I'm curious how strong the fight was over (h)(1) that doesn't allow demolishing duplexes. Was something that would protect tenants but would allow demolition considered?
For example something like "If demolition is needed of existing rent controlled housing, then the existing tenants must be offered equivalent or superior units in the new building at their current rents that will have the same rent and price controls applied to those units as was previously" (if no tenants, then equivalent units must be offered as rent controlled to new tenants)
The original bill had protections like this but they weren’t sufficient to appease the tenant-organizing organizations. Definitely an opportunity for cleanup in future years to ensure there’s a reasonable balance
I was very disappointed that my county (Sonoma) was excluded. We are working to expand the SMART train and local/regional transit. At the same time, our county is in line to be 35% seniors in a few years, and the Santa Rosa school district has closed ALL the middle schools and is moving to close several elementary schools. Our Assemblymember, Chris Rogers, was more pro-housing when he was on the city council.
You might want to amend your piece regarding Unite Here. It is not a construction union, it is the union that represents hotel and restaurant workers. They likely came on board due to the inclusionary requirement.
God bless the Carpenters! Their members need local homes!
The affordable housing reguirements are a pet peeve of mine, and I say this as a guy that generally agrees with the sentiment. I'm a strong supporter of tenants rights and often find myself envious of the tenant protections in place in some European cities, but I've always struggled to understand the current focus on affordable housing requirements in lieu of real tenant protections under the law. I recognize that a strong tenants bill of rights isn't a practical goal right now, but affordable housing requirements feel like an oblique angle for addressing tenant precarity. I believe the housing crisis is a bit of an emergency right now, and affordable housing are something I'd support more once we got out of the emergency.
I'm curious how strong the fight was over (h)(1) that doesn't allow demolishing duplexes. Was something that would protect tenants but would allow demolition considered?
For example something like "If demolition is needed of existing rent controlled housing, then the existing tenants must be offered equivalent or superior units in the new building at their current rents that will have the same rent and price controls applied to those units as was previously" (if no tenants, then equivalent units must be offered as rent controlled to new tenants)
The original bill had protections like this but they weren’t sufficient to appease the tenant-organizing organizations. Definitely an opportunity for cleanup in future years to ensure there’s a reasonable balance
I was very disappointed that my county (Sonoma) was excluded. We are working to expand the SMART train and local/regional transit. At the same time, our county is in line to be 35% seniors in a few years, and the Santa Rosa school district has closed ALL the middle schools and is moving to close several elementary schools. Our Assemblymember, Chris Rogers, was more pro-housing when he was on the city council.
You might want to amend your piece regarding Unite Here. It is not a construction union, it is the union that represents hotel and restaurant workers. They likely came on board due to the inclusionary requirement.
God bless the Carpenters! Their members need local homes!
Belated thank you for the note, I’ll update tomorrow to reflect United Here’s role.
Amen to god bless the carpenters! And I’m also hopeful we can amend the definition of transit rich counties to include more places in the future
The affordable housing reguirements are a pet peeve of mine, and I say this as a guy that generally agrees with the sentiment. I'm a strong supporter of tenants rights and often find myself envious of the tenant protections in place in some European cities, but I've always struggled to understand the current focus on affordable housing requirements in lieu of real tenant protections under the law. I recognize that a strong tenants bill of rights isn't a practical goal right now, but affordable housing requirements feel like an oblique angle for addressing tenant precarity. I believe the housing crisis is a bit of an emergency right now, and affordable housing are something I'd support more once we got out of the emergency.
I give it 3 years before this gets reverted back. No way California could maintain a policy as good as this one for long
I hope this gets expanded and strengthened instead!
I sure hope that’s the case. I really want to be wrong