,
18 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
We’re about to get started with the Senate housing committee hearing, which today will include a discussion of #SB50. You can follow along with a livestream here: senate.ca.gov. I’ll thread the tweets here as things get spicy. 
At the risk of my Twitter feed becoming an MC Escher painting, here’s my thread from this morning on what to watch for in the #SB50 discussion today
Sen. Scott Wiener, SB 50’s author: "SB 50 addresses one of the fundamental obstacles to having enough housing in California for everyone who needs it, specifically hyper low-density zoning.” Says bill has broad support from biz/labor, student groups and AARP, environmentalists
Wiener claims it’s illegal to build more than a single-family home or two units on 80% of residential land in California.
Key point Wiener just made. Yes, #SB50 is likely to advance today. But it’s next committee stop this month will be with Sen. @ilike_mike’s committee, who is a skeptic of the bill: "Sen. McGuire and I have been working intensively for a while now for a shared approach.”
A representative of the Building Industry Association is about to talk in favor of SB 50. Notes that he’s sitting next to a representative from the construction workers’ union, who is also in favor of the bill, which doesn’t happen too often.
We’re about to start formal testimony from those opposed to SB 50. It’s @CaCities, @HousingHumanRt and a group I haven’t identified yet.
A local Realtor is speaking now on SB 50: "This would destroy my single-family suburban one per lot neighborhood."
There have been many references during this SB 50 hearing to concerns from low-income tenant groups, who were key opponents last year. Such groups now negotiating with Wiener have released a letter with their thoughts. Here it is: dropbox.com/s/bgdkfyy0nky8…
Yep, this is the way it’s been for two years.
A good, wonky question by Sen. @SenMariaEDurazo. SB 50 allows for developers to pay a fee instead of building low-income housing on site. Why? Wiener says that's at the request of low-income developers and conversations are ongoing. (This is important for where housing would go.)
Note that this is typically how initial committee hearings go. There are literally thousands of bills in the Legislature and lawmakers don’t know how to met out in-the-weeds fights. So they tend to advance bills — particularly those from Dems — and reserve a right to oppose later
It is so interesting to hear the reasons why Democrats and Republicans either support or oppose SB 50. GOP Sen. @PatBatesCA says she’s against it because it does away with parking requirements: "Parking in our suburban communities drives so many of our public safety issues.”
Actual news comes out of this hearing. Sen. @ilike_mike says that he and @Scott_Wiener plan to wrap up negotiations over SB 50 and related bills by April 24 when it will face its next committee hearing.
@ilike_mike @Scott_Wiener Who’s Sen. @ilike_mike? He represents Sonoma, Marin and Northern California communities. As his Twitter handle suggests he’s very likable! He also has been opposed to SB50 and similar approaches. He has his own less aggressive version. So whatever deal may be reached is important
Six Senate committee members just voted to advance #SB50 so it will get out and go to its next much more suspenseful hearing on April 24. Not official until the entire committee weighs in.
California’s #SB50 is passing the Senate housing committee. Takeaways from the hearing:
* Negotiations with Sen. @ilike_mike, who is opposed, will take place before the next hearing April 24.
* Broader support this year but opponents still come from rich and poor communities.
* Negotiations with Sen. @ilike_mike, who is opposed, will take place before the next hearing April 24.
* Broader support this year but opponents still come from rich and poor communities.
Let me clarify that Sen. @ilike_mike is technically not opposed to SB50 — he abstained from voting on the bill in committee. But he has certainly expressed wariness with SB50 and has instead proposed a less aggressive bill. This is what the negotiations will be about.
