SB 79 WON’T SOON HELP MANY CALIFORNIANS

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
"SB 79 WON’T SOON HELP MANY CALIFORNIANS"

 

By far the most attention this in this fall’s state legislative session went to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to counteract a Texas move to convert Democratic House seats to Republican via a special redistricting election early in November.

 

But another new law just signed by Newsom will probably prove far more consequential for the future of California’s cities.

 

It’s called SB 79 and once it plays out, will leave many California skylines altered in the direction of population-dense high-rise buildings.

 

Yes, multi-unit apartment construction is down statewide this year from last year’s figures by about 20 percent (based on partial numbers for 2025), making 2024 building look like it may have been on steroids. That's largely because new apartments today need $4,000-$5,000 monthly to break even.

 

But SB 79 has the long-term potential to change things in the name of housing density that might help solve the state’s shortage. The problem is that it probably won’t do that, because the vast majority (about 70 percent) of units being built are to be rented or sold at market rates, rather than seeking occupancy as subsidized affordable housing. Given that more than half of all California renters pay upwards of 30 percent of income for housing, relatively few can afford what are called market rates. So thousands of units built in the last three years now lie vacant, while shortages persist elsewhere.

 

Here's what SB 79 sponsor Scott Wiener, a Democratic San Francisco state senator, aims to do: Create a series of mini-downtowns near major transit stops with up to nine-story buildings gradually dropping off in all directions into two-and-three story construction, often within current single-family areas nearby.

 

Because of resistance from rural lawmakers, the upzoning near transit hubs will only apply in eight urban counties. When big changes come, they will be in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Clara, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Sacramento counties.

 

Height limits will depend on just how much bus and light rail traffic a stop handles. But for the busiest stops (designated as “Tier 1”), no local government can limit heights to less than 75 feet for buildings within a quarter-mile of the stop.

 

No one knows how many of these buildings will actually rise over the next few years. If developers doubt they can make profits off market-rate units mixed with a lesser number of affordable ones, they won’t build very much. Many have such qualms due to the pricing problem. So the trouble with much new construction in California is that most Californians can’t afford to live in it.

 

Two places whose nature this law won’t change soon are Altadena and the Pacific Palisades district of Los Angeles, both decimated in last January’s firestorms. Unless transit agencies run major new routes through them, they will be exempt from the top heights. There are no such plans today. 

 

Then there’s the matter of pricing out many who now live near transit stops. As a general rule, these immediate areas are less attractive and less desirable than nearby single-family zones, so rents and prices are lower there. But tear down existing housing and replace it with more modern and expansive housing, and current residents could be priced out.

 

But when Democratic Assembly member Rick Zbur of West Los Angeles argued SB 79 would be destructive for existing lower-cost neighborhoods, he was laughed off, while the bill passed the state Senate with applause from most legislators present.

 

Also ignored were complaints that SB 79 removes any authority many existing homeowners have over their surroundings.

 

These kinds of reasons were behind the 8-5 vote by which the Los Angeles city council voted to oppose the measure. The council called for Los Angeles to be exempted because it already has a state-approved housing plan, with thousands of units underway.

 

But labor unions backed AB 79, pretty much all the Legislature needed as most Democratic legislators get a big slice of their campaign money from organized labor.

 

The upshot is that SB 79 will solve few immediate housing problems, while not helping the many Californians who will continue to find new housing priced beyond their means.

-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

 

“DID HARRIS WRITE HERSELF OUT OF THE ’28 RACE?

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2025, OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

 “DID HARRIS WRITE HERSELF OUT OF THE ’28 RACE?”

 

Two absolute essentials must accompany any candidate who seeks to make a serious run for president, or even lesser but still powerful jobs like governor or U.S. senator:

 

No one can make a serious run without serious funding. So multiple sources of big money are a must. So are major allies. Not only do they go on the road as surrogates at times, but they recruit other supporters, some of whom provide the first essential, big money.

 

For a candidate to alienate the most powerful individuals in their political party even before a race gets going seriously is an unheard-of no-no.

 

But that is what former Vice President Kamala Harris may have done in her campaign memoir 107 Days, published in a season when many candidates issue bland autobiographical tomes that purport to carry important messages aimed to draw millions of voters. Most don’t attract many voters, while also containing few important messages.

 

The new Harris book is different. It’s almost like a deliberate effort to alienate potential supporters and snub her nose at the money they might be capable of raising.

 

Take her complaint about Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who she briefly considered as her vice presidential running mate in 2024: He was initially reluctant or non-committal when she asked for his endorsement just after ex-President Joe Biden gave up the Democratic nomination for his office and handed it off to Harris.

 

Did Pritzker want a day or two to determine whether the party would accept Biden’s edict and quickly anoint Harris as the candidate? Did he want to be offered an incentive?

Both would have been reasonable responses to Harris’ quick ascension.

 

But his pace did not satisfy Harris, a fact now announced in print. So much for Pritzker’s support if Harris runs again in 2028.

 

And there’s her response to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, her fellow endorsee of former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and her longtime supposed friend and stablemate (they’ve shared campaign consultants). 

 

She claims he didn’t take her first call after Biden dropped out, texting back “Hiking. Will call back.” He didn’t do that. So even though he did issue a full endorsement within hours, that was too slow for Harris, who apparently expects her colleagues to ask “how high” the moment she says “jump.”

 

If this sounds like minor byplay, that’s what it should have been. It probably wasn’t worth a mention in her book, or any other, but reflects an irritability that hasn’t worked well for any modern presidential candidate except Donald Trump. The rest have all tried to appear universally amiable.

 

Harris sprinkled other, similar, bon mots though her book. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, whom she considered for vice president, is “overly ambitious (and) confident,” Harris writes, and “would want to be in the room for every major decision.” Shouldn’t any veep want that?

 

Then there’s Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and Biden’s transportation secretary. He would have been “too big a risk,” as she didn’t believe the electorate was prepared to back both a gay man (Buttigieg) and a black woman (herself) simultaneously. But she writes Buttigieg was actually her first choice for vice president, even though she picked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. What now, if Walz is reelected next year?

 

If someone wanted to alienate powerful Democrats, it would be difficult to do it more thoroughly than Harris seems to have tried to do. Mark Kelly, senator from Arizona, “lacks political battle scars.” Does that mean he’s too popular, for he certainly has other kinds of scars as the steadfast, supportive husband of onetime assassination target Gabby Giffords.

 

All of which raises the question of whether Harris really wants to run for president again. Would she have criticized so many powerful Democrats if she were hungry for both their support and the further backing they could bring along in 2028?

 

Harris plainly didn’t want to be governor of California, or go through the rough campaign that she’d need to win that job. Now she’s also given voters plenty of reason to wonder how much she wants to be president.

 

    -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