CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, AUGUST 20, 2021, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“HOUSING BILLS COULD CAUSE RADICAL
CHANGES”
The
changes will not be immediate if California’s Legislature this month should
pass the two most sweeping housing bills before it and then they are signed
into law either by Gov. Gavin Newsom or someone who might replace him after the
Sept. 14 recall election.
But come
back in 40 or 50 years, and most California cities would look very different if
these bills passed.
Cities
would be bigger, housing would be cheaper (after inflation is factored in) and
living conditions would be more crowded than ever before. Neighborhoods filled
with single family homes on distinct lots would be far more rare than today.
That is,
if enough water and energy can be found to make these changes possible, two
problems that grow larger and less predictable the longer the current drought
continues and the more often dry spells recur in an era of expanded climate
change.
Those
realities are all but sidestepped in the lengthiest and most seemingly
authoritative academic study yet on the likely effects of Senate Bill 9, likely
to have earlier effects than its companion bill, Senate Bill 10. SB 9 would
allow any owner of a property zoned for one residence (R1 zoning) to subdivide
their lot and replace the one house there now with two duplex structures.
One home
becomes four, and there’s nothing neighbors or city and county governments can
do to stop it if SB 9 becomes law. A homeowner who chooses to sell their
property to someone else planning to remake it will likely take away more cash
than from simply selling to a new occupant of the same home.
But
nearby properties would likely lose value if neighborhoods become dotted with
duplexes, producing heavier traffic, more smog and other environmental impacts.
Of course, no one will know those impacts very precisely in advance if this
bill passes, because such smallish new multi-unit developments would be
exempted from the environmental analyses required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The
companion bill, SB 10, could create even more densification, as it allows city
councils and county boards to override local land use restrictions in approving
housing developments of up to 14 units on existing R1 lots. But building would
not be by-right with automatic approval unless local governments voted for that.
All this
would have relatively little impact for years to come, if you believe the
newest study from the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley.
Study
co-author David Garcia, the center’s policy director, notes that SB 9 excludes
property in wildfire risk areas, historic zones and lots sized under 2,400
square feet.
Because of this and high construction costs, the study
says only about 6 percent of all California R1 properties would be affected,
with no more than 700,000 new housing units created, none required to be in the
affordable category.
It may or
may not be significant that the Terner Center has major funding from mortgage
holding companies and developers. Those interests would want to downplay
potential impacts of SB9 which would enlarge markets for both mortgage holders
and developers.
Garcia
noted that the Terner study’s estimate of slightly less than 6 percent of
single family homes being affected would rise considerably if either
construction costs or land prices were to drop.
So far,
every major Republican candidate to replace Newsom in the recall election has
promised to veto both SB 9 and SB 10 if given the opportunity.
Said Doug
Ose, a GOP recall candidate, real estate developer and former three-term
congressman from the Sacramento area, “Local land use decisions are always best
left up to local governments.”
But
Newsom has not indicated what he would do if either or both bills pass. Newsom
has been a strong advocate for building more housing in California, pushing in his
2018 campaign for developing 3.5 million new housing units by 2025, a goal
that’s nowhere near realization. So despite his silence, it’s likely he would
sign both measures.
The
bottom line: SB 9 and SB 10, or either one by itself, would make California
more crowded and less green than today, and would eventually make major changes
in the lifestyle that has drawn many millions to this state.
-30-
Email Thomas Elias at
tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising
Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now
available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment