In recent years, supply-and-demand denying interest groups have cajoled state legislators in Sacranento from excluding any housing that has hosted a renter in the last X number of years from using state housing laws legalizing a lot more housing...
...bad actor cities like LA then make the problem worse by shifting the burden of proof on homeowners. Many normal people give up, and projects don't proceed.
In this case, this house will either remain a dump or flip into an expensive single-family home, when it could have been four apartments. (Or with SB 1123, up to 10.) Is this a win for equity? Of course not.
The impossible has become possible: we've passed a clean CEQA infill exemption. This is probably the most important thing California has done on housing in the present YIMBY moment.
I explain the significance of this historic win in this thread. 👇
If your Assemblymember and/or Senator voted AYE, please take a moment to CALL or EMAIL them to say THANKS! We need more courageous votes like this if we're going to end the California housing crisis!
You've probably been hearing a lot about budget bills, environmental reviews, and labor fights out here on the West Coast. It's all adding up to probably the biggest policy change in modern California history. Here's a breakdown for the perplexed.
In 1970, California joined various states in mandating that all public projects undertake an environmental review, disclosing and mitigating impacts. This made sense amid a frenzy of freeways, urban renewal, etc. Thus, CEQA: the California Environmental Quality Act.
The enforcement mechanism was intuitive: if an environmental review should have been conducted and wasn't, or failed to study some relevant impact, or failed to undertake reasonable mitigation, nearly anyone could easily sue and force the issue.
In my experience, asking developers what they think will get more housing built nearly gets you an answer tied to a specific cell on their most recent project proforma, e.g. drive down interest rates, lower fees, etc. It makes sense: this what they spend all day thinking about.
Asking a fish about water, etc. They build homes, they don't do policy. It's weird to expect them to center hard-to-quantify things like entitlement risk, or upstream determinants of inputs like land costs, which are increased by restrictive zoning.
Nor is the modal developer especially good at imagining what would make entirely new classes of development work, e.g. missing middle. Usually just a glib, "nobody builds that/will build that." Of course, that was true of ADUs before statewide California legalization.
A big day in the legislature for pro-housing legislation! Three pieces of California YIMBY-sponsored legislation moved out of the second chamber. Combined with laws we've helped to pass in recent years, it will never be easier to build missing middle housing in California. 🧵
Background: In 2021, California made history by adopting SB 9, which aimed to allow duplexes and lot splits. When combined with robust ADU law, the goal was to allow for up to four units on lots in residential areas—key for ending our shortage.
Unfortunately, a few bad actor cities found ways found ways to torpedo law with unworkable standards, and many more slow walked it, resulting in few duplexes or lot splits. Working with researchers and practitioners, we cataloged these issues. ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-p…