
California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate - baron816
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/30/californias-controversial-housing-bill-sb-50-fails/4614387002/
======
yonran
California has a more principled approach to housing capacity planning called
RHNA, in which the state sets a zoning budget (like that proposed by David
Schleicher
[https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/](https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4955/))
and then delegates to local governments the responsibility to zone to allow
enough houses to meet that budget. Unfortunately, the RHNA has numerous flaws
including vastly underestimating the “need,” lax enforcement, and having very
long cycles. Scott Wiener has previously addressed the flaws somewhat (SB 35
(2017) and SB 828 (2018)), but there is still a lot that must be done to fix
the RHNA; see this good overview for more information and potential
administrative improvements
([https://law.ucdavis.edu/centers/environmental/files/Elmendor...](https://law.ucdavis.edu/centers/environmental/files/Elmendorf_et_al_Making-
It-Work1.pdf))

The appeal of Wiener’s SB 50 was that it would have quickly increased the
capacity of housing using fairly good heuristics to improve access to
opportunity (already residential, near transit stops or jobs, not high fire
risk). It’s unfortunate that the state senate doesn’t seem to want to treat
the housing shortage with the urgency that it deserves.

~~~
exjdjeejfh
Principled is a way of making it sound less terrible than 'restrained'.
California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists
handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in
disguise in these social contexts.

~~~
ogre_codes
This is literally the exact opposite of what an environmentalist would want in
terms of urban growth and planning. Environmentally friendly planning means
you have housing near where people work to avoid highly polluting long
commutes.

The problem is NIMBY bullshit in the purest sense. People will use every
excuse in the book to prevent new housing in their neighborhood. While a fair
amount of the time environmental policies are abused to block development,
zoning laws are also abused, parking/ land use legislation, hell I've seen
houses blocked because they increase the _shade_ in a park by 2% for half an
hour during the evening.

None of this is "environmentalism", its rich people standing on a high hill
screwing over everyone else beneath them.

~~~
BurningFrog
It's not rational environmentalism, but I'm sure a lot of NIMBYs are honestly
convinced they're fighting for Mother Earth, and the simultaneous explosive
value increase of their home is purely coincidental.

Motivated Reasoning is a hell of a thing!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning)

~~~
njarboe
Prop 13 and rent control both highly encourage NIMBYism and I would say are
more important factors than property values. If a large apartment is built
next to your house and you don't like the extra noise, the big shadow, and
lots of people looking into your back yard, you could decide to move. Without
prop 13 selling your house and moving a few blocks over to a location you like
better is a pain in the ass and you have to pay off the realtors, but once you
move, you just get on with your life. With prop 13 your property tax could
double or triple, say going from $1000 a month to $3000 a month. This $2000 a
month, every month, is going to make you mad and hurt you financially
constantly for the rest of your life. No wonder people fight so hard to keep
things like it was when they moved in.

People with rent control are under the same incentives. Have a $2000 rent
controlled apartment that would rent for $4000? If something changes in your
neighborhood the makes you want to move, you don't really have that option. So
you fight really hard against changes.

The longer Prop 13 is around the worse it gets and California has just passed
statewide rent control. Things will continue to get worse on this front and I
don't see a way for California society to change the situation.

~~~
hashouseincali
This logic makes no sense and people like myself can afford to keep our houses
mainly because of prop 13. Since buying my house almost 8 years ago the market
has double at no fault of my own. This would double my taxes making a good
portion unable to be written off thanks to new IRS rules. Yet, you want to
call that locked-in? I love my house and where I live but it would be painful
with that extra $2k a month tax bill you mentioned.

~~~
mdavidn
When someone proposes a four plus one housing development around the corner
from your house to help address the state's housing shortage, would you oppose
it? You can't move if you don't like it, after all, since you'd lose your
property tax break.

If you oppose such developments, then the higher value of your home _is your
fault_.

~~~
hashouseincali
Im in favor of any housing that makes sense but dont espouse the logic that
just because someone wants to move to a town everyone has to agree to let
giant apartment blocks get put up. I did indeed buy where Im at because I
enjoyed the small town culture but I understand the need for managed growth.
My town is already overwhelmed with infrastructure and water issues that
poorly planned growth will exacerbate. There is a lot of land in Cali we dont
all need to live on the coast. Being here is a privilege not a right and Im
not being selfish wanting to keep that for which Ive worked hard. Growth is
inevitable ... Poorly planned cities are not. Just look at Daly city if you
want to see the ugly side of unhindered housing expansion and poor
infrastructure. Further, your argument still doesnt engender the need to get
rid of prop 13...

~~~
mdavidn
All of your arguments have the side effect of increasing the value of your
home, thereby making you more dependent on Prop 13.

~~~
hashouseincali
So youre for poorly planned cities or gentrification? The value of my property
is simply that it is the house in which my family and I live. I gain no
benefit from the market increase until I actually sell my house (I suppose
there is financial wrangling that could be done but I dont have the money or
time for that). Anyone that buys my house or any house in a high value area is
going to be paying a higher tax rate simply based on the cost. Prop 13
insulates me from that and encourages/allows me to stay put while still
setting the tax rate for all new purchases. I will indeed resist poorly
planned additions to my town and will insist on proper infrastructure in place
before conceding to any mass buildings. Im not interested in living in an
Oakland'esque place with ghost ships everywhere. Ill let you do that
elsewhere. Further, you still havent reasonably outlined how getting rid of
prop 13 is going to fix things. There are plenty of wealthy people around to
pay the taxes assessed on a home purchase ... plus, they can probably afford
CPA's to dodge taxes otherwise. Youd be better off trying to fix the
socioeconomic disparities so prevalent in our society ... and if you think
eliminating prop 13 is going to help toward that end then I got a bridge in
Arizona for ya ...

~~~
mdavidn
Each time you interact with anyone employed in your area, you should ask about
their commute. There's a good chance that the staff who care for your
children, the staff who stocks your groceries, the staff that cleans your
workplace, all have soul-crushing commutes. Your "managed growth" policy
forces _them_ to pay for your "small town culture" with their time. That's
gentrification, by definition.

~~~
hashouseincali
What makes you think I don't commute to afford being here? You still haven't
addressed how making my property taxes double is going to encourage me to
accept poorly planned building ... I'd argue I would be doubly against it.
Again, anyone that purchases a house now pays taxes on the market rate. People
buy in my town not for jobs but for the culture and location ... If houses get
cheaper here the wealthy will just buy two. Now if you said something
thoughtful like eliminate prop 13 for anything but primary household you might
be onto something but otherwise you're failing to convince me. You might also
stress increasing minimum wages such as my town recently enacted. I'm curious
if the obvious will happen: business that rely on ultra cheap labor will fold
(which I'm ok with) and/or more workers will be attracted from further away
(which I'm not ok with). I know Costco and Starbucks already pay a bit above
state minimum and a large portion of the service industry folk I patronize are
my town neighbors. Why do you have a problem with improving to middle class
taste? I definitely prefer my neighbors not living in squalor.

------
Gimpei
The SF board of supervisors has voted on resolutions opposing this bill
several times now. If you care about housing and live in SF, take a second
look at your supervisor. Their votes may not make a difference with respect to
SB50 but they can certainly block housing in the city and too often they do.

~~~
justinzollars
They all need to go. Not one is a housing advocate. All spend their energy to
limit housing. They say they are for affordable housing, but their mandates
are designed to exclude both groups of people and housing.

~~~
bsimpson
It makes me sad that my supervisor got replaced with Dean Preston, whose
entire persona is crafted around housing policy; yet, he is so staunchly
against actually building housing.

He's the epitome of everything wrong with SF Supervisors: they pit communities
against each other to create political gridlock and build voting blocs for
reelection, but do fuck-all to actually solve San Francisco's problems.

No matter how many times they say "gentrification" in the same tone as
"boogeyman," it won't refute basic supply-and-demand. Inaction just makes all
the problems worse.

~~~
justinzollars
Dean is a nice guy but I believe the way he looks at the problem is naive. He
believes land lords are to blame for high costs - but I see this as a function
of what the market is willing to support. He could guide the invisible hand of
the market if he would allow more housing. But he favors character of the
neighborhood over housing.

~~~
Twixes
Landlords are to blame for squeezing people like lemons (which extracts a lot
money from software engineers and the like while leaving lower classes without
decent housing), but the underlying problem is indeed insufficient supply. But
what's really being done about either of these things?

~~~
justinzollars
No they are not. You could become a landlord and find out for yourself. Or you
could simply do the math. Mortgage plus Insurance plus Earthquake insurance
plus upkeep plus taxes. Costs are incredible.

The only way to bring down rents is to increase supply.

Everyone else is lying to you.

~~~
generalpass
I suspect you are being down-voted because a lot of landlords are renting out
their first home while they have moved out and into a newer, nicer home and
are now just exploiting the underclass.

Presumably the mortgage on the first home is quite far below current market
prices, but this is not enough to drive the landlord to offer a price that is
necessarily in line with rents at the time the home was purchased.

The mortgage interest is no longer tax deductible, so effective cost of
ownership is higher than when compared to someone paying a mortgage on a home
they live in.

The profit from renting is compared against profit from selling. If the rental
price is driven too low, the owner will prefer to sell and collect the profits
(and the home will likely be taken off of the available rental inventory,
which will further drive up rents).

~~~
justinzollars
> and are now just exploiting the underclass.

The only people exploiting the underclass are politicians that make building
housing impossible. This dynamic is only possible through their help. A price
is set by what the market - not by landlords.

------
veeralpatel979
To combat many problems, the government would certainly be helpful, but isn't
necessary.

Take climate change. If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like
Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions.

Unfortunately, a lack of housing is a problem that the government created. And
it's a problem that only the government, in my view, can really fix.

As long as housing supply is artificially restricted, I don't see how this
gets better.

Please let me know if I am wrong.

~~~
paulgb
> If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and
> Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions.

Sure, but it's a lot easier for a software company to go carbon neutral than a
power company. Which is not to take away from what they're doing, it is still
hard to do!

The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a
society: free markets, and governments. Neither is perfect all of the time.
But when it comes to problems rife with externalities (like pollution, or
intellectual property), free markets on their own tend to be bad at aligning
incentives, and governments are the least-worst solution.

Edit to clarify: this was about the climate change part, but I agree that the
government is causing the problem here wrt. zoning.

~~~
pdonis
_> governments are the least-worst solution_

No, they're not, because while externalities and other forms of misaligned
incentives are departures from the norm in free markets, they _are_ the norm
in governments.

~~~
paulgb
It took governments less time to fix the Ozone hole (remember the Montreal
Protocol?) than it took for the free market to converge on one type of phone
charger that works on multiple devices.

Unfettered faith in free markets and unfettered faith in governments are
equally bad things.

~~~
yyyk
CFC emissions took some time to subside after the Montreal Protocol. We also
know there's a current Chinese source[0] which is still emitting CFCs in 2019.
So I dunno if 'governments' have the advantage on that one.

[0] [https://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-48353341](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341)

------
throwaway713
There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which
is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster
than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if
I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for
some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated
with moving, but I would have thought this would be a small minority of
people, not the majority of them. Or are most people so rooted to where they
grew up that they don’t want to leave?

The other thing that confuses me is why companies aren’t moving either. It’s
been a long time since a "new" city was created, but we have plenty of land
available, and a lot of it is in pretty (but not natural park) locations. Is
there that much of a network effect with talent being in one region that
companies would rather pay a 4x compensation premium than relocate to new or
lower cost locations? Are there any examples of big companies that have
relocated their HQ to lower COL locations and then failed because they
couldn't attract talent to move there, or is it just conjecture that this
would occur?

~~~
jotux
A surprisingly large number of adults live very close to their parents [1].

[1] [https://source.wustl.edu/2015/12/most-americans-live-
surpris...](https://source.wustl.edu/2015/12/most-americans-live-surprisingly-
close-to-their-mothers/)

~~~
triceratops
Ironically Prop 13 makes it more difficult for kids to afford homes near their
parents.

~~~
harikb
You have it backwards. Prop 13 overall increases house prices, yes. But kids,
whose parents own a home, benefit the most from Prop 13.

~~~
triceratops
Until 2018 you could inherit homes from parents or grandparents and keep the
original assessed value, but that's no longer the case. So unless the kid is
earning enough to pay taxes on a massively appreciated house, they're going to
have to sell and/or move away.

EDIT: I was wrong about this.

~~~
roca
Source for that no longer being the case? My SF housing activist friend says
that this has not changed.

~~~
triceratops
You're right. I confused it with something else.

~~~
roca
No problem.

To an outsider like me, this seems like one of the worst features of Prop 13.
Over time it separates people into two classes: those whose family has owned
property for a long time, and everyone else who can't afford to buy a house
because the taxes are prohibitive. (Even if you're very rich, it will make
more sense to rent than to trigger tax reevaluation.) Call it neo-feudalism.

~~~
majormajor
Taxes in CA are far from prohibitive, even with today's prices. The gap
between affording something in the first place and being able to cover the tax
is not that large. But the base prices are the killer.

But that's also largely a factor of mostly high-income people moving in, while
mostly lower-income people are moving out. Keep up the business climate that
fuels the inward funnel of money, and you'll keep prices high. Even if you
reduce restrictions to building supply, you'll have a game theory bit of not
lowering prices in any hurry since people can so clearly afford them and are
so clearly willing to pay them.

~~~
Gibbon1
My thought on that is prices reflect the ability of people to pay principal,
interest, taxes, and maintence. Lower the property tax rate and prices just go
up. Difference is taxes go to pay for public goods and services. Principal and
interest do not.

Prop 13 benefits corporations, long term property owners, and people that
inherit property. At the expense of renters, new home buyers, and
beneficiaries of public goods and services.

~~~
rconti
Precisely true. Give a mortgage interest deduction, or lower interest rates?
Good news! You can afford more house! _and so can everybody else_

------
baron816
Jerry Hill is the Senator for most of the SF Peninsula. He voted against the
bill. [https://sd13.senate.ca.gov/](https://sd13.senate.ca.gov/)

~~~
marcell
He is termed out. The author of SB50 has endorsed Shelly Masur for the open
seat. She is, I believe, the only candidate for the seat in support of SB50.

Endorsement: [https://padailypost.com/2019/08/30/sb50-author-wiener-
endors...](https://padailypost.com/2019/08/30/sb50-author-wiener-endorses-
masur-in-state-senate-race/)

Her campaign page:
[https://www.shellymasur.com/](https://www.shellymasur.com/)

------
matchbok
What a mess. Sad to see "tenant" organizations yell and scream about
gentrification and displacement, ignoring the fact that both of those things
are happening right now.

~~~
monadic2
SB50 would make the problem worse the way it’s structured.

~~~
manfredo
How is increasing the supply of housing going to increase gentrification? The
housing shortage has resulted in high housing prices, which is the main driver
of gentrification.

~~~
Pfhreak
Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's no
guarantee the tenants can move back.

~~~
manfredo
> Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's
> no guarantee the tenants can move back.

Increasing the supply of housing displaces no one. What do you mean "no
guarantee that tenants can move back"? A new apartment building creates units
that new residents can move into _instead_ of out-bidding residents on the
existing supply of housing. An apartment that doesn't get built is an existing
resident that now has to compete with more prospective renters, or further
subdivisions of the existing housing.

~~~
Pfhreak
People cannot live in a building under construction, they have to find
somewhere else to live while it is being built. To build a new apartment, you
need to tear down some existing housing.

And they probably lose their rent control in the process. So, some percentage
of current residents will be forced to leave permanently.

This is fixable with some regulation, but it's a really common oversight in
these discussions. It's not just beginning and end state we have to think
about, we have to consider the way the housing is built and what happens to
the people during that time.

~~~
manfredo
> People cannot live in a building under construction, they have to find
> somewhere else to live while it is being b

Incorrect. Apartments can be built on empty lots or on land currently used for
things other than apartments. Yet this kind of construction still meets fierce
opposition from people claiming to be preventing gentrification:

[https://missionlocal.org/2019/02/how-the-developer-of-sfs-
hi...](https://missionlocal.org/2019/02/how-the-developer-of-sfs-historic-
laundromat-quietly-won/)

[https://reason.com/video/san-francisco-mission-housing-
crisi...](https://reason.com/video/san-francisco-mission-housing-crisis/)

------
40acres
It's getting very difficult to see how California works its way out of this
mess. SB 50 like measures can be passed at the local level in theory but if
I've learned anything from these fights it's that older, wealthy homeowners
will cripple any attempt to do so.

~~~
0xB31B1B
They can’t be passed at a local level without CEQA review and a torrent of
unending lawsuits. That’s why it needs to happen at a state level.

~~~
thedance
That’s not true. Any city in California has total authority to adjust their
zoning code. Cities change zoning as a matter of routine business. The reason
cities have not done anything constructive is each individual small government
is held hostage by its own incumbent land owners.

~~~
0xB31B1B
They can do it, it takes 8-10 years. Look at the eastern neighborhoods plan in
SF, it literally took 20 years. Part of that is shitty nimby neighbors, part
of that is area plans are able to be litigated under CEQA, which Is basically
guaranteed, and it adds 4-8 years to an area plan project. My point is that
it’s literally illegal to do, but it’s functionally impossible, or at least
extremely difficult and it takes a very very long time. Ballot box rezoning is
not subject to CEQA and therefore can pass quicker (it’s how JJJ skipped CEQA
review in LA) but that’s a whole other can of worms.

~~~
thedance
Cities don’t need area plans to achieve this. They need only amend their codes
to change the parameters of their existing designation, like R-1 or whatever.
No public outreach is needed to write down that a duplex is permitted in the
zone called R-1. No EIR need be written before raising maximum heights from 25
to 45 feet. Any city government can put the item in their agenda and do this
in a single sitting.

You’re right that people will sue over anything, and that’s why I support
state preemptions in this case, but there’s no excuse for what cities have
failed to do.

------
davidw
California's housing policy failures have repercussions up and down the west
coast.

It's sad they didn't follow Oregon's lead and legalize some more diverse
housing options.

~~~
zozbot234
The real answer is to legalize _and_ tax it. Prop 13 is a huge distortion on
the California real estate market.

~~~
wahern
Prop 13 is a huge distortion to tax and revenue generally, but it doesn't
promote anti-development NIMBYism. If anything, Prop 13 should make denser
development more tolerable to existing residents as otherwise denser
development in their neighborhood would lead to accelerated increases in
assessed land values. That's the very reason Prop 13 was enacted in the first
place--to improve ownership security in the face of rapid changes in the
neighborhood.

The one and only fix for NIMBYism is to remove local control. Cities have
every incentive to continue restrictive zoning because the immediate costs are
externalized to the larger region, while the benefits--satisfaction of home
owning voters who don't want multi-family dwellings in their neighborhood--
inure directly to the city leaders. It's a collective action problem. Mandates
don't work well because leaders who comply are voted out of office, while
those who find loopholes or simply ignore mandates are favored at the polls.

So when politicians complain that SB50 and similar bills remove local control,
_that 's_ _exactly_ _the_ _point_. But nobody wants to say that aloud because
to most people "local control" is in the abstract a good thing, and losing
local control a bad thing.

~~~
harryh
_Prop 13 is a huge distortion to tax and revenue generally, but it doesn 't
promote anti-development NIMBYism._

When the carrying costs of a piece of property are artificially low there
isn't nearly as much incentive to put that piece of property to its best and
highest use, so you end up with people being just fine with single family
houses instead of multi story apartment buildings.

~~~
Gibbon1
Two things. The low tax rate drives up the price of existing real estate.
Which makes it more expensive to buy and redevelop.

And then redeveloping resets the tax basis.

Both of these appear to favor holding onto older substandard property.

~~~
harryh
Yes, those things too.

------
pochamago
The gentrification boogeyman comes off to me as privilege masquerading as the
voice of the oppressed. It's regularly used to bludgeon the poor into
homelessness, while the areas that are rife with actual gentrification seem to
have far more diverse and affordable neighborhoods.

~~~
Kalium
It's a little of both. There are plenty of people who genuinely believe they
can help keep gentrification at bay if they preserve the housing approval
systems that exist now. In practice that can mean anything from blocking
everything to using approvals to extract design and donations to charities.

There are also, as you say, those who are quite privileged and wish to
preserve that. To them, gentrification is a great way to scare other people
into averting change.

~~~
dionidium
> _There are plenty of people who genuinely believe they can help keep
> gentrification at bay if they preserve the housing approval systems that
> exist now_

It's a complete reversal of cause and effect. New buildings don't cause
demand; new buildings are a response to demand. You can't make the sun shine
by passing a law against rain.

------
kodablah
Question from an outsider: Is it really necessary to have a state-level bill
for this as opposed to county-level? Is the diversity of the localities in the
state small enough where such a measure can be decided so centrally? (I admit
I haven't read it or saw if it had conditions on population).

~~~
davidw
They have been failing to do anything at the local level for years, because
it's easier for a small group of angry wealthy homeowners to get their way in
local processes.

So they were looking to do something statewide, to put everyone on a level
playing field.

~~~
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
You’d be surprised at the diverse makeup of “do nothing” advocacy groups. Some
don’t want the makeup of the neighborhood to change. Some don’t want a
building style to be different. Some want their particular disenfranchised
group to be represented before any permits are granted. There are many people
up and down the spectrum who make up different shades of the NIMBY groups.

For example, look at the reaction to Uber building a new HQ in Oakland, which
they ultimately abandoned[1]

> _Residents were not as thrilled. After watching the rapid gentrification and
> rising real estate costs in neighboring San Francisco, many feared Uber
> would accelerate similar trends in Oakland. The area was already struggling
> to hold onto its own history as a diverse, working-class area known for
> activism while absorbing a wave of wealthy new residents._

[1] [https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/25/technology/business/uber-
oa...](https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/25/technology/business/uber-oakland-
headquarters/index.html)

~~~
altoidaltoid
[https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/voxs-the-
weeds/e/66321406](https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/voxs-the-weeds/e/66321406)

Boston University's Katherine Levine Einstein explains the dysfunctional
politics behind America's housing crisis.

[https://www.amazon.com/Neighborhood-Defenders-
Participatory-...](https://www.amazon.com/Neighborhood-Defenders-
Participatory-Politics-Americas/dp/110870851X)

"Since the collapse of the housing market in 2008, demand for housing has
consistently outpaced supply in many US communities. The failure to construct
sufficient housing - especially affordable housing - in desirable communities
and neighborhoods comes with significant social, economic, and environmental
costs. This book examines how local participatory land use institutions
amplify the power of entrenched interests and privileged homeowners. The book
draws on sweeping data to examine the dominance of land use politics by
'neighborhood defenders' \- individuals who oppose new housing projects far
more strongly than their broader communities and who are likely to be
privileged on a variety of dimensions. "

------
goodgoblin
Massachussets has a law that enables developers to bypass zoning restrictions
if they are helping bring low income housing to an area:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Comprehensive_Pe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Comprehensive_Permit_Act:_Chapter_40B)

I think it's sometimes used to threaten local zoning boards to capitulate to
other developer demands, but it does contribute somewhat to the supply of
affordable housing.

~~~
pcwalton
California's SB 35 is similar.

------
tomatotomato37
Here's the voting breakdown:
[https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB50/id/910526](https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB50/id/910526)

~~~
andymcsherry
Yea: 18, Nay: 15: Not Voting: 6

The measure fails despite more Yea than Nay votes. The California State Senate
has 40 seats and always require 21 votes to pass. Vacancies (currently 1),
absences and abstentions don't appear to affect the denominator of the 51%
threshold. As a result, Not Voting is essentially a disguised no vote.

~~~
harryh
_Not Voting is essentially a disguised no vote._

This is such a lame rule. People wanting to vote no should have to say so and
vacancies shouldn't make it harder for bills to pass.

------
joshlittle
It’s a shame.

One only has to look at San Francisco‘s current zoning map to understand why
this bill was important to solving the housing crisis in the state.

[https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-02...](https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-02/zoning_use_districts.pdf)

In San Francisco, most of the city is zoned RH-1 or RH-1(D). Areas not zoned
RH-1 (Essentially residential areas that allow the construction of multifamily
apartments and other larger condominium projects) are seeing an explosion of
growth and change; mostly in lower income minority neighborhoods where
developers can affordably purchase property.

It’s incredibly unbalanced; and senate bill 50 would have balance the scales
to favor more housing options in some of these areas with stringent zoning for
only residential single-family homes.

Even though Senator Wiener is from San Francisco, the city council itself came
out against this bill. San Francisco is the densest large city in California,
with a larger ratio of the population living in apartments then most other
cities in the state. Sen. Weiner is pretty safe from backlash as a majority of
San Franciscans understand that other cities around the state need to do their
part in building housing just like San Francisco has over the last century.

For other politicians around the state, senate Bill 50 is Kryptonite. Like
everywhere else in America, Politicians are elected by residents. The largest
constituencies of voters tend to be those in single-family homes because
mostly California lives in single-family homes. Very expensive single-family
homes.

People do not want to change the neighborhood to drastically in a way that
would alter the equity they have accumulated in their home.

The best way to not be reelected is to support this bill. Why support multi
family apartment construction for people who do not live in their district?
Very much the “I got mine“ attitude.

There is no panacea here. It’s going to take a ballot referendum, which is not
likely to pass for the same reasons. Or change to the fair housing act. In the
50s and 60s, California zoning was indeed complicated with racial bias and
exclusion. Above all else, it is the epitome of Systemic racism for the time
period; and the biggest flaw in the fair housing act. As it turns out, the
system is still working as originally intended. Fixing the fair housing act to
cover residential zoning might be more achievable then anything California can
do on it’s own.

------
jarjoura
This is a great read for anyone who wants to learn more about how we got here:
[https://www.amazon.com/Neighborhood-Defenders-
Participatory-...](https://www.amazon.com/Neighborhood-Defenders-
Participatory-Politics-Americas/dp/1108477275)

Katherine Levine Einstein was on The Weeds podcast a few weeks ago and gave a
really good summary of her findings. She doesn't have an answer, but it at
least frames the situation in a way that seems solvable.

[https://open.spotify.com/episode/6VfqIzzoOlYtkuKvwGDq1K](https://open.spotify.com/episode/6VfqIzzoOlYtkuKvwGDq1K)

------
atatatko
Would never accept job offer from the Valley exactly for that reason, unless
it's a CEO position. Living in Asia, I can rent a perfect house for about
$1000, including utilities and cleaning services. Remote job gives equal
opportunities

~~~
VRay
I dunno man, I ran the numbers and came out WAY ahead in the Bay Area

As a senior engineer, I was able to negotiate 150k for remote work (and I'd
rent a house house in a nice Midwestern city or a nice apartment in Tokyo for
$1200/month) vs 300k+ per year in Mountain View

Even with $3000/month rent, $6 gallons of milk, etc, I'm saving up way more
money per year for a similar quality of life. Not to mention that I'm making
way more connections and learning more in my time here, so I'll be in a way
better spot after 5 years career-wise

~~~
anonymoushn
I think you can get about 33% more both in Tokyo and in the Bay Area.

I took the Tokyo side of this trade. I don't think my learning and connections
are significantly impeded by being in Tokyo, and my quality of life is leaps
and bounds greater.

Examples: Strangers regularly assault or shout slurs at me in San Francisco
while I am distracted by trying not to step in the human feces on my way to
work. In Tokyo, while I was waiting at a crosswalk in the rain without an
umbrella, a stranger placed his umbrella above me. In Tokyo, everyone uses a
form of bike lock that's essentially an extra back brake with a combination
lock. In San Francisco, I lost my $500 bicycle from inside the trunk of my
locked car in a private garage. In Tokyo, I do not really have any reason to
own a car.

I will save a little bit less money per year, and I will not get to deduct as
much money per year from my income due to theft. I think it comes out alright.

------
sjg007
Well the only solution is a ballot initiative to repeal prop 13. That will
change things.

~~~
jnordwick
Prop 13 was created because it was forcing people out of their houses because
of inflation property values on paper. That is detrimental.

You shouldn't scrap it completely; you should limit it to primary residences
(spend more than half the year there). That would get rid of some of the worse
issues.

It shocks me every time I hear fellow left-of-center people talk about
scrapping Prop 13, but then also rail against gentrification or some other
issues. Absent Prop 13, people would literally be forced from their homes from
high taxes.

Prop 13 was a response to the inflation of the 1970s that drove asset and
investment prices higher.

~~~
rcpt
Limit to primary residence and cap the increase at 10% instead of 2% (I think
Michigan does this) might be okay.

Low income seniors have
[https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html](https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html)
so Prop 13 is wholly unnecessary for them.

~~~
refurb
Jesus Christ. I didn’t know CA already had that law. As you said Prop 13 is
absolutely not required.

That law basically says if you can’t afford the increases, we’ll bank it. If
you can, pay up.

~~~
jnordwick
That isn't nearly enough. It only applies to 65+ or with disability who make
$35k or less.

This is part of the problem is that people are unwilling to compromise. On one
side you have those who view even the risk of a single person being displaced
by gentrification and rising housing prices as unacceptable.

On the other side you have those will accept nothing less than displacing
everything. I make enough that I don't care, and I don't really want to live
in CA long term (from NYC).

But I think a primary residence carve-out that applies to everybody would be a
good compromise, but that seems to be a dirty word in CA politics.

~~~
rcpt
Is $35k not good income for retirement? They already own a house which has
gone up in value and have had years to accumulate savings.

I lived in Los Angeles for the better part of a decade making less than $35k
and it was fine (and I didn't own a house).

------
briandear
> He acknowledged, however, that more work is needed on SB 50, and asked his
> fellow lawmakers to approve it so the Assembly could continue that work.

So why not do that work before sending it for a vote?

~~~
harryh
Because there is a time limit on these things. I don't understand all of the
procedural rules but since it didn't pass this vote now nothing can be done
for a year.

If it had passed this vote now it could have been tinkered with between now
and a possible eventual passage in the next several months.

------
slavapestov
Expensive housing is a feature and not a bug for the tech industry. They
prefer to hire young, single workers because they will work longer hours in
worse conditions, and if they can keep them rent- and commute-burdened they
are less likely to switch jobs, start a family, take up a hobby, etc.

~~~
ashtonian
That's funny considering that Google was literally trying to build housing for
its employees and the Gov blocked them because nimby. Blaming the tech
industries for California's terrible idea of governance is pretty laughable.
The state would be bankrupt if not for the valley.

------
raverbashing
So, I guess the question is, if tech companies keep feeding the monster, they
are complicit in this.

California is not just SV for a start. What's the point of having all your
workers in a high CoL area again?

Get a small office to appease VCs but have your workers somewhere else. Your
money will go further as well

------
blackrock
Only one word can describe these politicians: Despicable

------
KoftaBob
Pathetic.

~~~
mpochwat
Well this is for sure a bummer

------
itqwertz
Thank the lord, these places already are terrible.

------
asdfqwer234
Housing has been a bitter historical and cross-cultural source of class
conflict and oppression. In its current form in America, the bourgeois
accumulate as much as they can like any unethical entity, and leverage it to
maximize personal utility at the cost of the living conditions of the masses.
It's always interesting to see how people use capitalism to indirectly (which
is no excuse) cause this natural brutal nature of existence, to cause the
common man (or woman) to "groan and sweat under a weary life".

~~~
mindslight
To be fair, a continual rent treadmill that forces everyone to work full time
is _the explicit overt policy_ of the Federal Reserve. But any candidate that
brings this up gets memory-holed by the mainstream propagandas.

~~~
jdc
Woah. What kind of language do they use to describe said policy?

~~~
mindslight
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm)

> _The objectives as mandated by the Congress in the Federal Reserve Act are
> promoting (1) maximum employment, which means all Americans that want to
> work are gainfully employed, and (2) stable prices for the goods and
> services we all purchase_

The qualifier "want" is a distraction, as everyone "wants" to work if that's
what it takes to have a reliable bed to sleep in.

Furthermore, "stable" prices are untenable in the face of technological
progress that makes everything less expensive. In order for the CPI average to
keep going up, the price of housing has to shoot through the roof.

edit: Try drawing out the basic feedback loop. The Fed acts by creating new
money. It doesn't simply give this money away to everyone (which would cause
across the board price inflation), but it can only be accessed by taking on
loans. Anything that can be financialized becomes awash in this new money -
housing, cars, education. Consumers then have to settle for paying interest
payments (rent) on sky-high asset valuations, rather than having smaller loans
that can be paid off early to achieve economic bargaining power.

~~~
KoftaBob
This conclusion you're coming to is quite the massive reach based on the logic
you used to analyze that sentence.

------
lasky
Well, I guess I’ll just copy/paste my comment from another unrelated HN story
10 minutes ago:

“And once again, any US organization allowed to use a .gov domain loses yet
ANOTHER notch of credibility, and confidence in their competence.“

Our “Governments“ are becoming obsolete... meanwhile we’ll continue to
delegate more and more of the responsibilities to provide the utilities we
need to technology companies.

------
cf
Alright, please see this as an olive branch to YIMBYs. The results are pretty
clear. The YIMBYs do not have the votes on their own to get this done. Unless
you are some suburban retiree you probably recognize that the solution is
building more housing.

I think based on the voting records YIMBYs should join forces with PHIMBYs and
make the next iteration of SB50 really take public and affordable housing
seriously. The existing provisions added to SB50 already got the bill much
closer. Why not add some provisions from AB1279? Maybe repeal article 34 in
the constitution? Maybe repeal Costa-Hawkins? There are NIMBYs that are pretty
clearly hiding behind affordable housing that we know are insincere. We know
their cities and counties aren't doing enough to help poor folks. But the
evidence suggests there are enough people that want to upzone and build
housing to get this done.

Does this strike others here are a reasonable path forward?

~~~
Areading314
The reasonable path forward is to write off SF as a good place to live or do
business. Tech badly needs a new economic zone, one where it is actually
welcome.

~~~
cf
My way or the highway doesn't work in politics. I'm sorry if you were told
otherwise.

