1. Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by clicking here: Upgrades
    Dismiss Notice

Governor Brown’s housing affordability proposal could actually succeed

Discussion in 'Planning and Zoning' started by mark handler, May 26, 2016.

  1. mark handler

    mark handler Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,739
    Likes Received:
    944
    Governor Brown’s housing affordability proposal could actually succeed
    Irvine Renter
    http://ochousingnews.com/blog/governor-browns-housing-affordability-proposal-could-actually-succeed/
    BY REMOVING THE ABILITY OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO DENY APPROVALS FOR CONFORMING DEVELOPMENTS, NIMBYS WILL NO LONGER PREVENT MUCH-NEEDED NEW CONSTRUCTION.

    In most parts of the world, anyone who owns an improved lot may build on it. As long as the plans conform to the local building codes and architectural guidelines, nobody can stop the owner from building on their own lot. No government body exercises discretionary approval power over the owners right to build. This is known as “As-of-Right” permission. Essentially, the phrase establishes a legal entitlement that arises when the plans conform to all legal codes.

    Land development in many parts of the country is subject to as-of-right zoning. In these jurisdictions, a governing body must approve any project that conforms to the underlying regulatory standards. Many people are not aware of the fact that California is different. In California, a project can conform in every way to every zoning regulation and building code and still get rejected by a local governing body.
    This discretionary decision-making capacity empowers nimbys, and since everyone in California wants to be the last new resident in their neighborhood, local governments exercise (abuse) their discretionary decision-making power, refuse permission to build more housing units, and exacerbate the problem of too little housing supply in California.

    Affordable housing in California requires ignoring the NIMBYs. The problems with chronic shortages, inflated house prices, and the substitution effect to lower quality housing is a direct result of the development approval process in California being 100% in the hands of local politicians. The problem with politicians acquiescing to nimbys is so bad that a judge had to order the city of Huntington Beach to override the local Nimbys and provide more affordable housing.

    Further, since local governments are highly dependent upon commercial and business tax revenue, they zone for more commercial than residential land uses, which in turn creates imbalances between the number of jobs and the number of available housing units.
    nimby

    To my surprise, Governor Brown proposes a broad reform that may actually solve the problem.
    Jerry Brown Wants “As-of-Right” Housing

    Last week, Governor Jerry Brown announced introduction of potentially landmark legislation that would allow for “as-of-right” housing in California. This means that developments meeting certain conditions would not be subject to discretionary review by local decision-making bodies, or endless appeals by disgruntled local neighbors. …

    This is a huge step forward. The only way California will ever have housing that’s affordable in a free-market, non-subsidized way is to shift power away from local governing bodies. Governor Browns proposal is the simplest and most effective way to neuter the nimbys because they will no longer effectively lobby local government officials to stop development that benefits everyone.
    nimby-hypocrisy

    I long ago resigned myself to the idea that California will always endure housing that’s so expensive that our children won’t be able to live here. If this law passes the golden age of gentrification may be behind us.

    Here’s what we know so far:
    What It Does
    According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the measure would make housing that meets the following conditions “as-of-right”:
    Conforms with existing general plan and zoning rules
    Multifamily housing of greater than two units
    Qualify as infill housing

    Meets certain affordability requirements (20 percent on-site below-market-rate housing or 10 percent on-site if located within half-a-mile of a transit stop)
    Not applicable to certain locations such as farmlands, wetlands, hazardous waste sites, etc.
    The legislation gives local jurisdictions clear and strict timelines for opposing an as-of-right development, expedites design review, requires relocation assistance for displaced households and, yes, eliminates CEQA review.

    It’s not entirely accurate to portray this as completely bypassing CEQA review. The project must still conform to the underlying general plan and zoning rules, and those were reviewed in a CEQA process. This proposal merely eliminates the need for subsequent a CEQA review of the specific project that fits under the umbrella of the prior approval under CEQA.

    CEQA is partially responsible for the problem, but the law is widely misunderstood. CEQA merely mandates study and disclosure. An environmental impact report — the product required by CEQA — is a thorough examination of the physical and cultural impacts of a proposed development. It takes a long time to do a thorough study, and it costs a lot of money, which is why developers whine about it, but the findings in the document do not approve or disapprove a project. That is at the discretion of local government officials, and this discretionary approval is at the heart of the problem.

    The environmental impact report may find significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, and the local government may approve it anyway. Under Brown’s proposal, local governments could still undergo a CEQA review and approve a discretionary project that does not conform to general plan and zoning rules — and deal with the inevitable lawsuits. However, under Governor Brown’s proposal the local jurisdiction will not be able to deny a conforming project — and local jurisdictions do this far too often.

    San Francisco Case Studies
    This proposal would no doubt have major impacts in San Francisco, where, over many years, a long list of code-compliant projects have been appealed for what we believe are unjustified reasons. For example:
    Local neighbors appealed 50 permanently affordable low-income homes, half for transition age foster youth, at the Booker T. Washington Center because it was “too tall.” This delayed the project for several years and added about $10 million to the project’s budget.
    The car-free, 12-unit development at 1050 Valencia, located a few blocks from a BART station, was repeatedly appealed then sued in court because because of its height and objections to its impact on “neighborhood character.”

    Local residents appealed 88 Arkansas, which included 20 percent on-site affordable housing, because of objections to how the bedrooms were designed.
    Most recently, 1066 Market Street was appealed because the project’s low-income units were deemed too expensive for the Tenderloin’s existing residents.

    It has become increasingly evident that San Francisco does not have the tools to address the affordability crisis on its own. The State of California needs to step in and Governor Brown’s proposal would be a major step forward towards creating certainty that market-rate and affordable housing projects actually get built in a timely way.

    California house prices are high relative to the rest of the nation for two reasons, one fundamental, and one not. First, California wages are higher than most of the rest of the nation, so people who live in California qualify for larger loans and use those loans to bid up prices — the fundamental reason.
    Second, California has a chronic shortage of housing, which forces buyers to compete with each other for the available housing stock — a reason that is not fundamental, but political.

    The market for housing in most of the United States is much more stable, and house prices are much less inflated because the local political system does not restrict new home development near as much as it does in California. As soon as house prices rise above the cost of construction in the rest of the country, builders respond by building more houses and selling them for a profit. In California builders are not allowed to do that, so shortages persist, prices get inflated, and everyone suffers a diminished quality of life because they must substitute down to a lesser quality home.

    Since he abolished Redevelopment Agencies in 2011, Brown has shown little interest in creating new sources of funding to subsidize affordable housing. The fiscally conservative Governor wants to keep the state budget balanced, especially as he anticipates another economic recession, and doesn’t believe additional funding can stretch far enough to make a significant impact. He’s quoted in the LA Times:
    “Hopefully, the supply is going to bring down the cost,” Brown said. “Otherwise, through subsidies and through restrictions, we’re just spending more and more tax dollars and getting very, very little.”
    I agree with Governor Brown on the ineffectiveness of housing subsidies. Further, subsidies unjustly displace those who don’t qualify, so in addition to being costly, they cause social injustice.

    The LAO’s report, California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences, clearly explains that decades of underproduction are the chief culprit of the affordability and displacement crises. Removing barriers to building housing is a key solution to address this problem. Governor Brown’s proposal could be a game-changer that makes it significantly easier to build more housing of all levels of affordability.
    If implemented this proposal would solve the problem of housing affordability over the long term. Builders and developers won’t build so much so fast as to lower prices, but they can and will build enough to lower the rate of growth in rent and cost of ownership below the rate of wage growth, reversing the trend of the last 40 years. If wages grow faster than rents or resale prices for long enough, all three can rise, and affordability will still improve.

    It took us 40 years to create the affordability problem, and it make take 40 more to solve it. But even the longest journey begins with a single step, and this is a proper step in the right direction.
     
  2. tmurray

    tmurray Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    522
    Wow. Now I understand Conarb's complaints against government officials. No one should have that power. Even if it doesn't meet our zoning requirements, we've had variances approved even with complaints from adjacent property owners. Unless the complaints can be quantified (drainage concerns, height blocking view, etc.) they are dismissed outright. If they are quantified, we are usually able to find a solution that both parties find acceptable.
     
  3. conarb

    conarb Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,510
    Likes Received:
    256
    Why is the governor confining this to affordable housing, why not to all housing? The cities fast track retail commercial because it brings sales tax revenue in to them, in the process all housing gets shoved behind.

    What's really going on here is that citizens have discovered that they can use the Environmental Quality Act to forestall housing and in the process affordable housing which brings high cost citizens into their upper class neighborhoods. The unions have discovered it too, any project of size the Carpenters' Union files a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Impact Report, they settle out for money and an agreement to use all union labor. The Sierra Club and other environmental organizations own this state, fly over in an airplane and you see all kinds of potentially buildable land, but environmental organizations have it all tied up.
     
  4. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,647
    Likes Received:
    198
    While limiting the power of the nimbys has merit it will not have a major impact on the availability of affordable housing. The reality is that when building housing the developers will build the type of units that will result in the highest profit. These typically are not affordable housing units.

    In California the problem is not that there is not enough available land for housing but rather that there are too many people in the urban regions. Density of building relates to quality of life.
     
  5. conarb

    conarb Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,510
    Likes Received:
    256
    Mark:

    Unfortunately that's not true anymore, the various environmental organizations have strangled us, at this point everything is parklands or other designated spaces that we can't build on, the only available parcels the AHJs have mandated a mix of both affordable units and mixed use commercial so they can generate sales tax revenue, this is backed by One Bay Area, a super unelected agency that wants people living in close proximity to mass transit and out of private automobiles that supposedly cause global warming. a major goal is the abolition of socioeconomic class distinctions, they want people out of private homes and into large mixed use developments, the doctor and lawayer living next to the janitor and McDonalds clerk.

    There was an on-point letter to the editor in today's paper:
    Mr Wilson is behind the times, every AHJ has a different formula but in nearby community I had to pay an affordable housing fee of $67,000 for a million dollar addition to a home, 75 miles away I paid no affordable housing fee for a $4 million rebuild of a home, had I completely torn down the old home I would have had to have paid an affordable housing fee in addition to lots of other fees, including a $200,000 fire sprinkler requirement.

    I have to chuckle at Mr. Wilson's statement: "Go somewhere else -- a place that is less compassionate and caring than a city and county that has such rules. The rest of us don't need or want you here.", the affordable housing goal has been to mix the socioeconomic classes and now he's telling some of us to go away he doesn't want to live near us, when we say we don't want to live near the poor they accuse us of racism, elitism, and a host of other statist terms. I'll gladly take Mr. Wilson's suggestion but where can those of us go who do not want to be near those who listen to rock music, blare televisions, smoke dope, hang out on streets, and commit crimes?


    I agree with you here, we have a horrible overpopulation problem, even as the birthrate has fallen immigration is continuing to exasperate the problem, like Europe whenever you build an entitlement society people from less-entitled societies will flock toward the money, the wealthy are leaving for more tax-friendly states and the poor are flocking in, all of my friends have now left or are planning to leave, a very good attorney friend just sent me his architect's plans for a new multimillion dollar retirement home in Nevada, the change in domicile will save him a million dollars in one property transaction alone that he's been planning to make, he's planning to have a free home in a couple of years in the California capital gains taxes he's going to save with his change in domicile.



    ¹ http://www.eastbaytimes.com/letters/ci_29945198/may-28-letters-editor
     

Share This Page