SB 10 FAILS, SO DENSITY ADVOCATES TRY NEW MEASURE

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MAY 23, 2025, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“SB 10 FAILS, SO DENSITY ADVOCATES TRY NEW MEASURE”

 

Make no mistake, the newly proposed law commonly known as SB 79 is purely a result of the failure of the 2021 SB 10, which aimed to make housing in areas around transit stops (both bus and train) far more dense.

 

Said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a 2021 signing statement for SB 10, which allowed local governments to upzone land near transit stops for as many as ten units per parcel even in areas previously zoned single family:

 

“This bill has the potential to increase housing development at a time when the state is experiencing a significant shortage of the units needed to meet the needs of Californians.”

 

It did not. Exact figures for how many units have been built under SB 10 are hard to find, but the number is not high.

 

He does not say so, but that’s why SB 10 author Scott Wiener, the Democratic San Francisco state senator who has spearheaded many recent housing density bills, is back with the new measure, SB 79.

 

Where it was up to local government to upzone in transit zones under SB 10, the new measure would create automatic upzoning to multifamily uses near “major transit stops” on any site already zoned for residential, mixed use, commercial or light industrial development, up to specific heights of 45, 55, 65 and 75 feet.

 

Early versions of the bill also contained no prohibition on applying it in known fire zones. Other laws, however, can be used to regulate that.

 

Depending on things like ceiling heights, this bill potentially could make seven-story structures routine, since buildings average between 10 and 14 feet per floor.

 

Upzoned areas might often overlap, too, with the long-term outcome possibly becoming long strips of high-rise development, regardless of any neighborhood’s previous character.

Unlike under SB 10, such upzoning would be automatic, eliminating most local government authority over high-rise development.

 

Density bonuses already in use in many California developments would also apply to these new buildings.

 

No one yet knows whether builders would be any more receptive to putting up new SB 79 projects than they have been to using the existing SB 10.

 

One background document from Wiener’s office claims that “Building more homes near transit reduces transportation and housing costs for families and promotes environmental sustainability and economic growth, and reduces traffic density.”

 

This may be the first time anyone has tried to claim that erecting an unknown, unlimited number of four, five, six and seven-story apartment buildings and condominiums might somehow cut traffic.

 

Wiener also says his measure should making permitting fast for such projects, calling the new process “ministerial;” essentially not subject to things like public hearings, city council votes or local ballot questions.

 

The Livable California organization, a frequent Wiener opponent, points out a few other realities: One is that upzoning has not been shown to increase either housing supply or affordability, but often raises land values, thus making existing housing more expensive.

 

The group also notes that public transit now is mostly used by lower income persons, casting doubt on the assumption that new buildings in transit-thick areas would necessarily raise ridership significantly.

 

And it says this would be yet another nail in the coffin of local government authority.

 

One letter to a newspaper recently claimed the new plan would also harm housing affordability, claiming some sites it covers currently are occupied by low-income units, sometimes defined as being for persons with income below 81 percent of the median level for any area.

 

“There would be zero net gain in affordable housing from this,” said the letter writer.

 

Despite these flaws, current prospects for Wiener’s latest effort look good, with Newsom virtually certain to sign it if it passes the Legislature. It’s difficult to find a single housing density measure he has vetoed, the lone possible exception being one that would have made undocumented immigrants eligible for state down payment assistance.

 

So there’s a solid chance SB 79, passed 6-2 by the Senate Housing Committee, also becomes law soon. If this bill should fail to produce more density – and fast – it will be clear that even developers realize most Californians want to be surrounded by open space, no matter what their politicians might believe.

 

-30-
Elias is author of the current book The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It, now available in an updated third edition. His email address is tdelias@aol.com

 

Suggested pullout quote: “There’s a very good chance SB 79…becomes law soon.”

A GIVEAWAY CALIFORNIA MUST EXPAND

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“A GIVEAWAY CALIFORNIA MUST EXPAND"

 

It’s very rare for a giveaway program to more than double and nevertheless merit plaudits.

 

But that is the case with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s current plan to up California’s film and TV tax credit program from the current $330 million a year to $750 million. 

 

This plan seems about the only way to assure that California will remain the preeminent place to make and refine the cultural and entertainment content that represents America most in the world marketplace of ideas.

 

It also seems the only way to make sure most of the ancillary jobs that accompany actual film and television production also stay home. For there is no guarantee the post-production facilities which now dot the Southern California landscape with film editing shops, sound editing studios and composers’ quarters – among other items including costume rental shops, caterers and many more – will stay here forever when movies are being made in faraway locations as disparate as Georgia and British Columbia, to name just two places whose tax credits currently top California’s.

 

One of the main draws for businesses moving to other states has long been the property tax exemptions they are offered by many states – no levies for the first 10 years or so in Texas, for just one example.

 

The pull of tax credits is just as influential for entertainment production. Filmmakers don’t have to move, not when California contains almost every kind of location, but they will when other states and some Canadian provinces make it worth their while. Here are some of the latest numbers:

 

English language scripted films and TV shows being filmed in the Los Angeles area fell by 19.7 percent in 2023 compared with the previous year, reports Film LA, which tracks regional production. California’s share of the world’s productions fell from 22 to 18 percent during that short time.

 

This is no formula for continuing dominance of an industry once completely synonymous with California. Right now, this state’s biggest competitors include Georgia, North Carolina, New York and several Canadian provinces like British Columbia and Ontario, where late-model, high-tech studios have been built in both Vancouver and Toronto.

 

So now comes Newsom with a necessary move. He seeks to more than double what the state has lately offered. Do those offers matter?

 

“You follow the money,” actor-director Ben Affleck told a reporter when explaining a few years ago why he filmed “Live by Night” in Georgia. Tax credits and incentives sometimes cover as much as one-third of production costs in an industry where profits are not guaranteed. For the states, this can produce new jobs and more government revenue without the environmental problems of factories and warehouses.

 

What’s more, California’s current $330 million is puny beside what other states spend. Georgia, for example, plans to give $1.08 billion in movie and TV tax credits this year, rising to $1.28 billion in 2028.

 

So if California legislators balk at what Newsom now proposes, they just might doom California filmmaking to dinosaur status.

 

Don’t bet on that happening. The current proposal calls for production companies to get back 35 percent of what they spend for costs incurred inside California. This includes short TV shows as well as full-length films. Even animated shows are included, so long as their budgets are over $1 million.

 

John Prabhu, a partner at LA North studios and a supporter of the boost in tax credits, told Daily Variety that “Not a day goes by when someone fails to knock on our door…Before it’s too late California must intervene so we don’t lose the entertainment industry for good along with the quality jobs it provides.”

 

The bottom line is that when entertainment production leaves the state, money departs, along with jobs and talented professionals. That’s why the expanded film credit is needed now, with the strong likelihood it will have to be bumped up further every year for the foreseeable future.

 

It’s OK to criticize Newsom on a lot of fronts. But he occupies the high ground on this one and whoever succeeds him in 2028 will have to act similarly.

 

-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

 

Suggested pullout quote: “If California legislators balk at what Newsom now proposes, they just might be dooming California filmmaking to dinosaur status.”