This isn't a manufactured crisis. When some of us think about "affordable" housing we immediately think of our homeless population, and their needs are part of the problem. But a much larger problem is where our healthcare workers, teachers, first responders, and other critical service and trade workers are going to live. Our veterans. Our young people, just starting out.
If you haven't been a California homeowner for a couple of decades or more -- it's very tough to get your foot on the first rung of the ladder.
Some legislators have legitimately wanted to help with this shortage and have pushed for solutions that sounded good in academia, or a conference room, but not so good in the real world. Like eliminating single-family zoning . . .
In America, when we recognize a problem we want to jump in with both feet and FIX IT! And when a problem is apparent, it's both American - and human nature - to want to know "Who is to blame?".
Though there are easy targets, in reality no one person or group is responsible for the whole problem -- it's tougher than that. The bedrock causes -- all across the country, not just in California -- are complex and many faceted. California's problem with homelessness is worse than most places -- in part because we normally have much better weather, DUH. But affordable housing shortages are pretty much coast-to-coast.
If you boil it down, in America, you often really do get what you pay for: why would a builder put up affordable housing when he or she can make much more money per unit of housing by building market-rate -- or better yet -- high-end housing, at least in our current economy? Few builders will make that choice for affordable unless "government" -- federal, state, or both together make it financially attractive to do so. And possible to do so with appropriate zoning and regulations.
The powers that be in Sacramento have decided that selfish NIMBY's are responsible for the affordable housing shortage, because they insist on clinging to their single-family homes, with yards for kids and dogs to play, and room for a pool, or a garden if you want one. What we used to call The American Dream.
And so, single-family zoning has been virtually eliminated in all of California. And land use planning and zoning, formerly the responsibility of locally elected officials, has been stripped away and is now the province of the unelected officials of the CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). They are telling our cities and counties how much new housing they need to provide (their Housing Element) -- and if they don't provide for enough, HCD has a big paddle to spank them with.
In the former planning cycle, officials in OC had to adopt plans that together would have them zone for almost 38,000 homes. In the current cycle 2021-2029, the Housing Element requirement mushroomed to 180,000 homes, almost 5 times as much. And about half of Orange County's cities haven't figured out how to hit that target yet. And many, MANY, are questioning the validity of the target.
As one component of supposedly addressing the affordability problem, the CA legislature passed Senate Bills 9 and 10 (SB9 and 10). SB9 allows a developer to buy the lot next to you, split it in two, build two houses on each new lot, and add an ADU (a Granny flat) to each, adding only a minimum amount of new parking. Before, you had one neighbor, now you have six. Everyone’s parking on the street. Don’t worry about who will trim the trees – there won’t be any.
If splitting the lot isn’t feasible, instead the builder can just tear down the existing home and put up a multi-story, multi-unit structure . . . otherwise known as an apartment building.
SB10 allows the builder to get to a similar place, except if the property is within 1/2 mile of transit – yes, a Metrolink station, but also, yes, a bus line – he doesn’t have to provide any new parking at all.
This is now state law, no matter where you live, no matter what your zoning. Your local electeds can’t do anything to stop it, your Homeowner’s Association rules may offer some protection against SB9, for now, but not against ADU's, even if you think they're prohibited. See our BAD Examples. Local control no longer exists.
And the best part? SB9 and 10 housing is all market-rate. Not a single unit is required to be affordable! We’re told that if builders take advantage of these new laws and put up more market-rate housing, that somehow affordable housing will magically appear somewhere else. I don’t know about you, but I stopped believing in magic when I was ten.
And it gets worse.
If a city or county fails to submit a “substantially compliant” plan to meet its Housing Element numbers, watch out! The Builders’ Remedy is now the big paddle that HCD needed. This is a law from the late eighties that has been weaponized for the current situation. If a local government is non-compliant, a builder can pursue a project, basically anywhere, completely ignoring local zoning and the general plan for the area, and build anything that the site can support without regard for height or density limits, so long as 20% of the project is affordable. If it “pencils”, build it.
Spank, spank!
Local control no longer exists.
So far, 26 Builders’ Remedy applications have been filed in Southern California, 3 of them in the City of Orange.
And still worse laws are coming!
SB423, now making its way through the legislature, says that half-way though the planning cycle (2025), even if a city or county has submitted a “substantially compliant” plan, if half of their Housing Element quota hasn’t been built (or approved for building), they become non-compliant again, and subject to Builders’ Remedy, again! (Gee, I didn’t know that cities built houses, did you?)
Do we have your attention yet?
We do need more affordable housing, but not at the cost of destroying our existing communities. Before this goes any farther we need to restore local control over land-use planning and zoning. Your vote should count in what happens to your local community!
And, according to a recent study by the Urban Institute, up-zoning (increasing residential density) does add slightly to the housing supply but not does increase affordability. So this flood of new laws may benefit someone . . . but not residents of existing communities, and not people looking for more affordable housing.
Who, then, do you suppose?
Zoning changes don't increase affordable supply
JOIN WITH US TO STOP THIS!
Copyright © 2023 Restore Local Control - All Rights Reserved.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.