Inspired by this great pod ⤵️ , in which another nationally prominent progressive says, "of course I agree w/ state & local YIMBYs on 99% of their agenda," here's a seven-item test. 🧵.
For each policy choice, state whether (A) or (B) is closer to your own views, even if neither one is exactly right.
/2
#1. A state law upzoning major streets, commercial areas & sites near transit for multifamily housing should...
A) require 15% of new units to be deed-restricted lower income housing
B) impose a BMR mandate only if its cost is offset w/equivalent tax breaks for developer
/3
#2. The state law in Q1 should...
A) exclude any site w/ an existing rent-controlled unit or where a lower-income tenant resided in previous 5 years
B) allow redevelopment of rental properties if 2/3 of the tenants agree to a written, publicly recorded buyout
/4
#3. States should exempt large housing projects on infill sites from "mini-NEPA" enviro reviews...
A) so long as developer complies w/generally applicable wage & labor laws
B) only if developer agrees to pay union-negotiated "prevailing wages" to each construction craft
/5
#4. States should...
A) allow local governments to subject new buildings to rent control from date of certificate of occupancy
B) exempt new buildings from rent control for first 15 years
/6
#5. States should...
A) allow local rent control that caps annually allowable rent increases below the CPI
B) preempt local rent control if max increase < CPI
/7
#6. States should...
A) allow cities to charge progressive real estate transfer taxes based on value of the parcel (e.g, 1% for properties < $1M, 2% for $1-5m, 3% for $5+m)
B) key transfer tax rate to value of units (so $10m apt bldg w/ 10 units is taxed at $1m rate)
/8
#7. State laws that upzone infill housing sites or require ministerial review of housing proposals should...
A) exempt lower-income and majority-minority census
tracts
B) not exempt such tracts
/9
Hoping for replies from @jeffhauser @ZephyrTeachout @BharatRamamurti @sandeepvaheesan @brian_callaci @GaneshSitaraman @BigMeanInternet @HannahStoryB @glastris @WeisbergNate and others.
This 🧵 is not a gibe. Qualified answers are welcome. Hoping to clarify the debate.
CA deserves its moment in the sun, but journalists should be paying more attention to the amazing Abundance policies -- and better Democratic politics -- of our neighbors to the north.
Washington State is killing it. Oregon's doing pretty well too.
2⃣ In 2002, CA repealed parking minimums near "major transit stops." But the bill gives local govts wiggle room to re-impose parking mandates unless the project meets certain targets for deed-restricted-affordable housing.
"Can you put a rough number on how much California's CEQA reforms will increase housing production?"
I've gotten this Q from lots of journalists over the last 48 hours (who sound frustrated w/ my answer), so here's a 🧵 laying out my thinking about it.
1/25
tl, dr: @GavinNewsom was right to call AB 130/SB 131 "the most consequential housing reform in modern history in the state of California" -- but even so, there's no defensible way to give a quantitative "this much more housing" answer to the reporters' question.
/2
In part, the CEQA-reform package is consequential b/c of what it signifies: that California is overcoming the seemingly intractable politics of a high-cost, low-supply equilibrium.
/3
An update on California's CEQA / housing package as we hurtle toward the finish line.
tldr: @BuffyWicks's CEQA infill exemption is now *even better* than the 6/24 draft ⤵️; and it looks like @Scott_Wiener will land most of the fish in SB 607 but not the real lunker.
The million dollar (million unit?) question about Wicks's infill exemption has always been, "Will labor unions extract wage concessions that render the bill ineffective?"
/2
The 6/24 bill draft featured a novel, two-tier minimum wage for construction workers, plus "prevailing wage" requirements for tall projects (>85'), 100% affordable projects, and certain projects / crafts in San Francisco.
/3
- How CA enviros were duped or white-guilted into letting greenfield developers get their dream policy enacted, even as the same orgs continued to fight infill housing,
The big idea of the PSA is that if a city doesn't approve or deny a project w/in defined period of time, the project becomes "automatically approved" by operation of law.
However, opponents can attack it in court if project didn't comply w/ applicable rules.
/2
That is, a project which has been "deemed approved" by operation of PSA is not "deemed to comply" with applicable zoning & development standards. (Though certain provisions of the HAA may render project "deemed compliant" too.)
/3