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.
3 subscribers
Oct 5 • 21 tweets • 7 min read
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
Sep 19 • 9 tweets • 4 min read
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
Sep 17 • 25 tweets • 6 min read
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
Sep 16 • 25 tweets • 6 min read
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
Sep 15 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
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
Sep 14 • 24 tweets • 6 min read
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
Sep 13 • 24 tweets • 8 min read
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
Sep 4 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Um, it's not like Abundance supporters have been hiding the ball on the mass public's populism.

1/4 Image E.g., here's what I, @ClaytonNall & @stan_okl found & reported on who voters blame for high housing prices (screenshot)

link:

/2 aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…Image
Aug 21 • 7 tweets • 3 min read
The sick irony:
- L.A. started out on right foot w/ its housing element
- then L.A. produced an *awful* rezoning program + faux analysis to implement it
- now L.A. is telling the Legislature, "don't pass SB 79 unless it exempts cities w/ approved housing elements"

1/6 This @TernerHousing post explains what L.A. did right initially, ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-p….

The key move was to reasonably account for sites probability of development during the planning period & discount nominal site capacity accordingly.

x.com/CSElmendorf/st…

/2
Aug 15 • 11 tweets • 5 min read
Very pleased that my paper w/ @ClaytonNall & @stan_okl, "The Folk Economics of Housing," has been published in the excellent new JEP symposium on housing markets. ⤵️

🧵/10. Image link:

The tl,dr is that housing supply skepticism--which we operationalize as the belief that a large, positive, exogenous regional supply shock would not reduce home prices / rents locally--is pervasive, distinctive to housing, but weakly held.

/2 aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…Image
Jul 25 • 16 tweets • 5 min read
Just read @vincent_rollet's incredible paper on effects of upzoning in NYC.

Wow, wow, wow!

If CA were a well-governed state, we'd be offering Meta-like pay to bring folks like Vincent into @California_HCD & @Cal_LCI.

🧵/16, with the highlights. Vincent develops a parcel-level, gen-equilibrium model of development in NYC, accounting for parcel traits like size/value of existing uses, & estimating n'hood & endogenous amenities, wages, builder cost function, extensive & intensive margins of the redevelopment decision.

/2
Jul 24 • 25 tweets • 7 min read
Here's the first of my two essays for @NiskanenCenter's "party of abundance" series. ⤵️

In the piece, @ProfSchleich & I argue that big-city YIMBYs should endeavor to forge a cross-issue, party-like faction & drive an urban quality of life agenda.

@GrowSF is the model.
🧵/24 The immediate response of many has been, "That's crazy! It's hard enough to win on housing."

/2
Jul 15 • 12 tweets • 2 min read
Inspired by this great pod ⤵️ , in which another nationally prominent progressive says, "of course I agree w/ state & local YIMBYs on 99% of their agenda," here's a seven-item test. 🧵.

1/10 For each policy choice, state whether (A) or (B) is closer to your own views, even if neither one is exactly right.

/2
Jul 3 • 22 tweets • 6 min read
CA deserves its moment in the sun, but journalists should be paying more attention to the amazing Abundance policies -- and better Democratic politics -- of our neighbors to the north.

Washington State is killing it. Oregon's doing pretty well too.

🧵/20. Three examples:

1⃣ Wash. State rid itself of project-level enviro reviews of urban housing on a 97-3 vote, via normal leg process.

In CA, it required a daring gambit by @GavinNewsom, tying enviro review reform to budget.

/2

Jul 3 • 26 tweets • 6 min read
"Can you put a rough number on how much California's CEQA reforms will increase housing production?"

I've gotten this Q from lots of journalists over the last 48 hours (who sound frustrated w/ my answer), so here's a 🧵 laying out my thinking about it.

1/25 tl, dr: @GavinNewsom was right to call AB 130/SB 131 "the most consequential housing reform in modern history in the state of California" -- but even so, there's no defensible way to give a quantitative "this much more housing" answer to the reporters' question.

/2
Jun 28 • 26 tweets • 6 min read
An update on California's CEQA / housing package as we hurtle toward the finish line.

tldr: @BuffyWicks's CEQA infill exemption is now *even better* than the 6/24 draft ⤵️; and it looks like @Scott_Wiener will land most of the fish in SB 607 but not the real lunker.

🧵/25 The million dollar (million unit?) question about Wicks's infill exemption has always been, "Will labor unions extract wage concessions that render the bill ineffective?"

/2
Jun 26 • 15 tweets • 4 min read
For years, California environmentalists have been MIA or worse on an absolute no-brainer of green policy: building dense housing near transit.

Are changes afoot? ⤵️

Maybe! But @NRDC's SB 79 support letter also shows persistence of addled Groups-blob thinking.

🧵/14. First, some context:

- How I came to be an environmentalist without a home in the environmental movement,


/2
Jun 25 • 17 tweets • 4 min read
Further thoughts on the construction-wage provisions of AB 140, the @BuffyWicks & @GavinNewsom budget trailer bill.

🧵/17. As a matter of principle, I *do not* support industry-specific, let alone task-specific, wage requirements.

I've tweeted that so-called "prevailing wage" rules are the Democratic Party's version of crony capitalism.

/2 Image
Jun 25 • 16 tweets • 4 min read
Joe C. points out that CA housing trailer bill also modifies the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) in important ways.

I see the PSA provisions as a work in progress, whose ultimate payoff (if any) will depend on future legislative & judicial tinkering. 🧵/15

x.com/CohenSite/stat… x.com/CSElmendorf/st…Image
Image The big idea of the PSA is that if a city doesn't approve or deny a project w/in defined period of time, the project becomes "automatically approved" by operation of law.

However, opponents can attack it in court if project didn't comply w/ applicable rules.

/2
Jun 25 • 19 tweets • 5 min read
Big news from CA: new budget "trailer bill" will effect biggest CEQA reforms ever (should it pass), and points toward plausibly workable detente between key labor unions & housing developers.

Kudos to @BuffyWicks, @GavinNewsom & @cayimby.

🧵/18 Image The bill marries @BuffyWicks's AB 609, a clean CEQA exemption for infill housing, w/ new labor standards & tribal consultation rules.

The labor standards and tribal rules are different--and much better--than those of other recent CA housing laws.

/2

May 29 • 17 tweets • 5 min read
Does U.S. Supreme Court's big new NEPA decision have implications for CEQA?

Yes!

The liberals' (!) concurring opinion strongly reinforces an argument that @TDuncheon & I made for judicially narrowing the scope of CEQA review of housing projects.

🧵/16 Image
Image Current convention under CEQA prescribe analysis of the "effects" of a project as a whole, relative to a no-project (a/k/a status-quo, a/k/a current-conditions) baseline.

/2