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 stumbled across the work of Arthur E. Stamps III this morning and, wow, my eyes have been opened!
He's was (is?) an architect in San Francisco who wrote scores of academic papers on the mass public's aesthetic preferences & the failure of "design review" to serve them.
🧵/18
His studies show that San Francisco's Great Downzoning (1970s & early 1980s) was an answer to the public's genuine aesthetic dislike of residential dingbats and downtown "refrigerator towers."
/2
The city planning department had tried to address the public's dislike of midcentury "plain box" style by mandating bay windows. That yielded "Richmond Specials" -- a slight improvement, but still substantially disfavored by public relative to random sample of existing bldgs.
If builder's remedy comes to San Francisco, the city's anti-demolition / displacement rules go out the window.
For progressive supes & tenant orgs who believe what they say about those rules, enacting a compliant rezoning & constraint removal plan should be Priority #1.
🧵/9
Explanation:
- s/t narrow exceptions, a city may not impose any local requirements on a builder's remedy project that EITHER (1) render project infeasible, OR (2) prevent a project that meets certain requirements from being constructed "as proposed by the applicant"
/2
- any local rule or procedure that prevents the demolition of the existing structure on a lot almost surely will "render the project infeasible"
- the exceptions, enumerated in GC 65589.5(d)(1)-(4), do not include tenant or old-building protections
The SF City Economist report on city's housing-element rezone is a nice bookend to the Court of Appeal's decision last month in New Commune v. Redondo Beach.
Put them together, and it's clear that pretty drastic reforms to CA's Housing Element Law are in order.
Crux of New Commune: If city does fact-intensive, site-specific analysis of "realistic" capacity for new housing, any frustrated YIMBY can dredge up an existing lease, go to court, and get the judge to put the city in Builder's Remedy penalty box.
/2
Import of S.F. City Economist report (together w/ HCD's correspondence w/ city thus far): If city instead uses p(dev) method to gauge its plan's capacity, city will be at mercy of the inexpert model gods at HCD.
California, home of the world's 4th largest economy & several of its top econ departments, has spent 50 years "planning for housing need" w/o availing itself of economic expertise.
The game is up, courtesy of the S.F. city economist. My op-ed in today's @sfchronicle ⤵️.
🧵/22
What happened?
Every 8 years, CA cities must adopt a plan, called a "housing element," that shows how they'll accommodate their fair share of regionally needed housing.
/2
In June 2020, after some back-and-forth w/ regional "council of governments" (but no input from economists) @California_HCD announced the current target for the Bay Area.
/3 abag.ca.gov/sites/default/…
New CEQA opinion nixing (again!) the voters' repeal of a 30' height limit in San Diego is a near-perfect vehicle for CA Supreme Court to jettison the worst of "Old CEQA."
Very glad that @MayorToddGloria is determined to appeal it.
🧵
Background:
- In 1972, the voters capped heights at 30' "to prevent[] high-rise buildings from obstructing 'needed open breezes, sky & sunshine,'" and to "protect[] against unwanted population density with its problems of ... lack of parking space, increased crime[, etc.]"
/2
- the 1972 San Diego ballot measure defined "coastal zone" to include not only environmentally sensitive area, but also a big swath of industrially zoned land b/t the freeways
First off: the grid & internal transit plan is fantastic.
There's a bike/ped/greenway grid; a slow-car/bike/ped grid; and transit/faster-car grid.
What other city has a citywide grid of bus rapid transit, with BRT lines every 1/2 mile both north-south & east-west?
/2
Parking:
- Street and public-garage parking will be variable-rate metered 24/7 from the get-go.
- Residents may rent a monthly spot in a public garage.
- No parking minimums for residential projects.