Chris Elmendorf Profile picture
Sep 19 9 tweets 4 min read Read on X
New Searchlight poll validates essentially all of the takeaways from my work w/ @ClaytonNall & @stan_okl on housing "supply skepticism" in the mass public.

(They got substantively similar results using different questions on a different sample.)

1/8
Point #1: Most people want lower housing prices--including most homeowners!

/2 Image
Image
Point #2: Most people don't believe that a positive housing supply shock would result in lower prices. (This implied by "personal finances" item on Searchlight poll, as well as "home values.")

/3 Image
Image
Point #3: Developers, investors, and landlords receive most of the blame for high prices.

/4 Image
Image
Point #4: Permitting reform is a relatively popular pro-housing policy; parking reform does relatively poorly.

/5 Image
Image
Point #5: Homeowners & renters have pretty similar housing-market beliefs and housing-policy preferences, contra the "homevoter hypothesis."

/6 Image
Image
Point #6: Americans have weak views about housing policy.
- in Searchlight survey, this is manifested by high share of "don't know" responses
- in our work, we also show low test-retest consistency on supply-side policy prefs & large treatment effects from messaging

/7 Image
Image
Image
link to writeup of Searchlight poll, toplines, and crosstabs: searchlightinstitute.org/research/what-…

link to our JEP paper, aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…

/end
@threadreaderapp unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Chris Elmendorf

Chris Elmendorf Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CSElmendorf

Oct 5
I wrote a long 🧵 yesterday on my puzzlement about the chatter that @GavinNewsom or his advisors might think it'd be politically prudent to veto SB 79.

Today I'll explain why I don't think he'll cave.

tl,dr: he's a bold idealist and fundamentally good on housing!

1/🧵
Context: I don't know Newsom or any of his top advisors personally. (I met him once at a law-school commencement ceremony, that's all.)

But I've watched him for a long time, first as my mayor in San Francisco, then as Lt. Governor and Governor.

/2
His defining quality as a politician is a willingness, even an eagerness, to make big, idealistic bets on the future.
He's a first mover, always looking for the new thing.

/3
Read 21 tweets
Sep 17
SB 79 Thread #3: @California_HCD's role (w/ some preliminary advice)

This is the most important of my SB 79 🧵s, b/c SB 79 puts HCD in driver's seat.

HCD could drive SB 79 into the ditch if it's not careful... and wreck the Housing Element Law in the process.

1/24
Big picture: HCD's job under SB 79 is to:

1) Issue standards for "counting" SB 79 capacity toward cities' RHNA-rezone obligations

2) Review two kinds of local ordinances, which I'll call "SB 79 conforming ordinances" and "SB 79 alternative plans"

/2
As my previous 🧵s explained, the compromises in SB 79 open the door to local mischief, including (among other things) demolition controls that could negate SB 79, and reallocation of SB 79 capacity to sites that are infeasible to develop.

HCD is the main check.

/3
Read 25 tweets
Sep 16
SB 79 Thread #2.2: More legal issues.

This one covers:

4. SB 79 in cities whose implementation ordinance may be unlawful;
5. waivers & reductions in local standards under SB 79;
6. transit-agency zoning

/2
Issue #4: How will project entitlement work if city has passed an SB 79 implementing ordinance that may be unlawful, i.e., not "substantially compliant" w/ SB 79?

Can developer proceed under SB 79 directly, at least if HCD hasn't approved the implementing ordinance?

/3
Context: An SB 79 ordinance may withdraw certain sites (those w/ historical resources, or exposed to sea level rise or wildlife risk), & reallocate heights/densities among others.

Like a housing element, such ordinances face HCD review for "substantial compliance."

/4
Read 25 tweets
Sep 15
This is a super important addition to my thread. ⤵️

Applying logic of Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, it's very likely that SB 79 projects will qualify for the AB 130 CEQA exemption, whether or not city has enacted a local implementation ordinance.

1/7
Yes, a NIMBY plaintiff could say, "Wolmer is different b/c in that case, the city had incorporated state density bonus law into its local zoning code, making the waived development restrictions 'inapplicable' within meaning of the municipal code."

/2 Image
But even though the court italicized this point, it ultimately did not rely on it.
The gist of the opinion is that the word "applicable" within the meaning of the Class 32 infill exemption should be construed to give effect to the core policies of both SDBL and CEQA.

/3 Image
Read 8 tweets
Sep 14
SB 79 Thread #2, part 1: Big Open Legal Questions

I will cover:

1) general principles for construing SB 79;
2) CEQA;
3) demolitions

1/
Start w/ general principles. Will judges interpret SB 79 w/ strong thumb on scale in favor of housing?

No.

Two of CA's big housing laws explicitly instruct judges to construe them broadly (Density Bonus Law, Housing Accountability Act). SB 79 does not.

/2
That SB 79 passed w/ incredibly narrow margins, after all manner of compromises, also warrants cautious interpretation.

@DBRodriguez5 & Weingast's great paper, "The Positive Political Theory of Legislative History," should be required reading for judges in SB 79 cases.

/3 Image
Read 24 tweets
Sep 13
SB 79 Thread #1: Big Picture

In the fall of 2018, I first met @hanlonbt. I had recently posted "Beyond the Double Veto". He reached out & suggested we get coffee.

We argued about SB 827 (SB 79's oldest ancestor), which had died the previous winter.

1/24
I was skeptical.

I said, "Even if you manage to pass an SB 827 successor, it'll be like ADU law circa 1982. Local govs will destroy the projects w/ conditions of approval & CEQA."

He replied, "Have you seen what we did with the Housing Accountability Act?!"

/2
"Yeah," I answered, "your HAA reforms are great! Even so, they don't stop discretionary conditions of approval or CEQA. If I were in your shoes, I'd focus on strengthening the Housing Element Law. It's dumb in lots of ways, but it gets one essential thing right."

/3
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(