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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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