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.)
Point #1: Most people want lower housing prices--including most homeowners!
/2
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
Point #3: Developers, investors, and landlords receive most of the blame for high prices.
/4
Point #4: Permitting reform is a relatively popular pro-housing policy; parking reform does relatively poorly.
/5
Point #5: Homeowners & renters have pretty similar housing-market beliefs and housing-policy preferences, contra the "homevoter hypothesis."
/6
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
An architect who does multifamily housing throughout CA told me recently,
"The secret's not out, but San Francisco, erstwhile worst offender, has become one of the easiest places to get projects entitled & permitted in CA."
I asked what changed. He said, "The mayor."
1/5
"Just about everyone in every city dept now understands its their job to get permits issued, quickly. Mangers got their marching orders from @DanielLurie and workflows have gotten much better."
(I'm paraphrasing his remarks.)
/2
S.F. still has all sorts of lousy laws & policies that thwart housing production -- high transfer taxes, high IZ, expensive bespoke code requirements, de facto prohibitions on redevelopment of any building w/ rent-controlled units -- but mgmt apparently is much improved.
/3
New decision from CA Court of Appeal on the fee-shifting provisions of AB 1633 has big implications for NIMBYs' incentive to challenge housing approvals under CEQA & beyond.
Context: As part of the 1970s revolution in admin law, states & the federal gov't actively encouraged self-appointed "private attorneys general" to sue, via attorneys' fee bounties.
/2
Asymmetric fee-shifting provisions were written into scores of public laws: If a plaintiff challenging a gov't decision wins, the gov't has to pay for the plaintiff's attorney; if the plaintiff loses, they don't have to pay for the gov's attorney.
"For a typical mid-rise apartment in San José, construction costs can exceed $700k–$900k per unit."
I 💯% agree w/ @MattMahanSJ that reducing construction costs should be a top priority for 2026 -- and that this is mainly a job for the state legislature.
Reason #1. CA's fiscal constitution + local political incentives push local govs to extract "value" from development w/ impact fees, IZ & transfer taxes.
This drives up the cost of building enormously.
/2
The state leg should preempt most such fees, IZ, & taxes, ***and create a substitute source of local revenue.***
My preferred alternative: a state parcel tax assessed on the "net potential square feet" or "net potential units" created by upzoning pursuant to state law.
/3
Could L.A. really land in the Builder's Remedy penalty box, just for f'ing around with a single low-income housing project which a nonprofit developer wants to build on city-owned land?
In October, @California_HCD sent L.A. a sharply worded letter, warning that the city's housing element had relied on the Venice Dell project both as a "pipeline project" and as part of the city's strategy to "affirmatively further fair housing."
/2 hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/…
The HCD letter also flagged five "policies" and two "programs" in L.A.'s housing element that per HCD should "facilitate the project."
The city's course of action has been "inconsistent with these policies."
Cooking in San Diego: A turquoise, 23-story test of the Permit Streamlining Act's new-and-improved "deemed approved" proviso.
This could turn into a big constitutional battle.
🧵/22
Enacted in 1977, the PSA put time limits on CEQA and other agency reviews of development proposals.
If an agency violated the time limits, the project was to be "deemed approved" by operation of law. Wow!
It proved wholly ineffectual.
/2
As @TDuncheon & I explained, courts first decided that the Leg couldn't possibly have meant for a project to be approved before enviro review was complete.
- San Francisco almost certainly must approve this 25-story project on a site zoned for 4 stories
- The city's new ordinance deregulating density in "well-resourced areas" will operate as de-facto downzoning of such sites
🧵
This project's site is zoned for retail use and is currently occupied by the Marina Safeway.
The zoning classification also allows residential use at density of 1 unit per 600 sqft of lot area or density of nearest residential district, whichever is greater.
/2
The nearest residential district, RM-4, allows density of 1 unit per 200 sqft of lot area.
That translates into 567 units on site.
Developer proposes to build 790 units, which requires a 39% density bonus (790/567 = 1.39).