from a 176 page report — “California’s Housing Future 2040: The Next Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)” — sent to legislators just two months ago, and hastily tries to get them passed into law in the next few weeks.

Through a sneaky process called “gut and amend,” new language has been put into SB 7 — which already passed the Senate in another form — and is now working its way through the Assembly.

No underlying problems of 6th cycle RHNA are addressed. This bill relies on unsubstantiated claims about the state’s housing crisis to justify usurping local control.

The 6th cycle RHNA is not even mid-way through, and all cities are failing its metrics. The solid reasons why are heavily documented — to the point that a housing element audit was recently authorized to examine the process.

The HCD is doing an end run around the audit and any flaws it might uncover; the new language of SB 7 bolsters their powers for 7th cycle RHNA, and they want it done now.

WHAT HCD GETS WITH SB 7:

  • An increase in authority, zero oversight, no transparency
  • Heavier hand against cities, bolstered by new punitive legislation
  • Further control over local zoning control
  • Eliminates the right to appeal RHNA mandates
  • Allows unchecked lobbyist influence
  • Continue to disregard infrastructure costs and other impacts to cities
  • Continue to disregard actual data, including population projections that show California’s numbers flat through 2060
  • Inclusion of open space in their calculation for how much new development a jurisdiction can absorb
  • No requirement to base policy on robust economic theory
  • No requirement to base RHNA mandates on legitimate population projections
  • RHNA allocations will continue to increase market rate housing
  • RHNA will require — but not advance — affordability.
  • Unelected bureaucrats will continue creating policy with no accountability

THIS IS HAPPENING FAST:
SB7 is being rushed through without due diligence.
This “gut and amend” bill bypassed normal deadlines, and showed up at the last minute. In the Senate it was an innocuous bill about group housing.

June 10th: Amended in Assembly
June 18th: Passed Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee
June 26th: Up for a vote in the Local Government committee

your message can be this simple: I OPPOSE SB 7.
Contact for direct representatives are below, they also need to hear from us.

First Last Email Phone
Chair, D Juan Carrillo juan.carrillo (916) 319-2039
V-Chair, R Marie Waldron marie.waldron (916) 319-2075
R Bill Essayli bill.essayli (916) 319-2063
D Matt Haney matt.haney (916) 319-2017
D Ash Kalra ash.kalra (916) 319-2025
D Blanca Pacheco blanca.pacheco (916) 319-2064
D James Ramos james.ramos (916) 319-2045
D Chris Ward assemblymember.Ward (916) 319-2078
D Lori Wilson lori.wilson (916) 319-2011
Chief Cons. Angela Mapp angela.mapp (916) 319-3958

SB 7 Sample Verville letter

Oppose SB 7 or download the editable doc file: Oppose SB 7
Recipients: juan.carrillo@asm.ca.gov, marie.waldron@asm.ca.gov, bill.essayli@asm.ca.gov, matt.haney@asm.ca.gov, ash.kalra@asm.ca.gov,  blanca.pacheco@asm.ca.gov, james.ramos@asm.ca.gov, assemblymember.Ward@assembly.ca.gov, lori.wilson@asm.ca.gov, angela.mapp@asm.ca.gov

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

OPINION: What the Judges and the LA Times Got Wrong About The Venice Median Project (and Why it Ain’t Over Till it’s Over)

Opinion By Charles Rosin : westsidecurrent – excerpt (includes audio)

VENICE – We seriously doubt whether the Op-Ed writers who penned last week’s editorial for the ideologically-driven LA Times praising Judge Richard Fruin’s dispiriting dismissal of our CEQA case have ever opted to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon in summer exploring what a recent poll in Travel and Leisure described as ‘America’s Favorite Beach.’

How else can you explain the Op-Ed writers’ description of our area’s last parcel of open space– a large, 2.65-acre, parking lot designed to accommodate carloads of working-class families from Inglewood, DTLA, and other land-locked enclaves who flock to Venice Beach to make memories and find relief from the swelter– as “one of those rare open swaths of land that city officials dream of using for homeless and affordable-housing”.

Really? That’s what these people dream about? No vicarious images of little kids at the shore with a shovel and pail? Or proud grandparents pushing strollers down Ocean Front Walk? Or couples unloading their canoe for a romantic paddle down the Linnie Canal?

It makes us wonder if any of these city officials ever wake up in the middle of the night from a recurring nightmare; tracking what could happen when you build a massive (and massively expensive) 140-unit “affordable” housing project, on an environmentally-fraught juncture on The Venice Median, one half-block from the beach, predicted by the EPA to be particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise?

And while dreaming, do the city officials who enabled this project ever get swamped by visions of coastal flooding impacting their newly constructed Venice-Dell Community? (Ironically, designed as a fortress to be cut off from its surrounding communities which would provide “shelter from the storm”). …

And since The Times insists affordable housing is “desperately needed” in our part of town, how about assigning one of the few real reporters left on its staff to delve into how 1200 units of taxpayer-funded projects can sit empty in a city that is ostensibly “all-hands-on-deck”, as first reported in a stunning bit of investigative journalism provided by Chris LeGras and Jamie Page for the Westside Current…

As with its previous editorials, what passes these days as the Times’s Braintrust opted to give Venice Community Housing’s Executive Director, Becky Dennison, free-reign expressing her frustration with City-Attorney Hydee Soto Feldstein’s decision to halt all work on the project by the city’s Department of Transportation and its Bureau of Engineering until the two law suits we filed on behalf of The Coalition for Safe Coastal Development had been resolved, or settled in mediation…

Mayor Bass does not deserve to be attacked, but praised for her tireless commitment to work with numerous City Council Members, to reduce encampments on our streets, parks, and public spaces while transitioning the willing into shelters and other arrangements.

We here at Safe Coastal also have great admiration for Mayor Bass’s role as a prime supporter of a new and improved replacement to the state’s soon-to-expire and problematic CEQA exemption. AB785, which the Governor signed into law in 2023, includes many of the exemptions housing advocates want, while excluding construction within a mapped FEMA 100-year flood zone. (**)…(more)

 

 

 

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Politics

California Coastal Commission responds to report it worsens housing crisis: ‘Disgraceful’

By Jenavieve Hatch, themodesto : yahoo – excerpt

The California Coastal Commission Thursday said a soon-to-be-published report alleging it has worsened the affordable housing crisis has “profoundly dishonest and offensive” claims.

Circulate San Diego, a Southern California think thank, asserts in a study to be published Friday that the commission has worsened the affordable housing crisis, and “has made the coast the least accessible part of California.”

The findings were published in Thursday’s Bee, and later in the day, the commission fired back.

“This disgraceful excuse for a report intentionally distorts and misrepresents actions taken by the Coastal Commission,” said Coastal Commission Chair Caryl Hart in a statement to The Bee.

“It even goes so far as to say the commission is manipulating the law to promote racial segregation in the Coastal Zone, which is profoundly dishonest and offensive.”

The report, which The Bee has reviewed, cited research showing that the Coastal Zone is twice as white as the rest of California.

“The report is clearly a developer-backed hit piece masquerading as an academic endeavor,” said Hart…(more)

If this isn’t enough to get your blood boiling I don’t know what is. The State of California has declared war on the pacific Coast. What are we going to do about it? Ready to fight back against these accusations. Read the below article and see why the only way to deal with these lies is to support the ourneighborhoodvoices initiative, and replace the representatives in California who are selling our state.

RELATED:
Report accuses California Coastal Commission of adding to racially segregated housing…   A Southern California-based think tank, Circulate San Diego, published a report this Thursday morning that highlights the need for reform at the California Coastal Commission…(more)

 

 

deregulated housing bills, Housing

Developer wants to ‘supersize’ S.F. project under new state housing law — while it ’s being built

By Laura Waxmann : sfchronicle – excerpt

Oakland developer oWow is the latest builder planning to “supersize” a previously approved project in San Francisco due to a recent change in state law.

An application filed with the city’s Planning Department on Wednesday proposes updates to the design of 960 Howard St. in the Central SoMa neighborhood, which, in recent years, was approved for redevelopment into a three-story creative office building with a 9-story, 113-unit residential addition.

Developer oWow purchased the site, that was long home to a small industrial building, in 2019 and has nearly completed the three-story office component of the plan. It is now seeking to add a total of 16 stories of high density housing.

“The approved 113 units will not achieve a product that meets the returns that anybody would want to invest in today to get that project started,” said Danny Haber, oWow’s CEO and co-founder. “It is not financially feasible.”

The new plan proposes a total of 274 rental units. If approved and constructed as currently designed, the project would provide 158 studio apartments and 116 two-bedroom apartments. Out of the total proposed apartments, 42 units would be designated as affordable housing while the remaining units would be rented at market rates.

Per the application filed Thursday, the approved three-story office building would serve as the base of the residential tower — in total, the project would rise 19 stories.

The Central SoMa District limits building heights in the area to 85 feet, but OWow has proposed using the State Density Bonus law, which provides a density boost of up to 50% in exchange for greater affordability for very low income households, to waive that cap.

And, as a result of Assembly Bill 1287, a new state law that became effective this year, that 50% density bonus can be doubled so long as 15% of a qualifying project’s residential units are set aside for “middle income” households earning up to 120% of the Area Median Income, or AMI. …(more)

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

Did one of California’s biggest new housing reforms go too far?

By Chris Elmendorf : sfchronicle – excerpt

The state desperately needs changes to its housing laws. But did a recent fix create more problems than it solved?

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a package of more than 50 housing bills. Most seemed inconspicuous, but sometimes changing just a few words in a statute makes a world of difference.

AB1287 is a case in point. It makes a small tweak to a state law that gives developers “bonuses” for building low-income housing.

On the books since the 1970s, the Density Bonus Law has a simple idea at its core: If a developer agrees to dedicate some units in a project to affordable housing, it should be allowed to make its project a little larger than a city’s rules otherwise allow. For example, if a builder dedicates 10% of the units to low-income housing, it receives a size bonus of 20%. This allows a site zoned for 40 units to be developed with 48.

AB1287 makes a seemingly minor change allowing developers to base their number-of-units calculation on what is allowed by a city’s general plan for land use rather than a city’s zoning. 

This might sound like a hair-splitting distinction. It is not…

Continue reading Did one of California’s biggest new housing reforms go too far? →

deregulated housing bills, Housing

Big San Jose apartment complex may convert to all-affordable units

By George Avalos : mercurynews – excerpt (audio track)

City officials prep decision to clear path for conversion

SAN JOSE — A big apartment complex in downtown San Jose could be converted into an affordable homes property, a shift that would terminate its status as market-rate housing.

Modera The Alameda, a 168-unit apartment building on The Alameda near the SAP Center and Diridon train station, is currently slated to be transformed into an affordable housing complex.

The San Jose City Council is scheduled to meet Nov. 14 to consider a conversion proposal for Modera. This decision also includes a financing package to enable the transformation to affordable housing.

A $100 million package of tax-exempt bonds to finance the purchase of Modera The Alameda is the funding centerpiece of the affordable housing conversion, according to documents on file with San Jose officials…

The proposal though, would remove Modera from the property tax rolls — which means the complex would no longer generate property tax revenue once the new owner takes over…(more)

Here is a relatively new program that seems to rely on government funds to convert market rate to “affordable” housing. What does this do to the tax basis? And is this a reasonable approach to generate affordable housing?

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

These 12 secret power players are shaping the Bay Area housing market

By Susie Neilson, Emma Stiefel, J.K. Dineen and Lauren Hepler : sfchronicle – excerpt (includes audio track)

Last year, The Chronicle obtained data on almost every property in the Bay Area — about 2.3 million unique records. We were hoping the data would be a treasure trove of information about real estate ownership in the region, allowing us to easily identify who owns what, and thus pinpoint the most powerful corporate owners of rental housing.

Quickly, we learned it wasn’t so simple. California doesn’t have hard-and-fast rules on how property owners identify themselves; large corporations, hedge funds and even wealthy families often purchase multiple homes through shell companies or trusts, shielding their names from ownership records. It’s only by carefully tracing networks of ownership that one can start to grasp how much property an entity actually has.

So we redoubled our efforts. During the past year, The Chronicle analyzed these property records, which were collected from county assessors’ offices, plus nearly 7 million unique business records. We used machine learning methods to parse the data and called on dozens of experts and additional data sources. This work yielded a list of 12 of the Bay Area’s largest, most influential ownership networks. We believe this is an unprecedented effort to uncover rental ownership and management networks across all nine counties in the region: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma…

We still aren’t sure we’ve captured all of the Bay Area’s largest owners, but we’re confident this list of 12 includes some of the region’s major power players in residential real estate, housing tens of thousands of families in nearly 7,000 assessor-defined properties from San Jose to Santa Rosa…

Even if the owner of your property isn’t on our list, you can learn more about who owns it by using our map of nearly 2.3 million Bay Area properties here. You may read more about our methodology here.

Read why transparency matters…

Navigate to our content

One company operates thousands of San Francisco apartments. Just don’t call them a landlord

This map reveals who owns every property in the S.F. Bay Area…

Invitation Homes
Michael Marr
Greystar
Woodmont / Tad Taube
Equity Residential
John Vidovich
Neill Sullivan / REO Homes
Essex
UDR, Inc.
Tricon Residential
AvalonBay
Ardenbrook / Ardenwood…(more)

RELATED:

This map reveals who owns every property in the S.F. Bay Area

By Emma Stiefel and Susie Neilson: sfchronicle – excerpt

This tool will help you investigate your landlord or anyone else’s

To our knowledge, there has never been a centralized database where someone could see who owns any property in the nine-county Bay Area region, making it difficult to investigate connections between the powerful forces that shape the housing market for all. So The Chronicle built one.

Type in your full address, or any Bay Area address, to see who officially owns nearly any building. The map contains data on almost 2.3 million properties registered across the Bay Area’s nine counties, which The Chronicle obtained in summer 2021…(more)

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing

City Hall proposes a deal to regain control of Builders Remedy projects

by Matthew Hall : smdp – excerpt

Thirteen controversial oversized developments could be reined in if a proposed settlement goes through. The quid pro quo is the City will settle several lawsuits with the developer WS Communities. The City of Santa Monica wants to bring 13 Builders Remedy projects back into the regular development pipeline at their May 9 meeting through incentives created as part of a settlement with the developer.

City Hall has proposed settling several lawsuits with several companies related to WS Communities, the development company owned by Neil Shekhter that applied for 13 of the 16 Builder’s Remedy projects. While the cases being settled are entirely unrelated to the Builders Remedy projects, the terms include a clause that offers WS Communities incentives to drop the otherwise unstoppable projects.

WS Communities and its subsidiaries have been engaged in several lawsuits with the city over tenant harassment and the city’s leasing rules. At the May 9 meeting, Council will be presented with a settlement that covers those cases.

“The Settlement Agreement provides financial benefits for three recently displaced tenants of 1242 10th Street and guarantees them the right to return. The Settlement Agreement would also authorize the transfer of 20 deed-restricted affordable units from 1560 Lincoln Blvd to 1038-42 10th Street,” said the staff report.

However, the deal includes an additional clause independent of the leasing/harassment cases. The settlement offers WS several incentives to reenter the normal development process. It allows the developer to combine affordable housing requirements from individual projects into a single location while preserving State density bonuses that would otherwise be invalid if affordable housing were combined. It also offers increased allowable parking in their developments…

The Santa Monica Coalition for a Liveable City (SMCLC) opposes the deal saying the information presented so far lacks important details.

“This proposed settlement is essentially a mega development agreement – the biggest one in the city’s history,” said Diana Gorden on behalf or SMCLC in an email sent to Council. “Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.”…(more)