Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Chris Elmendorf Profile picture
Chris Elmendorf
@CSElmendorf
The law prof at UC Davis, not the developer in San Diego. Dad. Denizen of San Francisco. Patron of Amtrak. Tweets are my own, not statements of UC. (he/him)
Nov 17 • 25 tweets • 8 min read
The Arlington Missing Middle decision is a doozy.

It drive home @nicholas_bagley's point that "hard look" judicial review is the root problem, not NEPA or mini-NEPAs.

It's also interesting (bad) on nondelegation & remedies.

A NIMBY trifecta.

🧵/25 Context:
- After 3+ years of studies & debate, Arlington in March, 2023 passed an ordinance that allows up to 58 "plexes" (of up to 6 units) to be permitted annually in single-family-home zones,
/2washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/…
Oct 24 • 21 tweets • 6 min read
Prop 33 supporters are saying voters needn't worry about cities abusing rent control to kill off housing development b/c state law guarantees landlords a "just and reasonable" return on investment.

If only they were right! 🧵/21. It's true that CA cases dating to the 1970s say that rent controls which are so low as to be "confiscatory" are unconstitutional.

In fact, in 1976, CA Supreme Court said landlords are entitled to "just and reasonable return on their property"!


/2 law.justia.com/cases/californ…Image
Sep 29 • 19 tweets • 6 min read
L.A. housing element rezone is a big test for @California_HCD.

Public discussion has focused on city's decision to "preserve" its SFH zones, but the bigger prob is a mess of new, cost-elevating rules, obscured by hand-waiving about sites probability of development.
🧵/19. When L.A. prepared its housing element, it worked with @TernerHousing on a good study that related sites' land-value residuals under various zoning scenarios to their probability of development.
/2
ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-p…
Sep 21 • 19 tweets • 7 min read
On Jan. 1, 2025, most lots in San Francisco's residential neighborhoods will be opened up for 4-9 unit, 100% market-rate projects.

Applicants may design their project *however they want,* provided it conforms to *some* zoning district anywhere in city.

An explainer 🧵. 1/19. This result comes courtesy of AB 1893, signed into law yesterday, which for present purposes made three significant changes to California's Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
/2
Sep 20 • 17 tweets • 5 min read
SB 1123, signed into law yesterday, is a step toward allowing "Houston style" infill throughout California.

Unfortunately, due to vestigial CA-brain thinking, it's unlikely to unleash a Houston-style infill boom w/o further legislative tweaks.
🧵/17 The gist of the bill:
- Requires ministerial approval of "small lot subdivision projects" of up to 10 unit on infill sites. This includes both condo projects ("vertical subdivision") and fee-simple projects ("horizontal subdivision").
/2
Sep 13 • 24 tweets • 7 min read
🥳New paper! "Do Housing Supply Skeptics Learn?"🎆

Yessir, they do!

And when they do, they become *much* more supportive of market-rate housing development.

1/🧵

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Image Context: @ClaytonNall, @stan_okl & I have run a number of surveys in which we find that ordinary people have no conviction that even a very large positive shock to their metro region's housing supply would bring down prices & rents.

/2papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Aug 21 • 8 tweets • 3 min read
This (⤵️) is a clever idea about how to advance a single-stair project in California. Might be worth a try...
1/8 The SDBL requires cities to waive "development standards" that would physically preclude the project, and also to provide a number of "concessions and incentives," unless doing so would violate health/safety per the HAA.
/2

Image
Image
Image
Jul 2 • 18 tweets • 7 min read
Looks like tomorrow's committee hearing on @BuffyWicks's "Builder's Remedy Grows Up" bill, AB 1893, will be make-or-break.

The committee's bill analysis is out. It's pretty hostile.

This 🧵covers the main objections and quickly responds.


1/18 leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnal…
Image Objection #1: By amending the HAA's definition of disapproval to cover de-facto disapproval thru "unjustified, dilatory, or egregious" course of conduct, the bill would expose local governments to liability for reasonable, good-faith actions.
/2

Image
Image
Image
Jun 8 • 16 tweets • 5 min read
.@Planning4LA has issued new CEQA streamlining checklist for projects within scope of housing element EIR.

Here's a 🧵comparing L.A. & S.F.'s use of housing element EIRs to streamline CEQA review of projects & rezoning.
1/16
planning.lacity.gov/odocument/d9f4… Both cities (wisely) did a full EIR for their housing elements, saving time, grief & litigation risk down the road.

Even more wisely, both cities put most developable parcels in their housing element site inventories, w/ p(dev) adjustments.
/2
Jun 3 • 12 tweets • 5 min read
California shoots self in foot, again:

@AsmChrisWard's bill to revisit CA Building Code w/ goal of reducing construction costs by 30% has been gutted.

It now just prescribes study of whether to allow 3-10 unit buildings under residential code.



1/12 leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavC…
Image CA's "housing crisis policy" has been to pass dramatic bills allowing big apartment & condo projects to be built as of right & in derogation of local zoning--but only if the projects would be so costly that (almost) none get built.
/2
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Image
Image
May 18 • 16 tweets • 7 min read
Pictured below is a S.F. & California housing policy failure unfolding in my neighborhood.

The corner lot, upzoned in 2009, was designated in city's housing element for up to 72 units of housing.

It's now being gut-renovated for 2.

1/🧵. Image The lower level of the building is a storefront and has been boarded up for as long as I can remember. Ages.

The upper level is listed in city records as a single dwelling unit and I think was occupied (probably rented).
/2
Apr 30 • 21 tweets • 7 min read
🥳New papers! A cornucopia! (well, 3).🎆

#1: "What State Housing Policies Do Voters Want? Evidence from a Platform-Choice Experiment" (w/@ClaytonNall & @stan_okl)

written for a @JPIPE_journal symposium on political economy of housing



🧵/21 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Image #2: the long-awaited revision of "Folk Economics and the Persistence of Political Opposition to New Housing" (w/@ClaytonNall & @stan_okl)

a/k/a, our "Housing Breaks Brains" paper

now greatly improved, thanks to @aletheia_tweets peer-review process


/2 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Image
Image
Apr 25 • 15 tweets • 5 min read
New superior court decision holds that California's SB 9 (duplex and lot-split bill) unconstitutionally infringes on charter cities' "home rule" authority.

It's a weird, narrow decision that turns on a lawyerly sleight of hand. I don't think it will hold up on appeal.🧵/15 Image Under California law, legislation that limits local control over a traditional field of municipal concern like land use must be reasonably tailored to advance a matter of statewide concern.
/2
Apr 21 • 12 tweets • 3 min read
Must read @SFjkdineen story on SF's "inclusionary housing" program for middle-income households.

It's yielding mass vacancy rather than housed middle-income families.

Why? B/c of panoply of death-by-good-intention allocation & pricing rules.
🧵/12.

sfchronicle.com/sf/article/mis…
Image Sin #1: An arcane set of "preference" categories, which make applications cumbersome to fill out & review, and which result in units sitting vacant b/c they've been pre-allocated to a different preference group.
/2 Image
Apr 2 • 20 tweets • 4 min read
Here's an excellent story on @BuffyWicks & @AGRobBonta's AB 1893, the "builder's remedy grows up" bill.

In a nutshell: more predictability + more feasibility, in exchange for new limits on density. Read the rest of this 🧵 if you want the details.
1/20
calmatters.org/housing/2024/0… Predictability:

The law currently says that cities may not apply zoning or GP to a builder's remedy project, yet there's a savings clause for any "development standards" that are consistent with meeting city's share of regionally needed housing. Huh?

/2papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Mar 6 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
Time for me to eat some 🐦‍⬛.

I try to provide dispassionate legal analysis of housing issues. Sometimes that means saying @California_HCD or YIMBYs have taken weak positions.

Yesterday, L.A. Sup. Ct. sided w/HCD on an important question I thought HCD had got wrong.
1/6 Image The question is whether cities are "in compliance" w/housing element law from the moment they adopt a substantively adequate housing plan, or only from moment that HCD signs off on the plan.

(the BR application in this case was submitted in the interim period)

/2
Mar 1 • 13 tweets • 4 min read
New builder's remedy decision!

LA Sup Ct. has released tentative opinion in 600 Foothill v. La Cañada Flintridge. Oral argument is happening now.

Looks like a huge win for @housingdefense, @AGRobBonta and @California_HCD!
🧵/12. Image The holdings:

#1: City's refusal to process BR application as a BR project is a "disapproval" within meaning of HCD, notwithstanding that city hadn't begun CEQA review.

/1 Image
Feb 17 • 16 tweets • 5 min read
🎆New CEQA case has the makings of landmark.🎇

W/o relying on AB 1633, Hilltop Group v. Cnty of San Diego holds that decision to require further enviro study of an arguably exempt project was (1) reviewable and (2) an abuse of discretion. 🧵. 1/16.

courts.ca.gov/opinions/docum…
Image To best of my knowledge, this is the first CEQA case holding that a lead agency's decision to require more analysis than CEQA in fact requires can be challenged in court.
/2
Feb 16 • 11 tweets • 4 min read
Great pod! It was gratifying to hear Reps @SeanCasten & @MikeLevin engage w/ my critique of the NEPA & local-participation provisions of their Clean Energy Transmission Act.

But I think they're still overlooking or not connecting the dots b/t some pretty basic points. 🧵. 1/10. #1. In defense of expanding legal requirements for community participation & CBAs, they say that a survey of clean energy developers found that most believe that early community outreach -> faster project approvals.

That's very plausible *holding constant the legal regime.*
/1 Image
Jan 2 • 16 tweets • 6 min read
Whoa, the NEPA provisions tucked into the new "Clean Electricity & Transmission Acceleration Act" are like a wish list for greenmailers.

There's lots of good in the bill (⤵️), but the NEPA stuff is stunning. Come take a look.
🧵. 1/14. 1. The bill defines "enviro impact" to include not only enviro impacts, but also "aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health" effects.

(Whereas CEQA is still about "physical environment"--even in the infamous Berkeley case.
)

/2
Image
Jan 1 • 25 tweets • 7 min read
A 🧵 on what I'd like to see on the housing front from California & other blue-state policymakers in the New Year.

In two words: relentless pragmatism.

What would this mean in practice? Read on.

1/25 Since Yimbys came on the legislative scene circa 2017, California has passed housing laws by the bucketful, yet the state hasn't moved the needle on overall production.
/2