Author: saveurvoice

On March 17, Michael S. Tilden, the Acting California State Auditor, issued a blistering critique of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and its Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA).

The Auditor found problems in the HCD methodology that may have inflated RHNA requirements by hundreds of thousands of housing units. The Auditor concludes that “The Department of Housing and Community Development must improve its processes to ensure that communities can adequately plan for housing.”

In his letter to the Governor and legislative leaders, the Auditor also states, “Overall, our audit determined that HCD does not ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and adequately supported. …This insufficient oversight and lack of support for its considerations risks eroding public confidence that HCD is informing local governments of the appropriate amount of housing they will need.”

The California Alliance of Local Electeds (CALE), a statewide organization of local elected officials, called for the comprehensive review and supports the State Auditor’s findings. Says Susan Candell, a CALE member and councilmember from the city of Lafayette, “CALE advocated for this audit, and it’s critical that HCD and the legislature follow-up on the Auditor’s recommendations. Our constituents deserve a fair and accurate process.”

State Senator Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), a member of the Joint Committee on Legislative Audit and a former mayor of the city of Orinda, states “It is these types of mistakes that undermine community trust and confidence in housing requirements. We need more affordable housing, and we have to do better.”

Since 1969, California has required that all local governments create plans to meet the housing needs of their communities, a process called the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA).

Each eight-year RHNA cycle starts with population and household projections from the demographic unit at the Department of Finance (DOF). These projections are then handed off to HCD for their estimates of the number of housing units required to meet California’s needs. The RHNA process was modified in 2018 by Senate Bill 828 (Wiener), which created several ad hoc adjustments that have led to the problems cited in the State Auditor’s report.

Auditor findings on vacancy rates are consistent with Embarcadero Institute analysis

Unfortunately, the audit reviewed the RHNA plans from only eight counties, which together contain less than eight percent of California’s population. Due to pending lawsuits the audit did not consider the RHNA plans of the two largest planning organizations, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). These two regions contain almost two-thirds (65.5 percent) of the state’s population. This omission makes it difficult to grasp the scale of the problems created by HCD’s errors.

However, the Embarcadero Institute, a Northern California think tank, estimated that HCD’s incorrect vacancy rates created an overcount of 200,000 housing units. Conceptual inconsistencies between DOF’s household projections and HCD’s housing unit projections created an additional overcount estimated at 700,000 housing units. Thus the RHNA requirement of 2.1 million new housing units may be contaminated by an overcount of 900,000 units.

The Auditor’s report does not attempt to reconcile these differences because HCD’s procedures are not clearly documented. Instead it has insisted that both DOF and HCD clarify and publish their methods and assumptions.

Auditor recommendations

The Auditor’s report made strong recommendations and created a timeline for their completion. Several tasks must be undertaken between June 2022 and February 2023 including performing multiple reviews of data, establishing formal review procedures, reviewing the appropriateness of comparison regions, and conducting an analysis of healthy vacancy rates and their historical trends. The Department of Finance is tasked with reviewing its population projections based on 2020 census data and conducting a comprehensive review of assumptions about household formation rates.

Says CALE’s Julie Testa, councilmember from the City of Pleasanton, “Unless HCD and DOF complete this work and correct their mistakes, there is no justification for punishing cities for failing to meet erroneous RHNA goals. The Legislature should suspend implementation of RNHA until the public is satisfied these problems have been resolved.”

About CALE

The California Alliance of Local Electeds (CALE) brings together current and former local elected officials, community activists and other concerned residents. CALE believes that California’s 482 municipalities are too geographically and culturally distinct to be subjected to one-size-fits-all rules from the state capitol. CALE believes that communities thrive when local democracy thrives.

L.A. developer brings new approach to shared ownership, which once raised uproar

By Andrew Khouri

A new housing model that landed in Los Angeles several years ago made home ownership more affordable in pricey neighborhoods, a welcome option in a housing-starved region.

It also had a major flaw, according to critics: Investors often displaced tenants in cheaper rentals to renovate their units and resell them.

Now, an L.A. developer has a new approach to the so-called tenancy-in-common, or TIC, model, in which residents share ownership of the property. Instead of converting old, rent-controlled buildings into TIC properties, the developer is replacing single-family homes with new townhomes.

That adds less costly housing stock to the area with fewer chances of displacement since most single-family houses are owner-occupied.

“I thought this wasn’t something I could afford,” said Ricky Howard, a 34-year-old buying his first home, a three-bedroom townhouse in Arlington Heights with stainless-steel appliances, quartz countertops and central air conditioning.

“I was … questioning why was it priced at $749,000,” he said, “and it’s new construction.”

At TIC developments, rather than own an individual unit on a lot like a condominium, residents own a share of the overall lot and have exclusive rights to live in their unit, with homeowners association dues covering the property’s upkeep. They are similar to New York City co-ops and came to L.A. from San Francisco, where they had been budding for decades.

B&A Group, the builder of the four-unit project in Arlington Heights, has several more on the way, and at least one other developer is planning similar projects. Some real estate experts said the model could make a dent in the region’s gaping affordable-housing problem, particularly after a new state law opened more areas to similar development.

B&A has finished three projects so far; the others are in West Adams and Westlake.

In Arlington Heights, the three-bedroom homes went up for sale between $749,000 and $849,000 — at least $159,000 less than the typical three-bedroom home in the central Los Angeles neighborhood, and cheaper than most newly built condos and townhomes in the city, according to a Times analysis of Zillow data and listings.

Aldo Cali, who runs B&A with his sister Brisa Acosta, said they focus on replacing single-family homes with new construction because they don’t want to displace anyone. And it’s hard to make projects work financially when demolishing multi-unit structures to build just a few new units.

The new TICs from B&A preceded Senate Bill 9, the state law that allows up to four units on most lots formerly zoned for one single-family house. Some single-family houses in the city already saton parcels zoned for more units, often a maximum of four, enabling projects such as B&A’s.

“Being able to take one home and turn it now into four homes that could give someone the opportunity to own a home in Los Angeles … we like that whole idea,” Acosta said.

In the debate over the new construction enabled by SB 9, some opponents raised concerns developers would demolish relatively affordable single-family homes and replace them with expensive rentals.

Cali and Acosta said the old homes they buy often need significant work that would put them out of reach for many first-time buyers. Most of the new TIC townhomes, on the other hand, have sold to first-time buyers, according to the real estate agent handling the deals.

Except for one single-family house built as part of a three-unit TIC development in West Adams, B&A’s new townhome units are all three bedrooms with roughly 1,500 square feet and a rooftop deck or a small yard.

All 10 of those townhomes were first listed between 9% and 26% less than the typical price for a three-bedroom in those neighborhoods, or the equivalent of $81,000 to $259,000 cheaper.

New homes at a discount

Howard, who is under contract for a unit at the TIC project in Arlington Heights, said he had grown tired of paying $3,000 a month in rent for a one-bedroom apartment near work and wanted to start building equity.

The owner of a streetwear store in downtown L.A. said the only homes he could afford in his desired neighborhoods were fixer-uppers, or one-bedroom and studio condos. It took six months of searching and roughly three lost offers before he came across B&A’s townhomes.

One home he had bid on had 20 competing offers, he said. By comparison, buying a newer, nicer TIC has been a breeze.

“I think it’s smart for when I get older,” Howard said, of owning an asset rather than renting it. “I can have something that I own.”

How his opportunity came to be is a story of zoning and economics.

In recent years, developers including B&A have demolished single-family houses that sat on L.A. lots already zoned for two to four units.

According to interviews with developers and a Times analysis of city records, the hundreds of new two- to four-unit projects that developers built were primarily for lease, with just a smattering of for-sale condos and a type of for-sale housing known as small lots — homes that look like townhomes but are actually detached single-family houses.

Some of the new rental units were pricey, high-end units, while others were cheap enough to qualify as Section 8 housing.

Most projects are rentals because it takes too long to get city approvals to sell units individually as condos or small lots, developers said. By 2019, though, investors had started to convert old rental housing into TIC units, which unlike small lots and condo conversions required no special city approvals and could be done quickly — a major plus for them since time is money.

L.A. real estate agent Skyler Hynes, who was working with B&A at the time to lease rentals, said he and the developer figured they could use that new model to sell off individual townhomes and potentially make more money than selling an entire property to a landlord.

Cali said they bought all houses on the open market and made a point of asking the listing agents whether anyone would be displaced by the sale, something he said the agents said wouldn’t happen.

“That’s not what we are about,” he said.

According to county records and an interview with one previous owner, at least five of the seven houses B&A bought had been owner-occupied. One house had been rented before the sale, according to the tenant, who said the landlord let him move into another rental she owned for the same rental price.

Multiple industry insiders believe B&A was the first developer to offer newly built TICs in the L.A. market, with others since taking up the model.

Isaac Davidi, a prominent developer of two- and four-unit rentals in Los Angeles, said he has about 40 new TIC buildings planned, with the first one expected to be finished in West Adams in about three months. “It’s more profitable,” he said.

Future B&A projects are plannedin West Adams, Westlake, Mid City and North Hollywood.

All of the townhomes B&A has finished so farwere listed and sold, or are still available, in the $700,000s and $800,000s. Hynes said the list price is roughly a 10% to 20% discount to what a similar newly built condo or small lot would cost in that location.

Several B&A homes actually sold for less than the original list price, including the one Howard is buying.

B&A can still make a profit selling the homes at a lower price: The developer saves time because special city approvals aren’t necessary in TIC cases, Hynes said.

The particular features of TICs — the shared ownership structure, for example, and the lack of fixed-rate financing options for them — also mean they aren’t swamped with buyer-interest the way most California homes are these days.

Adding supply

If newly built TICs prove reasonably profitable for developers, and the model takes off, it could have a “substantial impact” on improving housing affordability, UCLA professor Paavo Monkkonen said.

As developers build more TICs, more for-sale units will become available — the supply will grow — potentially easing the bidding wars between buyers that characterize today’s market.

SB 9 has also opened up many more lots to two- and four-unit development, adding opportunities for others to try the single-family-home-to-TIC pathway.

Larry Gross, executive director for the tenant rights group Coalition for Economic Survival, said the way B&A is developing TICs has the potential for less tenant displacement compared with the more common rental conversions.

But if the model catches on, he said, he worries other developers will pressure low-income homeowners to sell en-masse, then build and sell homes for far more than B&A prices. A familiar cycle would then begin, he said, with high-earners moving in and driving home prices up further.

“This could be devastating,” he said.

Even the discounts B&A’s projects now offer are a concern for Steven Meeks, president of the neighborhood council for West Adams. The area has seen prices skyrocket in recent years as higher-income, often-white households move into the mostly working-class Latino and Black neighborhood.

“Cheaper for who?” he said of the new townhomes. “What person in this neighborhood is going to afford that?”

Cali said he worries “about everybody’s concerns,” but he feels his projects are helping affordability, including in West Adams, where he sold two three-bedroom townhomes for $780,000 and $795,000, far less than the typical three-bedroom now valued at more than $1 million.

“It’s bringing back a little piece of the middle class, figuring out how to even get into something,” he said.

UCLA’s Monkkonen said it’s important to consider what could’ve happened absent B&A’s purchase of the old houses: It’s common for investors to purchase old, rundown homes and renovate them to much higher values — something that doesn’t add any additional units and happens frequently in West Adams and across the city.

B&A’s projects, meanwhile, are adding housing that is cheaper than many options in the surrounding area, a quicker way to expand affordability than waiting for more supply to trickle down, Monkkonen said.

All but one of the 10 new townhomes B&A has built can be considered less expensive than the old houses they replaced, records show. According to public records, B&A paid $850,000 in 2019 for the single-family house in Arlington Heights it demolished to build four townhomes.

Those four new townhomes went on the market between $749,000 and $849,000, meaning all four were available for less than B&A paid for the original house two years earlier. Some buyers are in escrow below those list prices, an even steeper discount.

It’s a more complicated case with the developer’s other projects. Those townhomes sold for more than what B&A paid in 2019 for the houses they replaced. But as any observer of the nation’s housing market knows: real estate appreciates.

A home’s price doesn’t rise in exact tandem with the market. But if B&A never demolished the old houses and their value climbed exactly as estimated by Zillow for the typical house, all but one of B&A’s six remaining townhomes sold for less than the theoretical value of the houses they replaced.

By Juliette Fairley

Feb 8, 2022

This article was originally posted in the Southern California Record

When Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bills 9 and 10 into law last year, it was reportedly a way to streamline approvals for housing projects, create affordable housing and alleviate homelessness, but opponents of the legislation continue pushing back. 

Yorba Linda City Council member Peggy Huang, a Republican, is among them.

“None of these bills have inclusionary zoning that say 20% to 30% is for affordable housing,” Huang said. “None of that language is in there. The groups that support this are your high-tech workers, high tech industry investors, and groups like Blackstone that bought up residential housing units in San Diego.”

As previously reported in the San Diego Union-Tribune, the New York City private equity firm The Blackstone Group acquired some 5,800 apartment units in San Diego for more than $1 billion.

“If you look at Blackstone’s Real Estate Investment Trust, BREIT, they made a whopping 26.7% return last year from residential units,” Huang told the Southern California Record. “So, you want to expand that? Of course, but it raises the prices of the homes because you can’t possibly compete with an investor.”

In response,, Huang is leading a ballot initiative called Californians for Community Planning that, if approved by voters, would amend the California State Constitution so that local ordinances direct what can be built in California cities, rather than state laws.

“This initiative allow you to pass a local ordinance to prevent split laws without the consent of the council so that you can write an ordinance that says you need the approval of the planning commission before you can split your lot, which, right now, is in conflict with SB 9,” she said. “This initiative would say that local ordinances trump state law. We’re currently getting the signatures to have it qualify for the November election.”

From Jan. 1, to Dec. 31, 2021, the campaign received $432,061.43, according to Secretary of State data. Contributors include the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in Los Angeles, and Roven Productions in Dallas, Texas. The director of Roven Productions is Charles V. Roven who produced Hollywood blockbuster movies such as The Dark Knight Trilogy, Suicide Squad, Man of Steel, and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

If the ballot initiative is not approved in November, Huang expects the landscape in coastal cities to change rapidly.

“We will all look like San Francisco, Oakland, New York City, Vancouver, and Portland,” she said. 

“That’s why it’s so important for people to understand that this governor, this legislature, and the leaders of this legislature have publicly said they want to end single family homes. President Biden said last month that single family housing is racist and segregationist, which is funny because your middle class and working class black and Latinos are saying that owning a home is their way to have generational wealth. Do you want them to always be crammed into one-bedroom units?”

By Amy Graff

This article originally appeared in SFGate

An estimated 40,458 homes and condos are sitting vacant in San Francisco, and that number could potentially go down if the city were to introduce a vacancy tax that would fine homeowners who leave their properties empty, a new report released Monday by the city’s budget and legislative analyst said.

The report was commissioned by Supervisor Dean Preston, who wanted to take a deep look at the scope of residential vacancies in San Francisco and explore whether vacancy tax policies adopted in other cities could help ease SF’s housing shortage.  

Vancouver, British Columbia, is among the cities that have imposed an empty home tax. The Canadian city adopted the tax in 2016, and its overall vacancy rate decreased from 4.3% to 3.1% as a result, with 1,676 units returning to occupancy in 2018, followed by an additional 220 in 2019, the report said. Vancouver’s tax generated the equivalent of about $21.3 million in 2019; the city used the net proceeds for affordable housing initiatives, the report said.

Preston said that if San Francisco were to introduce a tax similar to the one in Vancouver, “just under 5,000 homes in two years would go from being vacant to occupied — that’s 90% of our annual new housing production.”

“The main idea was to look at the issue, to quantify it and get some data on the issue of residential vacancy,” added Preston, who represents District 5, which includes areas such as Haight Ashbury, Hayes Valley, Japantown and Western Addition. “There has been a lot of anecdotal talk, but there hasn’t been a systematic look at it.”

Washington, D.C., also has a vacancy tax, fining owners $5 for every $100 of assessed value for vacant properties, and $10 for every $100 of assessed value for blighted properties. The tax generated $9.4 million in gross revenue in 2016, the report said.

San Francisco saw the number of vacant units go from about 33,300 in 2015 to 40,458 in 2019, rising roughly 20%. (Note: 2019 is the most recent year vacancies were reported.)

“This increase has outpaced the number of new residential units as the vacancy rate has increased from 8.5% in 2015 to 10% in 2019 whereas housing units grew by 4.2% during that period,” the report said. 

The fastest growing segment of vacant housing in the city over five years through 2019 were homes that were sold and not occupied.

“This type of vacancy may be due to owners buying new units while they are still under construction but it may also be due to owners purchasing them as investments or cash havens with no intention of moving in or renting them out,” the report said. 

The highest number of vacant homes are in SoMa, Downtown and the Mission District, the neighborhoods that have seen the highest concentration of new housing in recent years, the report said. 

It’s also interesting to note that the city’s rental vacancy rate (housing available for rent) is only 3%, which reflects the tight rental market. San Francisco’s rental vacancy rate is lower than the rate in other major metro areas including New York City (4.6%), Chicago (4.6%) and Houston (8.7%). 

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 8:45 a.m. on Feb. 2 to include information on San Francisco’s rental vacancy rate. It was updated again on Feb. 5 as it included the incorrect rental vacancy rate for New York City.

BY CHRISTIAN HORVATH, OLIVIA VALENTINE, DREW BOYLES JULY 9, 2021

This article originally appeared in the LA Times

In recent years, a group of California lawmakers has been pushing for legislation to override locally approved zoning rules and permit denser development in residential neighborhoods. At the moment, a bill is rushing toward passage in the state Legislature that would dramatically and undemocratically rewrite land-use rules in California.

The bill is SB 9, written by Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego). If approved, it would effectively eliminate single-family zoning in wide swaths of California’s cities. Under its provisions, the owners of parcels currently zoned for single-family use would be allowed by right (subject to very limited environmental and other exceptions) to split their lots in two — and then to have up to two residential units on each lot.

In other words, a parcel currently zoned for only one family could soon have four families squeezed together.

These changes in the rules would be imposed on local governments but would not provide true solutions to the state’s affordable housing crisis. That’s why a bipartisan group of 120 locally elected officials from 48 cities across the state — including not just wealthy communities but also low- and middle-income communities — have signed on to this article, agreeing that adding density to neighborhoods in such a broad and haphazard manner lowers quality of life for all communities.

SB 9 has [been signed into law].

One problem with the bill is that overriding local zoning cannot be Sacramento’s lone scheme for achieving affordability — because, unfortunately, it will not have the intended outcome. Affordable housing development is only attractive where land values are economical and adequate financial subsidies are available. Upzoning of the sort proposed does not produce more affordable housing. Rather, it increases the underlying land’s value, making new construction unnecessarily more expensive and, over time, raising values and rents throughout neighborhoods.

In 2017, census data suggested that there were twice as many vacant units in the city of Los Angeles as unhoused individuals. If those in need had the means to pay for those units, or if the units were accessible to existing public programs, low-income families seeking housing could have found it more rapidly.

The state should allow SB 329, which was signed into law in 2019, to work. It bans landlords from discriminating against renters who seek apartments using Section 8 or other housing assistance vouchers. In addition, California could house people more quickly by creating its own state Another problem with the SB 9 approach is that many cities face ”carrying capacity limits” that must be considered before density is increased. If a community’s population is going to grow, as it would under SB 9, are there enough parks? Can the schools support the increase in students? You can’t just make a neighborhood more crowded without considering sewer limitations, traffic conditions and water supply.

Proponents of SB 9 argue that density will allow families to live in “resource-rich neighborhoods” without guaranteeing every community is, or will become, resource-rich. We must address historical inequities to ensure all neighborhoods have sufficient ongoing public and private investments.

Additionally, the proposed eradication of single-family neighborhoods and the undermining of local control over zoning are attacks on democracy. California currently requires citizen participation in the adoption of general plans and community changes in zoning rules. Overriding those policies undermines existing state mandates. The barrage of new housing legislation coming down from Sacramento in recent years compromises cities’ ability to meet low-income-housing requirements and complicates the job of both local planners and developers, creating confusion and delays.

Municipal planning departments are becoming administrators of state policy instead of being allowed to guide their jurisdictions into sustainable and resilient futures. Local inclusionary zoning and density incentives are undermined by state legislation that adds density without affordability requirements. Cities have yet to fully comprehend the impacts of last year’s three bills regulating accessory dwelling units. Municipalities need time to adjust, reset and thoughtfully adopt changes. They do not need a tsunami of statewide bills to “help.”

The state would do better to develop programs that provide more resources to planning departments. Right now, for example, cities may want to prioritize redeveloping their commercial districts, many of which have been devastated by COVID-19. Local entities should have the option to control their own zoning and set their own priorities.

Finally, overriding local zoning with by-right development can inadvertently increase greenhouse gas emissions without also acknowledging the dire need for broad infrastructure investment that could help guide communities toward zero-emission mobility. If public transit is the strategy to bring us to zero emissions, unfortunately it doesn’t currently work or exist in L.A.’s South Bay or many suburban parts of the state.

California residents should demand that Sacramento abandon the one-size-fits-all strategy embodied in SB 9, which would benefit developers, hurt homeowners and renters, and not necessarily facilitate the production of low-income housing. The state could better address the affordability crisis by helping local communities create reliable and fast transportation options and collaborating on regionally focused solutions that aid those in greatest need. SB 9 falls short of accomplishing those goals and only furthers the lack of trust in state government to be a partner with local jurisdictions in solving real problems.

Christian Horvath is a City Council member in Redondo Beach. Olivia Valentine is mayor pro tem of Hawthorne. Drew Boyles, the chair of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, is mayor of El Segundo. A full list of signatories is at SouthBayCities.org. voucher program.

By: David Wagner

This article originally appeared in LAist

At the start of 2022, new state laws took effect that could bring big changes to California suburbs in the form of more housing density. Now, local politicians want to see those laws overturned.

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) — a regional planning organization — voted Thursday to support a ballot initiative that aims to override state housing laws by giving local governments the final say over land use decisions.

Yorba Linda City Councilmember Peggy Huang, one of the initiative’s main proponents, told her fellow SCAG regional council members to “not allow Sacramento to tell us what’s best from 500 miles away.”

By a vote of 32 to 12 (with 3 members abstaining), SCAG moved to officially support the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative, which still needs to collect nearly one million valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot.

‘There’s No Need To Destroy Single-Family Neighborhoods’

If the initiative qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, local governments could overturn a pair of new state housing laws that allow for more housing in areas once reserved for single-family homes.

One of those laws, SB 9, allows homeowners to build up to four units of housing on lots that previously supported just one home. The other law, SB 10, allows local governments to approve developments with up to 10 units on lots located near transit lines.

During the SCAG meeting, L.A. City Councilmember Paul Koretz said with these laws, developers can build expensive housing in areas that don’t want it, which could lead to gentrification.

“There’s no need to destroy single-family neighborhoods just for the sake of doing it,” Koretz said.

The Land Use Rule Underpinning SoCal Suburbs

The main point of contention is single-family zoning. Put simply, it’s the land use rule that has sustained the stereotypical Southern California suburb, ensuring that rows of detached homes remain uninterrupted by denser apartment buildings.

Many SoCal politicians, along with many of the local homeowners they represent, view single-family zoning as sacrosanct — and as a symbol of upward economic mobility.

According to the city of L.A.’s planning department, 76% of the residential land in L.A.’s wealthiest neighborhoods is currently zoned for single-family use.

Brentwood City Councilmember Jovita Mendoza, another proponent of the ballot initiative, said, “As a first generation Mexican-American, I am appalled that I am being told that people like me — people of color — cannot want to live in a single-family neighborhood, that we are only good enough for a stack-them-and-pack-them model.”

Proponents for greater housing density argue the new state laws are needed because stand-alone houses are out of reach for most Californians, and that new types of housing — such as duplexes and granny flats — will offer more affordable options to millennials and middle-income workers currently priced out of the housing market.

L.A. County’s median home price is nearly $800,000, according to the California Association of Realtors.

Renter & Biz Groups Say Initiative Would Preserve An Unaffordable ‘Status Quo’

SCAG’s vote came over the objections of local business organizations and nonprofits that serve low-income renters.

Those groups said the initiative threatens to undo state tenant protections, fair housing goals and progress toward digging California out of its severe housing shortage.

Before the vote, the Inner City Law Center’s Mahdi Manji told SCAG’s board that if the ballot initiative is successful, it “would have the potential to imperil AB 1482, which creates a statewide just cause for eviction and limits how much landlords can increase rents.”

Michael Shilstone with the Central City Association, a Downtown L.A. business advocacy group, said local governments need to work together to meet the region’s overall goal of planning for 1.3 million new homes over the next eight years, rather than fighting new development in each individual city.

“We’re strongly opposed to this voter initiative,” Shilstone said, “as it seeks to preserve the status quo of housing unaffordability, environmentally harmful sprawl and economic inequality.”

The initiative’s proponents include Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand, and major funding is coming from the L.A.-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

Researchers doubt SB 9 and SB 10 will lead to any huge overnight changes in California suburbs. A recent study from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center estimated that 97% of existing single-family homes will remain in place after SB 9 takes effect.

By Thomas Elias, The Desert Sun.

Even before a homeowner-inspired measure aiming to restore full zoning powers to local governments hit the streets looking to qualify for next fall’s ballot, the battle over who would control housing decisions in California began heating up.

Proponents will need just short of 1 million valid voter signatures to put their plan on the ballot.

That should not be too hard, once most homeowners understand how fully state legislators attempted last year to usurp the most basic powers cities and counties have long exercised.

As long as California has been a state, local governments have decided where housing will and won’t go and how much to allow. Voters have passed countless ballot initiatives instructing their local governments on how to do that.

But with two strokes of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pen in September, that all may have ended. When he signed Senate Bills 9 and 10, most city council members might as well have gone back to being ordinary citizens.

The two new laws allow six times as much building as before in areas formerly zoned for one home per lot — and even more near rapid transit stops or “major transportation corridors.”

All without any requirements for either new parking spaces, water, schools, or even a single affordable housing unit.

If ever there’s been a plot to let developers get rich quick, this is it. In fact, many of the liberal Democratic lawmakers who voted for these two bills see their election campaigns at least partly funded by developers.

Homeowner groups view these new laws as a license for unbridled development at a time when almost everyone believes California has a massive housing shortage. This perception is furthered by the homeless encampments that abound in almost all parts of the state.

When he ran for office in 2018, Newsom vowed to spur the building of 3.5 million new housing units by 2026, eight years later. But new home construction lags far behind that pace, and units that do get built often languish unsold for many months, even if they are supposedly affordable.

One reason is cost. Most families with income below California’s median of $75,200 per year (half the households in the state earn more than that yearly, the other half do not) can’t afford so-called affordable housing. The average affordable housing unit now runs more than $450,000 to construct.

There’s an illusion in the public consciousness that the unhoused will somehow benefit from new affordable housing. But almost none of them have the cash to buy in.

Meanwhile, state officials do nothing to promote and speed the conversion of vacant office space into residences.

Into this picture now come developers with large bankrolls offering to buy up existing one-home lots and build as many as six units on each, with no new amenities for the surrounding community. The same developers are behind another initiative that would completely counteract the one aiming to save single-family zoning. The way this one is written, whichever measure gets more votes will govern, period. No compromises here.

Many homeowners are now getting behind the initiative to cancel SB 9 and 10 and give land-use decisions back to local officials who appear unaware of the competing initiative. Still, both will almost certainly make the ballot.

The upcoming competition is vital because so much of California’s character would change if SB 9 and 10 were allowed to let developers proceed without concern for either anything aesthetic or the infrastructure they have traditionally had to provide when erecting new subdivisions.

This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: Who controls where new houses go in California? Voters will decide.