
97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals - apsec112
https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/of-california-cities-failed-to-meet-state-housing-goals-and/article_a609ae5e-09d7-11e8-a94e-3b67baeaae8b.html
======
jread
I've been attempting to get building permits for a small personal residence in
a So Cal coastal town for nearly 3 years. The experience dealing with the city
has felt very adversarial. The sense I have is that the city and most
neighbors don't want new construction, and in that spirit put up as many
roadblocks, opposition and red tape as possible to slow you down, and in many
cases stop you through attrition. I've seen many try for years and give up
including one project that has been ongoing for over 10 years.

The first major hurdle is obtaining approval from a Design Review Board
consisting of 5 elected board members who subjectively determine if the
project is "neighborhood compatible". Even while complying with all zoning
requirement for setbacks, building height and envelope, lot coverage,
environmental impact, etc, and not requesting any variances, most projects
stall here, some for years. The board convenes monthly and invites public
participation and comments, and if there is opposition either from board
members, or neighbors, you're in a very long and arduous process in getting
approval. Common complaints are mass and scale, incompatible architecture,
view blockage, noise pollution, excessive glazing, color choices, and the list
goes on.

When/if you get through design review, you're then off to coastal commission
and building and safety for more review and approvals, and eventually building
permits if you make it through it all. The entire process will take many
years, and potentially 10s or 100s of thousands in expenses before you even
break ground. This is for a single residence - I can only imagine the hurdles
and expense for a multi-unit project. So I understand and agree with the state
attempting to legislate a reduction on the restrictions and roadblocks that
local municipalities impose on residential construction.

~~~
Sinnesloschen
You could carefully review your local ordinances, if your allowed to make
"improvements" to your house. You could theoretically tear down an entire
house with the exception of a single internal wall. Then build you to your
desire what you wish around this existing wall. Once enclosed, repair or
accidentally knock over said wall and continue building. It's not as nice a
starting fresh but it gets around a lot of the stifling that happens in
regards to building new buildings.

If your just making improvements there is a lot more freedom in refurbishing
and most code enforcement municipalities just drive by to check on your work.
Your most likely not going to run into trouble.

Let me end with, this was done in another state, not by a lawyer, just some
random guy on the internet.

~~~
hardtke
This is very common in California because under this scenario your house is
not reassessed for prop 13 property tax purposes. Your cost basis only goes up
by the dollar value of the improvements (which you can easily understate). If
you do a complete teardown, the county reassesses at current market value. A
lot of people leave the chimney up because you get the added benefit of
getting grandfathered on the air quality ordinances.

------
yostrovs
California always amazes with its goals, decade after decade of leadership
among the states. Building is promoted to improve affordability. Building is
discouraged to preserve the environment and maintain a local culture. Building
is promoted to provide new transportation options. Building is discouraged to
reduce congestion, contain sprawl. Building and not building at the same time
helps California maintain its unique logical and psychological balance.

~~~
numbsafari
It’s as though California is a giant state with a diverse population, both
politically and geographically, with lots of competing interests that, over
time, has gone through various political and leadership changes that reflect
that diversity.

~~~
Wohlf
Apparently not, because 97% of the NIMBYs are winning.

~~~
api
The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to
limit the supply of housing.

Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment.

Homeowners on average tend to be more politically engaged, so homeowners
dominate state and local politics. As for why every prosperous state doesn't
have this problem as badly as California you can add prop 13 which hugely
limited property tax increases for existing homeowners. This eliminated one of
the major checks on real estate hyperinflation. You can further add the fact
that the San Francisco Bay Area (the region with the highest prices by far) is
geographically constrained and the fact that earthquake risk imposes
additional site preparation and construction costs.

It's really a perfect storm for real estate price insanity, specially in the
Bay Area. It's less insane in SoCal but still pretty high, especially when
compared to median income in LA County and San Diego. SoCal is less
geographically constrained.

~~~
briffle
I don't really get this mentality. Yes, its good to have your home go up in
value, but when you sell, are you moving to South Dakota? If not, then the
houses your hoping to move into have ALSO gone up in value. The difference
being that nobody can afford 'starter homes' at the low end, so people have a
harder time selling them, and moving up to a nicer house.

~~~
davidw
In the Bay Area, they sell and move to Oregon, driving up _our_ prices. And
because they're retired, don't have kids in schools or anything, they mostly
vote against taxes.

There are also plenty of entrepreneurs and hackers and so on who move up here,
so that balances things out to some degree. Still, though, California's
NIMBYism has repercussions throughout the entire west coast.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
I call that social pollution. It's no different than a resource boom
decimating a landscape then moving on and leaving the place in a really bad
situation.

It's almost as though people don't realize that lots of small things (like
local zoning for example) add up to all the big differences that made the
place so attractive that they moved there.

Specifically with regards to a bunch of retirees moving in, I'd take that over
young couples any day of the week. People raising family will have much more
impact than people who just want to enjoy retirement.

------
gwbas1c
I think everyone's realizing that the solution to various housing crisis is to
build more homes for all income levels. Artificially manipulating prices via
rent control mechanisms; or only building homes for a specific income level
doesn't work.

~~~
rsync
"I think everyone's realizing that the solution to various housing crisis is
to build more homes for all income levels."

Of course this is correct. However, it is also correct that many, many of
these are badly mischaracterized as "crises".

It is not a crisis that you cannot afford to live in Aspen.

It is not a crisis that you cannot afford an apartment in the very specific
neighborhood in the very specific borough of New York City that you prefer.

It is not a crisis that you cannot afford to buy a house, with a yard, in
Marin County.

~~~
ng12
Is it a crisis if I can't afford anything within an hour and a half commute of
my job?

~~~
mattnewton
If that’s a sacrifice you are unwilling to make and you can’t find work
elsewhere, maybe

------
ChuckMcM
My experience in driving through California's interior doesn't jibe with that
headline. When I stop for lunch or a break I like to check out the local real
estate scene and its often the case in these cities that there are many houses
and other living accommodations available at modest prices. Hard to imagine a
city like Mojave not meeting it "goal". Of course if you limit yourself to
cities of 1 millions residents or more, well I could see that they were having
challenges.

As other people have pointed out, if California wants to lead then the state
should be something to admire. And being 42nd out of 50 on K-12 education and
highest poverty rate, aren't good things to lead with. Lots of opportunities
to improve.

~~~
DoreenMichele
So, a couple of questions:

1\. What do you consider _modest prices_?

2\. What exactly do you do to _check out the local real estate scene_?

Because I recently left California to get off the street after moving around
California a bit in search of affordable living and doing like 3 years of
research, and my point of view and yours are so not on the same page, they
aren't even in the same book.

~~~
masonic
He referred specifically to the California _interior_. Most counties not on
the coast or bay have very affordable areas; I've driven the northern 2/3rds
of I-5, most of US50, and all of I-80 in CA and seen hundreds of properties
for a fraction of Bay Area prices. Things look different once outside of a Bay
Area (or San Diego) bubble.

~~~
phkahler
>> ...seen hundreds of properties for a fraction of Bay Area prices.

Anything under 300K? How about 200K? A fraction of the Bay area doesn't
necessarily mean affordable.

~~~
ghaff
You look at, say, Fresno and there are properties for sale under $200K
(although that's below the median of $300K+). I assume those are not the most
attractive places but they certainly exist. That's the 5th most populous city
in California so it's not exactly the middle of nowhere.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I lived in Fresno. A lot of the stuff under $200k is a trailer, possibly a
trailer in a seniors only retirement community. I don't consider trailers fit
for habitation and my two adult sons still live with me.

This is part of why I want details. I need a house under $100k. After looking
at what that kind of money buys in Cali -- anywhere in Cali -- and looking at
what it buys outside of Cali, I eventually concluded it made more sense to go
elsewhere. If you can't afford at least $200k in Cali, you can expect it to be
a shithole. It would undermine my fragile health and also need ten's of
thousands of dollars worth of work. I am happy to buy a fixer, but not one
that will ruin my health and my finances.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I can see that you're facing challenges that put you in an untenable
situation. And no, I haven't seen any place in California that has any sort of
public services and employment prospects and housing where you own the house
and land for under $100K.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Thank you.

I don't even need employment prospects. I have alimony and I make my money
online. So that wasn't even a factor, and, no, it didn't fly in Cali.

------
hx87
Aesthetic objections to new construction are 99.9% bullshit. Otherwise things
like vomit- and baby-poop-green vinyl siding, uniformly white windows with
fake grills and little to no trim, McMansion-style hip-roof horrorshows and
gables on top of gables wouldn't exist.

------
gnarbarian
relevant: [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-
californi...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-
poverty-20180114-story.html)

------
puppetmaster40
Sounds very dystopian. Did not meet state's goals.

~~~
rsync
"Sounds very dystopian. Did not meet state's goals."

This is worth considering.

I find it despicable that otherwise liberal, progressive people are willing to
_immediately discard_ democratic results simply because they dislike them.

There is nothing unconstitutional (CA) or unlawful about "NIMBY policies".
However you may feel about them, they are valid, lawful policy goals in a
democracy.

If you don't like them, you should organize to defeat them _democratically_.

~~~
tmh79
> If you don't like them, you should organize to defeat them democratically.

I spend my free time doing some advocacy in this space. Heres a few things you
might not know.

1) Nimby's dont derive power from the ballot box, they derive power from
distinctly undemocratic processes like courts and arbitrary middle of the day
planning meetings. The biggest NIMBY tool is CEQA, the "california
environmental quality act" which allows anyone to sue a project for
"environmental" reasons. The reasons are spurious at best (project would
increase traffic at an intersection). Nearly all CEQA law suits are filed by
neighbors who want to kill the project, or by unions on projects that aren't
using union labor. The law suits are rarely won by the plaintiff, but they are
nearly always successful because they delay projects long enough to get them
canceled. The second tool is the design review meeting, which often occurs
around 2pm on some random mid week day, when most people are at work and
unable to leave their job. A single project may go through 5 design review
meetings where retired nimbys with nothing better to do with their time berate
new developments for arbitrary reasons (make it smaller, its out of character
etc). In this system, its not "one person one vote" but rather "your power in
this process is proportional to how much time you can spend at city hall
during normal working hours on a recurring basis and grind it out over months
and months of meetings"

2) Nimby policies are being defeated democratically. Our elected officials are
realizing the harm that these policies are causing and seeing that an anti-
nimby constituency is forming. SB 827 is a democratic solution to this
problem.

3) Hyperlocal control (aka, cities deciding their own land use policies) is
undemocratic, and essentially feudal. It limits the voices heard in democracy
to the people who are able to afford living in the city in question, but
excludes the voices of those who stakeholders in the city in some other way,
say by working in the city, or commuting through the city. Local control
allows cities to capture outsized benefits of development while forcing other
cities to absorb the negative externalities. For instance, cupertino built the
new apple campus for 12k workers, but didn't build any new housing for them.
Now the rest of the bay area needs to deal with the reality of these 12k new
highly paid residents looking for housing. Another example is Atherton suing
to block caltrain electrifiction within its city limits. A single city is
blocking an expansion of public transit that serves 60k riders per day. Why is
this city allowed to delay the project and create a negative impact on all of
these commuters? Why are they not beholden to a larger set of stakeholders
than just the people that live within their boarders?

~~~
rsync
"Nimby's dont derive power from the ballot box, they derive power from
distinctly undemocratic processes like courts and arbitrary middle of the day
planning meetings. The biggest NIMBY tool is CEQA, the "california
environmental quality act" which allows anyone to sue a project for
"environmental" reasons."

I agree that these things are annoying and selfish (and possibly mean-
spirited) but they are not undemocratic. They adhere to the laws and
regulations of our state. They are the (unfortunate) results of a democratic
process.

I reiterate my objection to non-democratic solutions to these problems.

Further, as someone who lives in a design-reviewed community in a NIMBY county
(Marin), my firsthand experience has shown me that these roadblocks and
inefficiencies are applied equally to everyone ... it's not like there is some
class of people who get streamlined approvals and fast-tracked homebuilding.
Everyone has to deal with the same bullshit, as far as I can tell ...

------
staunch
We need off-grid housing with SpaceX satellite internet, Tesla car pods, Tesla
Solar, and Amazon Prime deliveries.

------
CodeWriter23
California doesn’t have a housing problem. It has “companies insist on paying
higher taxes and refusing to deploy in the wide open spaces between the
coasts” problem. Deploying between the coasts helped Amazon greatly leverage
its early entry position.

~~~
kevinburke
Those same companies are responsive to where their workforce wants to live.

~~~
CodeWriter23
And they know that exactly how? I see no evidence of A/B or multivariate
testing vs employment for corporate locations.

~~~
kevinburke
I mean, Uber bought a giant office in Oakland and decided about a year later
not to move there...

------
phkahler
The part about increasing density near public transit was interesting. It's
true that high density is a must to make public transit viable. However, I
presume there is little vacant land near public transit. In that case, a
mandate to increase density would be telling people to demolish and rebuild
with higher density than what's there. If that's the case then the comparison
to Putin might be justified - and perhaps the crony capitalism part depending
who profits from this "upgrade".

~~~
ebikelaw
It isn’t a mandate to increase density. The proposed law removes limits. It
doesn’t mandate anything. Existing limits are preventing market forces from
working.

In Berkeley there is a subway station surrounded by a five-acre parking lot.
The owner of the parking list wishes to build there, but the city refuses to
rezone the land, which is presently “U - Unclassified”. This law would remove
Berkeley’s authority in the matter.

In San Francisco 71% of the land is zoned for detached single family homes,
despite virtually all of that city being within half a mile of a rail or light
rail station. This bill would raise all of those limits.

~~~
logfromblammo
A very common limit around the entire US is the municipality-wide building
height restriction.

Basically, the city outlaws any building taller than 40' above grade at its
highest point. Between that, and minimum setbacks from the frontage line and
other property lines, 90% of the work to prevent densification is already
done. Once a building plan has grown to completely fill its legal envelope,
there's nowhere else to go but down, and that becomes prohibitively expensive
fast.

The remaining 10% can be handled by mandating a minimum square footage per
residential unit that is slightly more than half the theoretical maximum from
a building at maximum height and minimum height on the mean lot size for that
zone. Then no amount of building up or out can allow you to squeeze another
unit onto your property. You have to resort to tricks like lowering ceiling
heights.

If you enact a law at the state level that triggers automatic lessening of
restrictions on building heights or setbacks every time a municipality fails
to grow enough housing, zoning boards will be a lot more tractable when a
developer wants to build.

~~~
ebikelaw
That's what SB827 does. If a property is within the given radius from a
transit station or a high-frequency bus line, minimum height limits are
imposed (between 45 and 85 feet, depending on other factors) and all design
controls (parking requirements, floor area ratio, setbacks, bulk) are rendered
ineffective.

~~~
ISL
Wow -- from afar, that's a great way to inspire local residents in bedroom
communities to fight public transit.

~~~
0xB31B1B
I volunteer in the SFBA for housing and transit advocacy.

A loud minority of people already fight transit and successfully prevent it or
water it down. The type of people who fight transit also fight housing. There
isn’t really much headway for their coalitions to grow because they’re selfish
old boomers who want to pull up the ladder, it’s not an message that inspires
solidarity.

------
viridian
This little bit of political sparring was my favorite part of the article:

>SB 827, Wiener’s bill to mandate increased density near public transit, was
recently the subject of a spat on Twitter between the Senator and former
Beverly Hills mayor John Mirisch. Mirisch began his tirade by calling the bill
“a bizarre combination of Soviet-style master planning with raging crony
capitalism…the urban planning lovechild of Vladimir Putin and the Koch Bros.”

>“Not quite sure how he got to this conclusion but definitely scores high in
the melodramatic response competition,” Wiener responded. “Interesting to say
that my authoring a bill to allow more housing near transit makes me Putin,
since I sort of got the idea from a guy named [President Barack] Obama,” he
remarked wryly.

The name dropping and mudslinging here is pretty laughable. The reason reason
for conflict seems to me to be misaligned incentives though. The idea that a
place like Beverly Hills is going to have to throw up a bunch of new housing
to please CA congress is ridiculous, since essentially the city now has to
find a way to destroy existing housing or places of business in order to throw
up new, cheaper housing, assuming the bill passes.

~~~
TulliusCicero
The bill says nothing of the sort.

I've noticed a common talking point among anti-development types is to assert
that changing zoning to _allow_ denser housing translates to _mandating_
denser housing, which is obviously ridiculous.

~~~
jdavis703
Unfortunately at first glance the law is easy to misread. If you’re not
careful it reads like it’s mandating a minimum height for new construction.
Instead what it’s doing is mandating a floor on the maximum _allowable_ height
a city can set. So in other words a city can’t force a developer to shorten
their building beyond the minimum heights in SB-827. Conversely a developer or
home owner can construct a short building if they really want to.

