Category Archives: Planning

Housing, Planning, Politics

The numbers don’t lie: The housing crisis is not caused by a supply shortage

Leave a comment

By Niko Block : policyalternatives – excerpt

Art by sfbluecomics

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)

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

From John Crabtree, who read the entire Upzoning Plan

Read The Fine Print
Upzoning & Ocean Beach
True Clarity on page 818

https://crabtreej.substack.com/p/readthefineprint?utm_medium=email

…I read it [The Mayor’s Upzoning Plan] Mayor Lurie. And now my readers are going to read about it too. With any luck they will share this with others as others have shared it with me. The jig, as they say Mayor Lurie, is definitely up.

There are manifold examples of horrible development and redevelopment concepts in Mayor Lurie’s Upzoning Plan, too many to detail in one essay. So, I will focus on the one that is most steeped in deception and betrayal — the Western Shoreline Area Plan amendments.

 

That image is just the first 9 lines; it goes on after that and there are more specifics elsewhere in Mayor Lurie’s Upzoning Plan. Honestly though, there is little reason to go any further than the page that I included above.

The Western Area Shoreline Plan policy objectives, as amended, would read — “ENSURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE ADVANCES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOALS APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOCATION OF EACH PARCEL.”

I have already heard pushback from Mayor Lurie’s office saying, “no, no, that does not mean ‘ensure development,’ that is not why that is in there.” Oh, really? Then why the hell is it in there? It fails every credibility test to say that this amending language will not actually change coastal protections. Opening the door to coastal zone development is unpopular, frighteningly so. I get why your wrecking-ball planning office would try to hide it on page 818.

Remember that Engardio kept telling us this was all, “Fake News!”

It is not “Fake News!” Moreover, now that it is no longer hidden, please do not insult me and, more importantly, do not insult my friends, my neighbors and my community by saying you want to make this change, but the change would have no impact. It is patently absurd to risk the political fallout from such a move if the underlying amendments lacked real-world impact, insultingly absurd.

Mayor Lurie, take out the changes to the Western Area Shoreline plan that begin on page 818 and all of the other amendment provisions that emanate from it.

While I am at it, here are some other line-in-the-sand issues for me and a lot of other people, in The Sunset and beyond:

  • Open The Great Highway, reinstate the compromise!
  • Protect the Coastal Zone and Western Shoreline from upzoning and development!
  • Infrastructure before density — utilities, sewer, transit, water, public safety & local schools.
  • Small business stability — preserve and encourage a diversity of retail spaces and other small businesses, including older and more affordable storefronts.
  • Stop with the blanket upzoning that look for all the world like someone took a highlighter to a map in the Western neighborhoods. Upzoning and redevelopment needs to look like it was done with a fine tip brush and not a paint roller.

Mayor Lurie, we can do better than this, we must do better than this… john

CEQA, Housing, Planning, Politics

San Francisco mayor’s ‘Family Zoning Plan’ met with strong opposition

Video 1 Comment

By Sergio Quintana : nbcbayarea – excerpt

Mayor Daniel Lurie’s proposal to boost housing could bring taller buildings to parts of the city, where current residents fiercely oppose them.

What was supposed to be a rally for Mayor Daniel Lurie’s proposal to boost housing in San Francisco turned into a shouting match on Thursday.

A well organized group of opponents hurled insults at nearly every speaker at Lurie’s event, much to the surprise and dismay of the mayor.

Lurie had scheduled an event on the steps of San Francisco City Hall to rally support for his “Family Zoning Plan.”

While about half the crowd came to support the mayor, the other half appeared bent on shouting him down over the proposal.

The mayor’s plan, if approved, would make multi-family homes like duplexes, triplexes and apartment buildings in parts of the city that are currently zoned only for single family homes.

The plan also reforms the city’s permitting process with the goal of green lighting about 36,000 new homes by 2031.

Lurie’s proposal could bring taller buildings to parts of the city, where current residents fiercely oppose them… (more)

The Planning Commissioners vote 3 nays and 4 ayes so the matter goes to the Board of Supervisors to approve.

And the Democrats wonder why they lost the election? They better start  listening  to the voters and quit telling people how to live. All the upzonoing and car removal bills have not lowered  rents or added riders to the public transit system. The draconian laws are driving people out of the state. They are losing seats in congress.

All those claims of how the future is going to unravel have not panned out as predicted and there has been very little recognition of this or flexibility on dealing with the new reality.

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

Van Ness Is ‘In Crisis.’ Revival Plans Hinge On Housing Towers and Chain Stores

By Adam Brinklow : thefrisc – excerpt

Empty on brand new condos on Van Ness, shot on July 11, 2-25

This main SF thoroughfare once had grand houses and auto palaces. Now there’s a great bus line, but empty storefronts. Can it again be a place to live and linger?

“ In its May letter, the Van Ness Corridor Neighborhood Coalition asked for drastic reductions of some maximum heights, especially along eight blocks that squeeze between Pacific Heights to the west and Russian Hill and Nob Hill to the east. On the five blocks between California Street and Pacific Avenue, they want to cap heights at 100 feet, down from 250 feet. (Every 10 feet is roughly one story.) On the three-block stretch between Pacific and Green Street, they want 120 feet maximum instead of 350.”… (more)
What is truly amazing abut this article, is that they admit the program they already applied is not working. Fast buses on the street are not conducive to stopping and shopping or “hanging out:” Tall buildings are not being filled with retail or residents. So what is their solution? MORE OF THE SAME THING THAT IS NOT WORKING NOW!
Do these people actually believe the snake oil they are tryin to sell the public? Are there any people who do not see the little guy behind the big mask on the screen? After all Alice did return from Wonderland back to her normal home, and Dorothy did return to Kansas after her dream ended. Not many people want to live on a fantasy AI gameboard 24/7.

Our leaders are willing to try anything other than going back to what used to work before they destroyed to improve it.
CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

Sausage Making turns to Extortion over the Weekend, brought to you by the Wiener Newsom machine.

Breaking news!

Wiener’s plan to fold his bills into the budget was refused by the state parliamentarian. So… They went with option B.

Wiener pulled his bills  and is pushing them onto the state legislature while Newsom takes the strange position of threatening to withhold his signature from his own budget, if the Wiener anti-CEQA bills don’t pass if we believe the latest news.

 

 

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics, Transportation

We need help stopping Senate Bill 79

If you need a visual to understand the impacts of Wiener’s SB 79
The above links to a visual explanation that illustrates the significance of the changes SB 79 could make in your neighborhood.

It took Wiener three rounds of voting to get SB 79 passed in the Senate. It’s amended and scheduled for hearings in the Assembly Housing, Local Government, and Natural Resources committees.
The Housing Committee hearing is in the first week of July;
letters are due June 25th.

If you are concerned about this, consider taking some actions:

See contact info below.  You may call or  leave a message on the phone asking the Assembly members to vote NO on S B 79.
A  spreadsheet of Assemblymembers with contact info

Or send a letter to the Assembly members listed below:

Assembly Members on the Committees 

Text version of a sample letter and speaking points.

I strongly oppose SB 79 as an assault on local control that disregards state-certified housing elements. At first glance, the amendments made by Senator Wiener might appear reasonable, but actually offer nothing of substance.

• The new “affordability” component merely reflects incentives already available.

• The new option for localities to write alternative plans are of no benefit. By requiring that the same number of units and floor area ratio be maintained, this provision is a false alternative, as it merely creates a complex balancing act.

The thrust of SB 79 remains ministerially approved market-rate density without regard to local conditions. Our housing elements have already indicated which sites best serve our communities as infill.

SB 79 is deeply flawed in both concept and consequence. It would inflict disproportionate harm on the most affordable neighborhoods in our cities.

I OPPOSE SB 79 for these reasons:

  • It undermines affordable housing goals
  • 81% of all development under new laws is already market rate
  • It encourages gentrification
  • It undermines the housing element process
  • It does not exempt fire hazard zones
  • Affordable housing near transit is the avowed goal of state policy, but it is not the goal of this bill.

Sincerely,

Individuals: Your name and address
Organizations: Your name, title, and signature; add logo at top

If you want to learn how to post to the portal, go here: https://discoveryink.wordpress.com/ca-legislative-process/ca-bills/posting-letters

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

Will The City’s plans to add more homes make housing affordable?

By Keith Menconi : sfexaminer – excerpt (audio)

San Francisco city leaders are trying to add a lot of new homes to The City in the coming years.

If approved, a proposal to upzone large swaths of The City’s north and west would add enough room for the construction of roughly 36,000 new dwellings.

For upzoning supporters, the hope is that all those added homes will help to bend the housing cost curve in San Francisco, and, eventually, reduce The City’s affordability crisis.

But progressive housing advocates, who have been organizing in opposition to the effort, are pushing back with two questions: What kind of housing will get built? And who will those homes be for?…

Those who look more favorably on market-rate developments are making the case that when it comes to new housing, a rising development tide lifts all renters.

“We have both data and anecdotal evidence that shows when we have an increase in housing supply, that helps open up more opportunities,” across the income spectrum, said Jane Natoli, San Francisco organizing director for YIMBY Action… (more)

We have heard all the arguments on both sides, but, no one has seen any of the data or evidence that Jane Natoli claims is out there. And believe me, people have looked for it. There is some evidence that distressing commercial zones by inflicting traffic and parking limitations and allowing anti-social behavior to invade a neighborhood will take a toll on the local tax base. It is hard to miss the damage done to the Market and Van Ness neighborhoods. Those empty office and commercial buildings do not give any credence to the supply and demand in housing supply argument. Please Ms. Natoli, show us your data. Where has added housing stock of the stack and pack variety lowered rents? We see a lot of empty units but not a huge drop in rents. We also see a huge demand for reduced tax assessments and other unintended consequences.

Housing, Planning, Politics, Transportation

Meet the politician who could make or break California’s housing efforts. What’s her plan?

By Emily Hoeven : sfchronicle – excerpt (via email)

Following their devastating losses in the 2024 election, many Democrats have eagerly aligned themselves with the burgeoning “abundance” movement, which contends that blue states like California need to focus less on sluggish bureaucratic processes and more on tangible outcomes to win back voters.

But it’s one thing to embrace a slogan and another thing entirely to take action. Here in California, we’re about to see which side of that divide our leaders stand on.

Buffy Wicks, Chair of the Appropriations Committee
Buffy Wicks, Chair of the Appropriations Committee

 

Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, is pushing one of the biggest bills in recent memory, AB609, to exempt almost all infill housing development from California Environmental Quality Act review. And it’s just one of 20 bills in an ambitious, bipartisan package that aims to streamline and simplify the state’s housing approval process and make it easier to build the estimated 2.5 million homes California needs.

Actually passing these bills, however, will require that Democrats risk alienating some of their most influential constituencies, including labor unions and environmental justice groups — some of which have already come out swinging against Wicks’ bill and others.

It’s “a moment of truth for the Legislature,” Michael Lane, state policy director for the urbanist organization SPUR, told me.

Will lawmakers move forward with bold bills, or will they revert to the failed policies of the past?

Aisha Wahab, Chair of the California State Housing Committee
Aisha Wahab, Chair of the California State Housing Committee

One key lawmaker who will play a decisive role in answering that question is state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, whom Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, recently appointed as leader of the Senate Housing Committee.

Committee leaders have significant sway in the Legislature. Not only can their stance on a bill meaningfully influence its chance of passage, but they also can decide whether to give a bill a hearing or kill it in cold blood.

Wahab isn’t the only committee leader or legislative power broker who will determine the fate of California’s “abundance” agenda, but she may be one of the biggest wild cards. In her first hearing as housing committee chair last month, she proclaimed that it’s time for California to “move away from development, development, development” and also stated “transit-oriented development doesn’t necessarily work.”

Continue reading Meet the politician who could make or break California’s housing efforts. What’s her plan? →

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Planning, Politics

Push to build more homes on California coast stifled after lawmakers derail housing bills

By Ben Christopher : calmatters – excerpt

Several efforts to minimize the power and influence of the California Coastal Commission have stalled…

Housing advocates thought that this was going to be the year when they finally cracked the California Coast.

In early spring, Democratic lawmakers, and the Yes In My Backyard activists backing them, rolled out a series of bills aimed at making it easier to build apartments and accessory dwelling units along California’s highly regulated coast and to make it more difficult for the independent and influential California Coastal Commission to slow or block housing projects. The 15-member group oversees almost all of the state’s 840 miles of coastline, a stretch of land that just under a million Californians call home.

The pro-construction push built off last year’s success for the coalition when the Legislature passed a major housing law and — breaking from long-standing legislative tradition — did not include a carveout for the coast. This year’s pack of bills was meant to cement and build off a new political reality in which the 48-year-old Coastal Commission no longer has quite so much say over housing policy.

Fast forward to mid-August and those new bills are either dead or so severely watered down that they no longer carry the promise of a more built-out coastline. Whatever happened last year, the California Coastal Commission is still a force to be reckoned with…(more)