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.”

HARD LEFT BEHIND RETIRE-FEINSTEIN DRIVE

 CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2023, OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
     “HARD LEFT BEHIND RETIRE-FEINSTEIN DRIVE”

 

        Forget about both sexism and ageism as prime forces behind the highly vocal movement pressuring longtime Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein to retire early from the seat she has held since 1990. 

 

Sure, these factors are present in varying degrees. So is the fact that Feinstein has been absent from the Senate more than two months this spring, recovering from a painfully severe case of shingles.

 

But the actual root purpose of this months-long campaign is an effort by the relentlessly uncompromising hard left of the California Democratic Party to take over a key post it could not win at the ballot box.

 

        This real prime mover became obvious in an appeal the ultra-leftist California Courage Campaign emailed to all its members early this month, seeking to galvanize them against Feinstein.

 

        That was because so-called “progressives” have long felt the moderate Feinstein deprived them of her seat when last reelected in 2018.

 

        The hard left is dominant among this state’s Democrats because no other interest has lately turned out significant numbers for the 80 Assembly district caucuses where delegates to the party’s state conventions are chosen.

 

        Back in 2018, ultra-leftist delegates led the party not to endorse Feinstein for a fifth full term, which she is about 18 months from finishing. Instead, they backed former Assembly Speaker Kevin de Leon. He’s best known these days for his role in a secretly recorded racist conversation last fall with then-Los Angeles City Council President Nury Martinez, then-Councilman Gil Cedillo and then-local labor federation chief Ron Herrera.

 

        De Leon, unlike all others on the notorious tape, refuses to resign his prominent post, a high-paying city council seat he won after Feinstein beat him soundly. He insists he will serve out his term before leaving.

 

        De Leon, shown by the audio to at least condone overt racism, was bitterly ageist in his run against Feinstein. He claimed her age (now 89) made her unfit for the job years before anyone noticed any problems with her health, physical or cognitive.

 

        Despite the party endorsing against her in both the primary and the general elections that year, voters twice gave Feinstein huge margins.

 

        That thwarted leftist ambitions to take over her seat as they strive for full political control of California.

 

        Now the left wants shingles to award it via an appointment what it could not win at the polls. Leftists for two years have ripped Feinstein for supposed mental lapses and for having friendly exchanges with – gasp! –  Republican senators.

 

        More recently, they accused her of letting her shingles-induced absence hold up confirmation of dozens of President Biden’s judicial appointees.

 

        Days before a tentatively scheduled mid-May return to the Capitol, Feinstein shot back in a press release that “The Senate continues to swiftly confirm highly qualified individuals to the…judiciary, including seven…this week.”

 

        She noted eight judges were confirmed during her absence, while Republicans are holding up only “a few.”

 

        With just a one-vote Judiciary Committee majority, Democrats need Feinstein’s vote to send those nominees to the Senate floor for final confirmation.

 

        Who are the folks most active in trying to oust Feinstein, presumably in favor of the ultra-liberal Oakland Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who might be appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom if Feinstein leaves? That could happen because Newsom promised two years ago he would name a Black woman to the next Senate vacancy, and the African-American Lee wants the job so badly she's already running against the far-better-funded Rep. Adam Schiff of Burbank and Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine.

 

        A quick Feinstein departure could give her seat to Lee for more than a year, allowing her to campaign as an incumbent.

 

        The Courage Campaign lists just one Californian among the most prominent leftists attacking Feinstein: Silicon Valley Rep. Ro Khanna, by odd coincidence Lee’s campaign co-chair. Others include most of the congressional “squad:” Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts. These, with Lee, are among the least compromising leftists in the current House.

 

        Which means this is at root not about age or inability or absenteeism; it’s about ideology, just like it was in 2018, when the leftists lost badly.   

       

-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

CAN DEMS CAPITALIZE ON GOP’S RISKY HEALTH VOTES?

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2017, OR THERE

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

    “CAN DEMS CAPITALIZE ON GOP’S RISKY HEALTH VOTES?”

          For the last seven years, most of the 14 Republicans representing parts of California in Congress railed against Obamacare, high corporate taxes and illegal immigration.

          But that was mere chatter. So long as a Democrat was president, nothing new was going to happen. And so, even though Obamacare policy holders, illegal immigrants and poor people abound in many of their districts, their talk never cost them much. That could change soon.

          For Republican Donald Trump controls the White House today and pushes constantly on those issues. He makes GOP congressional talk more than mere noise. What was empty rhetoric now can become reality. This was never more clear than when all 14 California Republicans voted to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare’s formal name, and replace it with far inferior health insurance.

          Example A might be Jeff Denham of Atwater, whose 10^th District contains a large Latino populace and about 100,000 persons whose health insurance comes via Obamacare. Denham won reelection last year by 51.7-48.3 percent over Democratic farmer Michael Eggman, the winning margin fully 70 percent below its 2014 level.

          In a town hall in his district about two weeks before the Obamacare vote, Denham assured more than 1,000 constituents that “I’m a ‘no’ on the healthcare bill until it is responsive to my community.”

          Turning him around was a last-minute amendment to create high-risk pools for persons with pre-existing conditions and provide $8 billion over five years to subsidize premiums a bit for this type of coverage, whose premiums have always been sky-high. At the same time, the bill takes at least $800 billion from Medicaid (known here as Medi-Cal) over 10 years.

          Medi-Cal covers about more 300,000 Denham constituents, many among the estimated 24 million persons likely to lose coverage under the Republican plan. Will those people brand him a liar and turn out next year to dump him? No one can predict.

          The healthcare bill passed the House by a narrow 217-213 margin, so if even two California Republicans had voted no, it would have failed. In Denham’s district, no one but him has claimed publicly that the $8 billion amendment (less than $200 million yearly to California) made it “responsive to my community.”

          Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco declaimed after the vote that “This vote…is a scar (Republicans) will carry.” But Democrats have been notably ineffective at unseating Denham and other Republicans from similar districts. David Valadao of Hanford is one: His Latino-majority district went for Hillary Clinton by 15 percent last year, but he still won by 9 percent. With many thousands of his constituents likely to lose coverage if the GOP changes become reality, can he survive? A lot depends on Latino turnout, notoriously unreliable. Both Valadao and Santa Clarita’s vulnerable-seeming Steve Knight criticized the Medicaid cuts, which could hurt tens of thousands in their districts, but still voted for them.

          The Orange County district of Republican Mimi Walters may also be in play. With fewer Obamacare recipients than many other areas, her district still went for Clinton last year. She ardently backed the GOP changes, celebrating the House vote with Trump at the White House. Will that be political suicide?

          Another Rose Garden celebrant was San Diego County’s Darrell Issa, whose vote at almost the last moment may have been decisive. Issa, his fate in question for weeks after last year’s election, survived then by just 1,600 votes. He acted unworried after this vote.

          “Today…gives a voice to the victims of Obamacare…a failure from the get-go,” Issa said. But he kept his position secret until the last moment, refusing to reveal it until he actually pulled the lever. Would Issa have voted against the repeal or abstained if his vote had not been crucial for passage? Was he promised something for his vote?

          Those questions may go unanswered, but it’s for sure Democrats will use that vote against Issa next year. Uncertain, of course, is whether it will work.

          That’s the question about all the Democrats’ loud ventilating over the healthcare vote. Their talk will only matter if they can make this bill an albatross around Republican necks and oust enough GOPers to retake control of the House.

 -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

RACE FOR STATE SCHOOL CHIEF ABOUT CHANGE

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MAY 23, 2014, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

          “RACE FOR STATE SCHOOL CHIEF ABOUT CHANGE”

          With no serious contest at the top of next month’s primary election ballot and none likely to emerge this fall, the multi-candidate run for California secretary of state has drawn a lot of political attention. But the intra-party race for state schools superintendent offers at least as much contrast and might just have more consequences down the line.

          Neither of these offices generally draws much election-time energy from voters, but the spectacle of secretary of state candidate Leland Yee – a Democratic state senator from San Francisco – being dragged off in handcuffs even as he sought to become California’s chief elections officer put more focus on the post than it’s gotten in decades.

          And yet, the run for the nominally non-partisan school superintendent post might involve the more important job. For sure, there’s a lot of contrast between the two main candidates here, incumbent Tom Torlakson and former charter schools executive Marshall Tuck. (A third candidate has managed to raise only a small fraction of the money and support generated by the other two.)

          The 40-year-old Tuck was president of the Green Dot charter school operation before he began running a 15,000-student group of 17 failing schools awarded to former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's jurisdiction as a kind of consolation prize after a slate of “reform” candidates he backed he failed to take over the local school board late in the last decade.

          Ask Tuck how things might change if he ousts former schoolteacher and ex-Assemblyman Torlakson and he mentions more local control of curriculum, budgets and staffing; possible restructuring of the school day, and a vast reduction of the public schools’ rule book, the 2,300-page state education code.

          But others cast this race as a contest about teacher unions. In fact, the majority of Torlakson’s campaign kitty comes from labor-linked sources, while Tuck claims to have 1,100 individual donors. Most donors of more than $1,000 to his campaign are business executives or owners.

          Under Torlakson, the desired policy of the huge California Teachers Association to keep seniority as the main criterion for deciding which teachers to lay off in hard times has been retained. Tuck, on the other hand, says it’s now too difficult to fire incompetent teachers, as determined by a combination of student test scores, principal evaluations and suspension and graduation rates. He would try to use those factors in some kind of combination with seniority when layoffs must occur.

          Tuck cites a 60 percent increase in four-year graduation rates at the public schools he managed, plus a 58 percent graduation rate at Green Dot schools (compared to 35 percent overall for Los Angeles schools at the time), as major accomplishments. But graduation rates have improved considerably for California schools overall in recent years, and there’s the fact that charter school parents are often more involved in their kids’ education than those at ordinary schools.

          Does he want to get rid of teacher unions and privatize public schools, as charged by Torlakson backers?  “I have only worked in union schools,” the Harvard Business School graduate asserts. “Green Dot teachers were the first charter group with their own union contract. But there are policies the CTA now defends that I disagree with. For one thing, I don’t like giving tenure after just two years. That’s too soon to really judge a teacher. Plus, the time is actually shorter than two years, because principals have to make tenure recommendations in January of a new teacher’s second year, so it’s really decided after only 18 months at the local level. And it is just too difficult to remove grossly underperforming teachers or those with grossly inappropriate conduct.”

          So even though Tuck insists he has no problem with teacher unions, he has a lot of problems with some protections afforded their members. He can play down his differences with unions all he wants at election time, but it’s clear he would try for major changes once in office.

          And change has been very slow in California public schools, where state superintendents appear to come and go every four or eight years, usually without major impact on the school system.

          That perception is one reason this race is important: More than any other statewide contest this year, this one is about whether voters want major changes.

   -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, go to www.californiafocus.net