Thank you Michael! I’m just one of thousands of activists working to make the state (and country) more affordable, it’s a collective effort and amazing thing to be a part of
Tangential but why is it that people moving from blue states to red states is necessarily bad for electoral politics? Aren’t those potentially Democratic voters?
(I don’t want people to have to move I’m very pro Yimby I just have always wondered about this).
People who are forced to move from a blue to a red state by cost of living might not be happy about blue state governance. I’m not aware of evidence that outmigration from blue states has caused political shifts in red states, but it’s certainly giving red state more electoral power
In a world of housing abundance, it’s easier to imagine people voluntarily leaving blue states for whatever reason (work, family, lower density living, whatever) and spreading liberal values in red areas. Harder to imagine when people are getting forced out
I'm curious about your statement that it excludes anything that has been rented in the last 10 years. I haven't found anything like that in the current bill. As far as I can tell it only protects low income tenants by giving them a right to return to a comparable unit but that any property in the radius is eligible for redevelopment.
Good question, and good catch! So the demolition protections only applies to projects that use the zoning provisions AND seek ministerial approval with SB 79 (which most probably will since ministerial approval is so much faster than discretionary, but still that's something I need to footnote). Projects seeking to use ministerial approval pursuant to SB 79 must comply with Gov Code Section 65913.4, in which Sec 65913.4(a)(7)(A)(iii) clarifies the housing can't have been occupied within 10 years. See 65912.159 in the bill itself.
Thank you for the clarification. Our local Nimby renter's rights org is campaigning against the bill based on their belief that it will displace existing renters.
If Trump mandated apartment towers anywhere in CA we would all be furious. Because he doesn’t live here and it is our right to determine our communities.
Same holds with the state mandating buildings in its cities and towns. It would be one thing if the state exhausted all other means, for example outlawing the ownership of homes by investment groups.
But they don’t, and this bill will end up driving more investor-owned housing in desirable towns.
It is sad that congressmen may lost their jobs, but I do not care that Texas is growing.
What are you talking about dude? Everyone in a "desirable" town lives there because it's cheaper to commute into the city than live in the city. That's how the bay area currently functions.
Would we be furious if more people would be housed? Is it because of the source of the proclamation? In reality, Trump is hugely opposed to allowing apartment buildings anywhere near wealthy neighborhoods, because he wants to further the privilege of wealth and enshrine inequality.
The people who determine what communities look like have spent the past 50 years determining that there will not be enough housing for their children, and there most certainly will not be enough infill housing that we can start tackling our massive transportation emissions in California by reducing vehicle miles. And they have determined that communities should be exclusionary in order to continue the systematic separation of people by wealth and race, fracturing our larger communities and preventing people from fully reaching their potential.
"But they don’t, and this bill will end up driving more investor-owned housing in desirable towns."
First off: every homeowner is an investor in their own home. They profit massively from it. Secondly, if your biggest concern is investors, and not the well-being of your community, then your concerns are misplaced. But if you're talking about "desirable" towns then I think it's very clear that you are not at all concerned about the community as a whole, but only concerned about keeping out certain types of buildings to prevent certain people from making your town "undesirable."
Do you live within half a mile of a high-quality transit stop? Why *shouldn't* a lot of housing be built there to allow people to use transit? That increases the desirability of the town! People want and need transportation!
We need to move forward to assessing "desirability" based on the good things that housing provides to people, rather than based on who gets excluded from a place.
20% x 0 = ZERO. What’s the point of these “inclusionary” housing requirements if nothing gets built?
The whole premise here that "communities" exist and have rights is fallacious.
Great article. Thanks for the work you do, I hope you succeed!
Thank you Michael! I’m just one of thousands of activists working to make the state (and country) more affordable, it’s a collective effort and amazing thing to be a part of
Tangential but why is it that people moving from blue states to red states is necessarily bad for electoral politics? Aren’t those potentially Democratic voters?
(I don’t want people to have to move I’m very pro Yimby I just have always wondered about this).
People who are forced to move from a blue to a red state by cost of living might not be happy about blue state governance. I’m not aware of evidence that outmigration from blue states has caused political shifts in red states, but it’s certainly giving red state more electoral power
In a world of housing abundance, it’s easier to imagine people voluntarily leaving blue states for whatever reason (work, family, lower density living, whatever) and spreading liberal values in red areas. Harder to imagine when people are getting forced out
I'm curious about your statement that it excludes anything that has been rented in the last 10 years. I haven't found anything like that in the current bill. As far as I can tell it only protects low income tenants by giving them a right to return to a comparable unit but that any property in the radius is eligible for redevelopment.
Good question, and good catch! So the demolition protections only applies to projects that use the zoning provisions AND seek ministerial approval with SB 79 (which most probably will since ministerial approval is so much faster than discretionary, but still that's something I need to footnote). Projects seeking to use ministerial approval pursuant to SB 79 must comply with Gov Code Section 65913.4, in which Sec 65913.4(a)(7)(A)(iii) clarifies the housing can't have been occupied within 10 years. See 65912.159 in the bill itself.
Thank you for the clarification. Our local Nimby renter's rights org is campaigning against the bill based on their belief that it will displace existing renters.
If Trump mandated apartment towers anywhere in CA we would all be furious. Because he doesn’t live here and it is our right to determine our communities.
Same holds with the state mandating buildings in its cities and towns. It would be one thing if the state exhausted all other means, for example outlawing the ownership of homes by investment groups.
But they don’t, and this bill will end up driving more investor-owned housing in desirable towns.
It is sad that congressmen may lost their jobs, but I do not care that Texas is growing.
What are you talking about dude? Everyone in a "desirable" town lives there because it's cheaper to commute into the city than live in the city. That's how the bay area currently functions.
Would we be furious if more people would be housed? Is it because of the source of the proclamation? In reality, Trump is hugely opposed to allowing apartment buildings anywhere near wealthy neighborhoods, because he wants to further the privilege of wealth and enshrine inequality.
The people who determine what communities look like have spent the past 50 years determining that there will not be enough housing for their children, and there most certainly will not be enough infill housing that we can start tackling our massive transportation emissions in California by reducing vehicle miles. And they have determined that communities should be exclusionary in order to continue the systematic separation of people by wealth and race, fracturing our larger communities and preventing people from fully reaching their potential.
"But they don’t, and this bill will end up driving more investor-owned housing in desirable towns."
First off: every homeowner is an investor in their own home. They profit massively from it. Secondly, if your biggest concern is investors, and not the well-being of your community, then your concerns are misplaced. But if you're talking about "desirable" towns then I think it's very clear that you are not at all concerned about the community as a whole, but only concerned about keeping out certain types of buildings to prevent certain people from making your town "undesirable."
Do you live within half a mile of a high-quality transit stop? Why *shouldn't* a lot of housing be built there to allow people to use transit? That increases the desirability of the town! People want and need transportation!
We need to move forward to assessing "desirability" based on the good things that housing provides to people, rather than based on who gets excluded from a place.