NIMBY Zoning
In my experience, it's precisely the people who are "progressives" -- all for "affordable housing" -- who will be first to lose their shit if you so much as hint at building an apartment building within a mile of their single-family house.
Money, meet mouth.
Unfortunately, that has yet to happen.
The LA Times Editorial Board writes:
For decades now, California leaders have been stuck in a low-density, single-family, not-in-my-backyard 20th century mindset. The result is a deep housing shortage that is driving more Californians into poverty, worsening inequality and hurting economic opportunity.The staggering cost of buying or renting a home in California takes a terrible toll. Rents have risen faster than incomes, and 1 in 3 households statewide now spend more than half their income on rent, leaving many families one rent increase or one missed paycheck away from losing their homes. When residents cannot afford to live near jobs, they often move to far-flung suburbs and commute hours each day, worsening traffic congestion and air pollution. Employers say high housing costs hurt the state's economy by making it hard to attract and retain skilled workers -- a situation that has led some companies to relocate to states where their middle-class workers can afford to buy homes.
The heart of the problem is this: California has failed to build enough housing to keep up with population growth and demand. California needs to add between 1.8 million and 2.5 million new homes by 2025 to ease the housing shortage that is driving up rents and home prices. But when more than two-thirds of residential land in California is zoned for single-family homes, it becomes difficult and expensive to add housing.
...Today, restrictive or exclusionary zoning perpetuates racial and economic segregation by prohibiting lower-cost apartments and townhomes in high-opportunity single-family neighborhoods with good schools, parks and other amenities. President Biden and his economic advisors have warned that restrictive zoning widens the racial wealth gap and hurts upward mobility.
In California, lawmakers have an opportunity this year to take small but vital steps toward easing the housing crisis. Senate Bills 9 and 10 would allow small multifamily buildings on single-family lots. These are the two most controversial housing bills this year. That should tell you just how politicized housing legislation has become because, despite all the angst, these bills probably won't make a big impact on home construction any time soon.
And yet, lawmakers should still pass SB 9 and SB 10, and Gov. Gavin Newsom should still sign them. California needs to dismantle exclusionary zoning. This will have to be a bill-by-bill and city-by-city process until, finally, California communities remove the restrictions that stifle home creation and perpetuate segregation and inequality.
They have to make everything about race, but this affects all people who have modest incomes.
The more far-reaching of the two bills is Senate Bill 9 by Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego). SB 9 would allow up to four units of housing on a single-family lot. A property owner could create a duplex. Or the owner could subdivide the property into two lots and build up to two units on each lot for a maximum of four units. The properties would generally need to comply with existing design standards.While SB 9 may sound like a radical change, it isn't. California has already passed laws in recent years that override single-family zoning to allow homeowners to build three units on their property. A single-family home can have a detached or attached granny flat on the lot, and a smaller junior unit attached to the main house.
SB 9 allows one more unit than existing law. It would also give property owners more options in what types of units they build and it allows them to split the lot and sell -- not just rent -- the new units. Those new options could entice more property owners to build additional homes on their property. But given the restrictions built into SB 9 and the market conditions, only about 1.5% of single-family homes statewide are likely to take advantage of SB9, according to a recent analysis. Again, it's a modest but worthwhile reform.
Aren't a lot of people moving out of CA due to fires and stuff? Maybe this problem will solve itself...
NicoleK at August 24, 2021 4:47 AM
While these ideas should help a little, this is only part of the problem. I have heard a case where the owner of an old dry clean business wanted to put up apartments and people objected. As if the dry clean was a historic monument. The system is set up so anyone can object and the project must stop until resolved. It can take years to build anything. Then, the requirements for building are onerous. If you put up appts you need to add low income units --less income.
cc at August 24, 2021 8:16 AM
Wouldn't multi-family units make over night parking worse than it already is ?
Nick at August 24, 2021 8:36 AM
I'm all for packing liberal city-dwellers and suburbanites into high-density housing. Then they can live "a33hole-to-bellybutton" (as my old DI used to say) with all the diversity that they want, and then some. They can ditch their internal combustion engine cars and walk everywhere. Or take busses. Or Ubers. Or streetcars. Whatever.
And it leaves the rural countryside unmolested and open for those of us that appreciate a personal-space radius of about a half-mile or more.
ruralcounsel at August 24, 2021 8:41 AM
Statewide zoning laws need to be flexible so that cities and towns can explore and implement housing solutions that work for them. What works for LA may not work for SF or Redding and vice versa.
It sounds like this is a statewide effort to override restrictive zoning laws at the local level. While noble in its aims, it may create mayhem in places that are already crowded. Increasing the number of people in a neighborhood can, over time, put additional strain on the infrastructure of that neighborhood.
Simply decreeing at the state level that multi-resident units can be installed on formerly single-family lots in defiance of local zoning laws leaves local authorities and residents at the mercy of developer who can purchase properties with cash offers.
The assertion that this would take 10-20 years to have a noticeable effect assumes the ownership of redeveloped properties would be individual and ignores the impact developers and property management companies could have.
Conan the Grammarian at August 24, 2021 8:41 AM
This is the next thing on the Smart Growth/Agenda 2030 agenda. Cities will now be declaring most of their single-family zoned neighborhoods "blighted," starting with the lower-priced homes (and of course exempting the super-expensive areas where the politicians live). They will then condemn the houses, using Kelo as precedent, and replace each one with dozens or hundreds of dense-pack apartments with no parking. Meanwhile rural areas will have total building freezes. The elites want to force us all back into existing city footprints and keep us there.
Blackrock knew this when they started buying up all the housing they could. They'll own most of the apartments, and good luck ever getting another if you try to enforce your rights.
jdgalt1 at August 24, 2021 9:00 AM
Other things to consider with major multi unit apartments. It is in some leases, cannot own firearms. Will probably institute vaccine mandates, masking, visitor and delivery rules.
If gov't needs them for, (like in NYC), homeless shelters, or temporarily released felons, new migrant shelters, refugee shelters, probably part of gov't agreements with Blackrock all set to roll.
Joe J at August 24, 2021 11:37 AM
Related. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/airbnb-says-it-plans-temporarily-house-20-000-afghan-refugees-n1277508?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_nw&fbclid=IwAR2e39rDm2ZVLDq-Bz7QFLBIe6_Ey6Kj9Ypp8-FxvffLsg97n5t3afdhb3I
Airbnb now housing afghan refugees.
Joe j at August 24, 2021 12:21 PM
"rural areas will have total building freezes"
An idea that sells while a million acres are on fire, and we still have the Santa Anas to look forward to.
smurfy at August 24, 2021 12:58 PM
"While noble in its aims, it may create mayhem in places that are already crowded."
The Mayhem is the feature in this program.
Nothing is done on accident anymore, and assuming Goodwill on the part of the authors and sponsors of these laws is to give them too much credit.
The ratchet effect means that these changes always go only one way. More Density, More People, More Control. It is ALWAYS about control. They want to control every aspect of your life.
zoomie at August 24, 2021 7:43 PM
"And it leaves the rural countryside unmolested and open for those of us"
Futurama, right?
"I may be just a simple hyperchicken lawyer from a backwoods asteroid, but isn't that the definition of 'not in my back yard'? Buk buk buk bakuk! The defense rests" (tucks head under wing).
My TV memory may be incorrect, though.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 25, 2021 1:09 AM
No GOg, it isn't. Because we aren't passing zoning laws to keep you out, you're doing it voluntarily to yourselves.
No prize for you. But nice try.
ruralcounsel at August 25, 2021 5:30 AM
No, of course not, ruralcounsel. It's not NIMBYism to prefer country life to city life.
All the same I'm always happy to share the universal truth that "Lookit them wacky diverse city librals" carries about as much moral authority as "What's wrong with those country-fried cracka-ass-crackas?!".
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 25, 2021 11:26 AM
What you're seeing is government negotiation to its advantage, not to serve the public. Sort of a variation on crony capitalism.
If you engender a nation of propertyless people, especially if you eliminate cash transactions, you guarantee your position of privilege for its ruling class.
See your next Presidential election for (more) signs that it has already seized power.
Radwaste at August 25, 2021 12:23 PM
All the same I'm always happy to share the universal truth that "Lookit them wacky diverse city librals" carries about as much moral authority as "What's wrong with those country-fried cracka-ass-crackas?!"
Until you look at the facts and reality, then not so universal.
Urban homeless street people are the equivalent of the crazy rural characters you reference. But I have yet to hear of a rural county defunding their sheriff, or all of the other nutty things that YOUR urban elected officials are doing as they bow to "woke." That's not your homeless, that's your elected representatives. Urban America is the center of socialist claptrap. And apparently, urban America is just fine with that.
ruralcounsel at August 25, 2021 12:28 PM
ruralcounsel Says:
"...open for those of us that appreciate a personal-space radius of about a half-mile or more."
No one is forcing you to be a part of society rural... you could always fly up to Alaska and go deep into the woods to survive off the land where no one will bother to even look for you.
Of course this claim on your part begs the following question:
If you have little to nothing to do with other people, how exactly have you come to the conclusion that people who live no where near you are as you claim they are?
It certainly wouldn't be due to your own personal experience... after all, you much prefer to be off in the woods somewhere avoiding civilization and human contact.
Artemis at August 27, 2021 8:05 AM
Leave a comment