Author: saveurvoice

  • KABC Podcasts: Our Neighborhood Voices talks with Susan Shelley about the impact SB 9 &SB 10 will have on our neighborhoods

  • More than 100 Elected California Officials Join Thousands of Community Leaders in Endorsing “Our Neighborhood Voices”

    California – Over 100 current and former elected officials from across California have announced their support for the Our Neighborhood Voices ballot initiative, which will restore local planning input and the ability of residents to speak out about what is happening next door to their homes and apartments.

    “We are organizing the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative campaign to give local communities back their say in the future of their communities,” said initiative proponent Bill Brand, Mayor of Redondo Beach. Brand added “We are grateful for the support of these elected leaders, and we know it is just the beginning of the statewide, grassroots movement to restore our voice in local planning and development.”

    The officials announcing their endorsement today, which includes former legislators as well as dozens of current and former Mayors, Councilmembers and other locally elected officials, add to the more than 2,000 community leaders who have signed on to support “Our Neighborhood Voices.”   

    The list of officials is provided below, and the full list of endorsements is available online at https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com.

    The “Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative” will protect the ability of local communities to adopt laws that shape local growth, preserve the character of neighborhoods, and require developers to actually produce more affordable housing and contribute to the costs associated with new housing.

    The initiative seeks to qualify for the November 2022 ballot, and is actively gathering signatures across the state.

    The five proponents of the initiative include three locally elected officials, a former city planning commissioner and an affordable housing advocate. The group cuts across partisan lines, and represents a broad cross section of California’s diverse population.

    Current and Former Elected Officials Supporting Our Neighborhood Voices

    Eric Alegria – Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes

    Lon Allan – Former Mayor, City of Monte Sereno

    Ed Alves – Mayor, City of Escalon

    Holly Andreatta – Vice Mayor, City of Lincoln

    Sylvia Ballin – Mayor, City of San Fernando

    Arianna Barrios – Councilmember, City of Orange

    Justin Beaver – Councilmember, City of Yucaipa

    Marie Blankley – Mayor, City of Gilroy

    Jonathan Bowers – Councilmember, City of Compton

    Gary Boyer – Councilmember, City of Glendora

    Drew Boyles – Mayor, City of El Segundo

    Bill Brand – Mayor, City of Redondo Beach

    Joy Brenner – Councilmember, City of Newport Beach

    Phil Brock – Councilmember, City of Santa Monica

    Desley Brooks – Former Council Member, City of Oakland

    Karla Brown – Mayor, City of Pleasanton

    Wendy Bucknum – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Mission Viejo

    Mark Burton – Former Mayor/Councilmember, City of Manhattan Beach

    Susan Candell – Mayor, City of Lafayette

    Ramona Caudillo – Mayor, City of Lindsay

    Jeff Cooper – Former Mayor, City of Culver City

    George Chen – Councilmember, City of Torrance

    Denise Diaz – Councilmember, City of South Gate

    Bea Dieringer – Mayor, City of Rolling Hills

    Christian Dinco – Councilmember, City of Eastvale

    John Ebiner – Councilmember, City of San Dimas

    Frank Egger – Former Mayor, City of Farifax

    Anita Enander – Mayor, City of Los Altos

    Laura Ferguson – Councilmember, City of San Clemente

    Jon Froomin – Councilmember, City of Foster City

    Mike Frost – Councilmember, City of Dana Point

    Jim Gazeley – Councilmember, City of Lomita

    Lance Giroux – Councilmember, City of El Segundo

    Julian Gold – Councilmember, City of Beverly Hills

    Eniko Gold – Councilmember, City of Hidden Hills

    Mike Griffiths – Councilmember, City of Torrance

    Kevin Haroff – Mayor, City of Larkspur

    Lesa Heebner – Mayor, City of Solana Beach

    Sue Higgins – Mayor, City of Oakley

    Susan Hollingsworth-Adams – Councilmember, City of Rohnert Park

    Peggy Huang – Mayor, City of Yorba Linda

    Mike Judge – Councilmember, City of Simi Valley

    Fred Keeley – Ret. CA State Assemblymember, Santa Cruz County Supervisor & Treasurer

    Michael Kemps – Mayor, City of Palos Verdes Estates

    Linda Koelling – Former Mayor, City of Foster City

    Paul Koretz – Councilmember, City of Los Angeles

    Lydia Kou – Councilmember, City of Palo Alto

    Linda Krupa – Councilmember, City of Hemet

    Rishi Kumar – Councilmember, City of Saratoga

    Lynette Lee Eng – Councilmember, City of Los Altos

    Todd Loewenstein – Councilmember, City of Redondo Beach

    Patty Lopez – Retired California State Assemblymember

    Mike Losey – Councilmember, City of Fortuna

    Jessica Martinez – Councilmember, City of Whittier

    Patricia Matthews – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Lemoore

    Aurelio Mattucci – Councilmember, City of Torrance

    Jovita Mendoza – Councilmember, City of Brentwood

    John Mirisch – Former Mayor and Current Councilmember, City of Beverly Hills

    Leah Mirsch – Councilmember, City of Rolling Hills

    Chip Monaco – Councilmember, City of Orange

    Carme Montano – Vice Mayor, City of Milpitas

    Carol Moore – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Laguna Woods

    Thomas Moore – Councilmember, City of Seal Beach

    Dawn Murdock – Councilmember, City of Palos Verdes Estates

    Frank Navarro – Mayor, City of Colton

    Nils Nehrenheim – Councilmember, City of Redondo Beach

    Kim Nichols – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Orange

    Vince Palomar – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Kingsburg

    Ariel Pe – City Council, City of Lakewood

    Aaron Peskin – Supervisor, City of San Francisco

    Erica Pezold – Mayor, City of Laguna Hills

    Bob Pinzler – Former Councilmember, City of Redondo Beach

    Randy Pope – Vice Mayor, City of Oakley

    Traci Reilly – Former Councilmember, City of Lafayette

    Dennis Richards – Former Planning Commissioner, City of San Francisco

    Christopher Rodriguez – Councilmember, City of Oceanside

    Todd Rogers – Councilmember, City of Lakewood

    Michael Routh – Former Councilmember, City of Capitola

    Steve Sanchez – Councilmember, City of La Quinta

    Tim Schaefer – Councilmember, City of Citrus Heights

    Ann Schneider – Mayor, City of Millbrae

    Cindy Segawa – Mayor ProTem, City of Lomita

    Stuart Siegel – Mayor, City of Hidden Hills

    Marty Simonoff – Councilmember, City of Brea

    Ray Singleton – Councilmember, City of Coalinga

    Wes Speake – Vice Mayor, City of Corona

    Rene Spring – Councilmember, City of Morgan Hill

    Sharon Springer – Councilmember, City of Burbank

    Pam Stafford – Rohnert Park Councilmember,

    Isaac Suchil – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Colton

    Daniel Tabor – Former Mayor and Councilmember, City of Inglewood

    Julie Testa – Vice Mayor, City of Pleasanton

    Steve Tye – Councilmember, City of Diamond Bar

    William Uphoff – Councilmember, City of Lomita

    Olivia Valentine – Mayor Pro Tem, City of Hawthorne

    Artemio Villegas – Councilmember, City of Madera

    Acquanetta Warren – Mayor, City of Fontana

    Alicia Weintraub – Councilmember, City of Calabasas

    George Weiss – Councilmember, City of Laguna Beach

    Peter Weiss – Councilmember, City of Oceanside

    Herb Wesson – Former CA Assembly Speaker & Council President, City of Los Angeles

    Anissa Williams – Councilmember, City of Oakley

    Felicia Williams – Councilmember, City of Pasadena

    Jeff Wood – Councilmember, City of Lakewood

    Carla Woodworth – Former Councilmember, City of Berkeley

    Frank Zerunyan – Mayor, City of Rolling Hills Estates

    David Zito – Mayor, City of Solana Beach

    Evelyn Zneimer – Councilmember, City of South Pasadena

    Alex Zukas – Board Member, El Cerrito Community Council (San Diego)

    ###

    Add your name as a public endorser

  • Silicon Valley Business Journal: Guest viewpoint: What’s wrong with California’s new housing laws

    Silicon Valley Business Journal: Guest viewpoint: What’s wrong with California’s new housing laws

    By: Anita Enander

    Guest opinion: A lifelong Santa Clara County resident, who also happens to be a city mayor in Silicon Valley, makes the case for why new state laws SB 9 and SB 10 could be bad for local communities.

    Imagine a developer buys your next-door neighbor’s home, tears down that home and builds four or six units — or more — right next to you. 

    You once had the right to speak out about such a major development in your own neighborhood. But that right has been taken away by Sacramento politicians. 

    Now think about the consequences of increasing the density of your neighborhood by up to six-fold. You might think that the developers making so much money on these new homes would have to address the consequences of such density, like traffic gridlock, the need for new school funding, and parks and safety services. 

    But thanks to those very same politicians in Sacramento, you and your local communities no longer have the right to require that developers pay for the costs of these new projects in your neighborhood. Under these new laws, you will pay the costs in new taxes while statewide developers make billions in profits.

    All of this is being done by politicians in the name of “affordable housing,” so you would logically conclude that at least some of this new housing would be affordable. Well, once again, the politicians have different ideas. Under new laws like Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 10 and other laws passed in Sacramento, none of these new homes need to be affordable. None.

    The politicians, and many of their Twitter followers, want to tell you that taking away your right to speak out about what happens in your neighborhood — ending single family zoning and handing a blank check to for-profit developers — is being done in the name of racial justice. But what they simply refuse to acknowledge is that studies show that low-income communities and communities of color are the most vulnerable to the kind of gentrification and displacement this blank check will bring. While the developers will certainly come for every neighborhood eventually, they will target low-income communities first where the profit margins are highest because land costs are lowest.

    This obvious inequity is why organizations representing communities of color like the LA Urban League oppose these new laws that will lead to gentrification and displacement.

    These groups are part of a growing statewide coalition of neighbors, local elected officials and advocates who are circulating a citizen’s initiative that will bring back community and neighborhood voices in planning and development. 

    This Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative rests on a basic principle — you have the right to be heard about what happens in your own community. We all believe California needs new housing. The question is where that new housing will be built and who will pay for it and the required infrastructure.

    Our coalition members support new housing near well­ served transit, in our downtown areas and other places where new housing can be built without creating even worse traffic gridlock, sprawl, displacement and environmental damage.

    We also point out that just a few years ago, Sacramento politicians took away funds that were being used to support affordable housing and spent them for their own purposes. They helped cause an affordable housing crisis – and now they are blaming you for it.

    They say you just need to sit down and be quiet when the home next door to you is being demolished, replaced with six units or more, and the developer leaves you with the infrastructure bill.

    We have a different idea about that. We are not sitting down – we are standing up to fight for your neighborhood voice.

    Anita Enander is a life-long resident of Santa Clara County, and former owner and CEO of Arabian Horse World Inc., who serves as mayor of Los Altos. The opinion expressed here is her own. Learn more at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com.

    This article originally appeared in the Silicon Valley Business Journal

  • Key Local Advocates for Environmental Protection Endorse the Our Neighborhood Voices Campaign

    Officials say new laws turning planning decisions over to developers will create sprawl and environmental damage and these laws must be overturned.

    Three key California environmental leaders have joined the campaign to restore a neighborhood voice in planning – with all three citing the serious environmental damage that will come from letting developers make key planning decisions.

    Environmental advocate and Los Angeles City Council Member Paul Koretz, San Francisco Supervisor and former California Coastal Commissioner Aaron Peskin and former California state Assembly Member and Assembly Speaker pro Tempore Fred Keeley have all joined the growing grassroots movement to restore a neighborhood voice in local planning decisions.

    Koretz said: “”Zoning and development decisions need to be made at the local level, not by State legislators in Sacramento.  I am in full support of the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative to stop the ill-conceived new laws like SB9 that will displace affordable housing, destroy single-family neighborhoods all over the state and do nothing to address homelessness.”

    Peskin said: “San Francisco takes a tough but fair stand with developers requiring they help pay for the cost of growth. New state laws reduce our ability to negotiate for more affordable housing and other public benefits, like parks and open space. We need more affordable housing near transit and jobs, not a virtual blank check to developers.”

    Keeley said: “We know from our state’s history that unplanned growth can severely damage California’s environment and that low-income communities can carry the heaviest burden from unplanned growth. We can have new housing without new sprawl and new displacement of low-income communities and new pollution from traffic gridlock.”

    In the past several years, Sacramento politicians have passed numerous state laws that take away the ability of local communities to make thoughtful planning decisions.  These laws are denying Californians the right to speak out in a meaningful way when developers are damaging and gentrifying their neighborhoods.

    These new state laws, including SB9 and SB10, allow developers to build multi-unit and multi-story buildings next door to single-family homes without local approval, without community input, and without any new contributions to fund transit, schools, parks, roads, public safety or any other services. The new state laws allow developers to build more expensive housing without any units being reserved for affordable housing and with zero new required contributions to affordable housing programs.

    The “Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative” will restore local input and the ability of residents to speak out about what is happening next door to their homes and apartments. The initiative is gathering signatures to qualify for the November 2022 ballot.

    A recent state-wide poll showed voters supported restoring a neighborhood voice in planning by a margin of 64.8% yes to 22.7% no with 12.6% undecided. The poll of likely November 2022 voters was conducted by Probolsky Research from November 13 to November 18 in English and Spanish. The poll has a Margin of Error of 3.2 percent.

  • Spectrum News 1: ‘Adults in the room’: Support grows for local land use initiative

    If last year’s passage and signing of major California housing legislation was a seismic shift to how housing will be built in this state, a handful of “slow growth” advocates are hopeful that their proposed ballot measure might be an aftershock that buries those laws in response.

    The measure, sponsored by Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand, Yorba Linda Mayor Peggy Huang, and Brentwood City Council member Jovita Mendoza, as well as John Heath, a leader of the United Homeowners Association in View Park-Windsor Hills, would allow cities and counties across the state to effectively brush off state land-use laws like 2020’s Senate Bills 8, 9 and 10.

    It’s a battle that centers on housing policy but in many ways boils down to local control: elected officials seeking to ensure they’re the last word on their towns, not real estate interests, and especially not Sacramento lawmakers. City councils from around Southern California and the state have begun rolling off resolutions supporting the initiative itself; AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has become increasingly involved in housing policy, has even become the initiative’s top financial contributor.

    “We’re just asking, who is going to be the adult in the house? Sacramento is saying we don’t need an adult, and if there’s going to be one, that it’s the state,” Huang told Spectrum News. “We’re saying, if there should be an adult, it’s the local people who know the community, who know the residents.”

    The proposed measure — which has, until recently, been known as the Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tri-Partisan Land Use Initiative — is relatively straightforward: it’s an amendment to the California State Constitution that allows for local laws dictating what can be built on a given piece of land to override conflicting state laws.

    In other words, cities would be able to say “no thanks” to newly-enshrined housing laws, like Senate Bill 8 (which extends temporary streamlining of housing project approvals), Senate Bill 9 (which allows easy construction of multiple units and split lots in areas zoned for single-family housing), and Senate Bill 10 (which sets up a streamlined zoning process for multi-unit housing projects near transit areas).

    The only areas where state law would prevail are three specific areas of statewide importance: coastal zones, power plant sites, and infrastructure development. The measure would also prevent the state from retaliating against cities by changing, denying, or granting funding based on the adoption of the measure.

    The recently-signed housing laws are intended to spur new, neighborhood-appropriate units in areas where one-lot, one-home units have been standard.

    According to a University of California, Berkeley study, most cities and counties across the state devote the majority of their land to single-family housing; proponents for the legislation argued that the new housing stock could allow for greater generational wealth among new homeowners and combat rising housing costs and homelessness in California.

    But proponents of the initiative claim that the end result of those housing laws will be “gentrification, displacement, traffic gridlock, environmental damage, higher taxes and sprawl.” They also argue that housing industry investors, who can afford to set high rents and let properties sit empty, are likely to benefit from the laws and exacerbate the housing crisis. But mostly, they argue that locals should be the ones to set the rules for their towns, and the state should play a supporting role.

    “The measure is saying two things: what (Sacramento) is putting forward and claiming the laws are helping is not [helping]…and secondly, it’s saying clearly that we need to restore a balance between state and local government in terms of land use plans and policy,” said Heath.

    The measure’s passage is by no means assured at this point: it first must make it onto the ballot; proponents are already holding virtual informational sessions for signature gatherers. Should the initiative meet its requirements to be included on the ballot, proponents are targeting the November 2022 midterm general election. In the meantime, its popularity is growing across the state.

    According to Mike Griffiths, a Torrance City council member and representative for California Cities for Local Control, at least 11 cities have passed resolutions supporting the initiative; CCLC plans to continue outreach efforts on behalf of the initiative in the weeks to come, Griffith said.

    To this point, the only named major financial supporter for the initiative is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. AHF, with its “Housing is a Human Right” advocacy arm, has sponsored similar (albeit failed) ballot initiatives in recent years, including Los Angeles’s 2017 Measure S — which, among other things, would have imposed a short-term moratorium on developments seeking variances (a term for exceptions to building requirements) — and 2018’s statewide ballot Proposition 10, which sought to repeal the state’s Costa-Hawkins Act, a law placing limits on local rent control ordinances. It also opposed Senate Bills 9 and 10.

    “We opposed SBs 9 and 10 and we opposed them because the authors would not put in any requirements for affordable housing or homeless housing,” said Susie Shannon, policy director for Housing is a Human Right. “Supporting SBs 9 and 10 allowed developers to come in and knock down single-family home neighborhoods and put in more market-rate housing. So unless local government can somehow override that, we’re going to have even more market-rate housing, which leads to displacement, a lack of affordable housing, gentrification, and more homelessness.”

    However, while the findings of the initiative reference affordability, the legal language of the proposed amendment itself doesn’t include mechanisms or references to bring down housing costs.

    “This is initiative is not a rifle shot, it’s a shotgun — it’s a blunt instrument,” Heath acknowledged when asked how the initiative deals with housing affordability. “I think some of that will have to be determined…what I do know is that we can’t keep allowing Sacramento to keep doing things willy-nilly with laws that throw off certainty in terms of local planning.”

  • New Statewide Poll Shows Substantial Lead for Initiative to Restore a Neighborhood Voice in Planning

    Voters approve of citizen’s initiative fighting back against the “blank check” to developers by a nearly 3-1 margin

    California – A new statewide poll of 900 registered voters shows voters support the measure to restore a community voice in planning by a margin of 64.8% yes to 22.7% no, with 12.6% undecided.

    The poll of November 2022 voters was conducted by Probolsky Research from November 13 to November 18 in English and Spanish. The poll has a Margin of Error of 3.2 percent.


    “Voters strongly oppose the new state laws that strip our ability to speak out about what is happening literally right next door to our homes,” said Bill Brand, Mayor of Redondo Beach, one of the initiative sponsors. “These strong poll numbers validate the surge of support we are seeing on the ground – Californians want to bring back their ability to shape and improve what is being built in their neighborhoods,” Brand said.
     
    In the past several years, Sacramento politicians have passed numerous state laws that take away the ability of local communities to make thoughtful planning decisions.  These laws are denying Californians the right to speak out in a meaningful way when developers are damaging and gentrifying their neighborhoods.
     
    These new state laws, including SB9 and SB10, allow developers to build multi-unit and multi-story buildings next door to single-family homes without local approval, without community input, and without any new contributions to fund transit, schools, parks, roads, public safety or any other services. The new state laws allow developers to build more expensive housing without any units being reserved for affordable housing and with zero new contributions to affordable housing programs.
     
    The “Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative” will restore local input and the ability of residents to speak out about what is happening next door to their homes and apartments. The initiative is gathering signatures to qualify for the November 2022 ballot.
     
    Proponent John Heath, founding President of the United Homeowners’ Association, said, “Voters understand that turning local planning decisions over to developers means massive displacement and gentrification. It does not mean new affordable housing.”
     
    Proponent Jovita Mendoza, a member of the Brentwood City Council, said, “Sacramento is listening to a handful of activists, not the voters. Voters understand this isn’t a choice between new affordable housing and a local voice in planning. We can have both.”

    ###

    The Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative can be found at OurNeighborhoodVoices.com.

  • Mercury News: Commentary: SB 9 takes away California’s neighborhood voices

    Mercury News: Commentary: SB 9 takes away California’s neighborhood voices

    By: Dev Davis

    This article originally appeared in the Mercury News

    Housing law signals Sacramento politicians think they know better than you about your community’s needs

    It’s time to stop the centralizing and rigid state land-use rules that harm our ability to have a voice in the way our community grows.

    Senate Bill 9, which was recently passed by the state Legislature, is the ultimate override of local land-use control. This new state mandate means a developer can demolish the house right next door to you and build a multi-unit and multi-story complex — and you have no say in the matter. Your local city officials have no say in the matter. These laws are blank checks to developers. Taking away our neighborhood’s voices is not the way to build a community. It’s the way to tell a community, “Sit down and be quiet” because Sacramento politicians know better than you do about what your community needs.

    I was honored to be the first in the state to sign the initiative to restore what Sacramento politicians have taken away.

    Nearly everyone agrees we need more housing. In particular, we need housing that more people can afford. That is why as a San Jose City Councilwoman, I have voted for every affordable housing project that has come before the City Council. Unfortunately, SB 9 is not a good answer to our housing crisis. This new law requires no affordable housing.

    SB 9 does not require new projects to contribute to the local infrastructure they will stress — such as storm water and sewer capacity, water and power lines, streets, parks and schools. Developers and speculators will benefit the most from these policies. Our neighborhoods will bear the biggest brunt of state control.

    From an environmental viewpoint, increased density in our tree-rich neighborhoods could result in a loss of critical shade trees without public review. Because SB 9 would apply citywide and not necessarily near public transit, greenhouse gas emissions could also increase from more driving. These are not fear-mongering sentiments. They are the reality of flawed policy.

    I have stood up against efforts to destroy our neighborhoods since the issue was first brought up in San Jose over a year ago. Under the guise of “opportunity housing,” the proposal was to eliminate single-family home zoning throughout San Jose. Last August, despite my strong objection, the General Plan Task Force voted to recommend that proposal to the City Council. Now SB 9 has effectively eliminated single-family home zoning statewide.

    We should be building density where San Jose has planned for it — in urban villages. These designated growth areas around the city are located near transit and allow for larger developments that are required to make infrastructure upgrades as part of their projects. Currently, our planning department is stretched to capacity with project submissions and unfinished urban village plans. With the added strain of SB 9 implementation, our planning staff will have to move urban village plans to the back burner. Let’s finish the urban village plans and encourage density where it is most wanted and appropriate.

    San Jose is the third largest city in California and therefore plays a critical role in cities regaining local control over their own zoning decisions. We have a right to be heard on local matters. If we don’t want to be silenced on what goes on in our neighborhoods, we can join the statewide, tri-partisan initiative to regain local control over land use with an amendment to the California Constitution. If the initiative passes, each city’s land use laws will take precedence over state land use laws. Through local control, we can shape growth to the benefit of everyone in our city, not just developers. Please join us. Go to https://sccneighborhoodvoices.org/ to learn more.

  • Housing law will kill the California dream. It’s no wonder a rebellion is brewing.

    Housing law will kill the California dream. It’s no wonder a rebellion is brewing.

    By: Thomas Elias

    It was inevitable from the moment Gov. Gavin Newsom in mid-September signed this year’s two most important housing bills into law: There will be a rebellion.

    Not only did poll numbers make this obvious — about two-thirds of Californians opposed the extreme densifying measures SB 9 and SB 10 before Newsom signed them — but so did the fact that backers deliberately obscured key parts of these bills.

    Now their opponents aim to nullify these two measures that would take almost all zoning decisions away from city councils and county boards and essentially place them in the hands of Wall Street investors and developers with big bankrolls.

    They plan to do this via a ballot initiative now in the final stages of getting its ballot summary and official name, a job done by the office of state Attorney General Rob Bonta. Bonta, a Newsom appointee and a supporter of SB 9 and 10 while a legislator, has said nothing about the proposed initiative, whose advocates so far call it “Stop the Sacramento Land Grab.”

    Should Bonta give the initiative a misleading name or summary, he would be subject to lawsuits, which have previously forced changes in titles and summaries. So there’s pressure on the attorney general to get it right. Once these formal tasks are done, backers led by a group called Californians for Community Planning will have 180 days to gather the 1.3 million-odd valid voter signatures needed to place it on the ballot.

    The initiative represents a change in tactics for opponents of legislative proposals that have passed and been signed into law despite public outrage. Usually, those wanting to get rid of a new law they see as destructive use referenda that simply cancel the new law when they succeed.

    But this measure aims to do much more. It seeks to prevent legislators from ever again passing anything like SB 9 and SB 10.

    SB 9 would allow almost all single-family properties to be cut in half, with both new parcels eligible for two new housing units, plus an “additional housing unit,” or “granny flat.” So where there is now one home, there could soon be six. There is no limit on how many such conversions could occur in any neighborhood.

    This was sold in the Legislature as a way for homeowners to get rich quickly since the potential total revenue from their properties could be much higher now than from selling a single house. But then there’s the obscured part of SB 9: To do a subdivision, a property owner must first pay off any loans on the parcel. Anyone unable to pay off his or her mortgage can’t do this. But they can sell to massive real estate buyers like Zillow and Wall Street banks, which have lately gobbled up thousands of California properties while anticipating something like SB 9.

    All over California, this could disfigure neighborhoods by making them unrecognizably dense, especially since there’s no requirement for new parking in any of these new structures. It’s much the same with SB 10, which cancels all pre-existing local land-use initiatives and laws and demands that all properties within half a mile of a rapid transit stop or major bus route be opened for buildings with up to 10 units.

    Despite the claims of proponents that such measures could not be applied in wildfire areas, they are not excluded. Meanwhile, neither SB 9 nor SB 10 mandates any affordable housing.

    So there is fear of gentrification in some places and a dread of overbuilding in many other neighborhoods.

    Say the sponsors of Stop the Sacramento Land Grab, “Sacramento politicians (many elected with donations from developers) and special interests are incentivizing over-development of market-rate housing, without…emphasis on creating more affordable housing or mixed-income communities.”

    So it’s no wonder there’s a rebellion. Few Californians ever expected this state eventually to copy New York’s density, which the current new laws aim to do.

    That’s why this proposed initiative looks like it can’t miss. For the vast majority of Californians aspire to single-family housing even if they can’t afford it now. Which means the current laws would destroy much of the California Dream. That’s why they ought to be nullified, as the new initiative would do.

    This article originally appeared in the Desert Sun

  • The Independent: SB9, SB 10 Opponent Californians for Community Planning To Launch An Initiative

    The Independent: SB9, SB 10 Opponent Californians for Community Planning To Launch An Initiative

  • The Coast News Group: Opponents say SB 9 will hit average homeowners hardest

    The Coast News Group: Opponents say SB 9 will hit average homeowners hardest