opinion of CA bill SB 827

[dead0man]

link=Slate[quote]San Francisco’s state senator, Scott Wiener, has introduced a bill that would all but abolish the city’s famously strict land use controls—and virtually every other residential zoning restriction in California’s urban neighborhoods. It’s just about the most radical attack on California’s affordability crisis you could imagine.

Wiener’s bill, SB-827, flies in the face of every assumption Americans have held about neighborhood politics and design for a century. It also makes intuitive sense. The bill would ensure that all new housing construction within a half-mile of a train station or a quarter-mile of a frequent bus route would not be subject to local regulations concerning size, height, number of apartments, restrictive design standards, or the provision of parking spaces. Because San Francisco is a relatively transit-rich area, this would up-zone virtually the entire city. But it would also apply to corridors in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and low-rise, transit-oriented suburbs across the state. It would produce larger residential buildings around transit hubs, but just as importantly it would enable developers to build those buildings faster.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Good. NIMBYism is a cancer, and the nation's housing and transportation crises are the consequences.

That said, 1. they would have to make sure to minimize possible gentrification and 2. you really think this is going to get anywhere?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

It's one of my favorite bills out there, and I'm a new fan of Weiner!!!! This is EVERYTHING that land use policy needs--nothing halfhearted. I desperately hope this passes--it could transform California for decades, it would greatly benefit myself, my friend, and my family, and it will finally start to counteract the damage prop 13 has done.

[MasterJedi]

It depends, urban cities should have regulations that require actual urban development. Without that a developer will plop a craptastic urban sprawl style dump into the middle of a dense city which is unacceptable.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

It depends, urban cities should have regulations that require actual urban development. Without that a developer will plop a craptastic urban sprawl style dump into the middle of a dense city which is unacceptable.

So you think Houston's no-zoning system is bad? (Not that I disagree; I just want your thoughts)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Localities that want to avoid this would have a reason to discourage transit. That seems like a bad idea. 

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Localities that want to avoid this would have a reason to discourage transit. That seems like a bad idea. 

It depends on if the reason is good or bad.

If it's over fears of gentrification and the further destruction of marginalized communities, then I can see a point.

If it's rich-people NIMBYism caused by locals wanting to preserve inflated home prices and "neighborhood characteristics," then f[in]k them.

[MasterJedi]

It depends, urban cities should have regulations that require actual urban development. Without that a developer will plop a craptastic urban sprawl style dump into the middle of a dense city which is unacceptable.

So you think Houston's no-zoning system is bad? (Not that I disagree; I just want your thoughts)

It turned Houston into a sea of parking lots downtown. Leads to dead downtowns to please suburbanites who rarely go there anyways. At the same time NIMBYism is a cancer that can exacerbate good zoning by not letting anything can get built. I love strict zoning to keep cities urban and dense but need to check that to allow things to be built at all over NIMBYs or that might be slightly outside of perfect. Just can’t let a suburban style strip mall with large surface parking to be put there in its place.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

It depends, urban cities should have regulations that require actual urban development. Without that a developer will plop a craptastic urban sprawl style dump into the middle of a dense city which is unacceptable.

So you think Houston's no-zoning system is bad? (Not that I disagree; I just want your thoughts)

It turned Houston into a sea of parking lots downtown. Leads to dead downtowns to please suburbanites who rarely go there anyways. At the same time NIMBYism is a cancer that can exacerbate good zoning by not letting anything can get built. I love strict zoning to keep cities urban and dense but need to check that to allow things to be built at all over NIMBYs or that might be slightly outside of perfect. Just can’t let a suburban style strip mall with large surface parking to be put there in its place.

Actually, that isn't totally true. Houston has no zoning, but it does have parking minimums and massive, subsidized highways. In a truly free market, you get a very dense, walkable environment, because driving is really expensive and really subsidized.

[politicallefty]

I'm willing to betray my ideology for solutions that reduce the cost of housing/rent in California. It's an interesting proposal, but I'm not sure it would totally rectify the problem facing the state right now.

It turned Houston into a sea of parking lots downtown. Leads to dead downtowns to please suburbanites who rarely go there anyways. At the same time NIMBYism is a cancer that can exacerbate good zoning by not letting anything can get built. I love strict zoning to keep cities urban and dense but need to check that to allow things to be built at all over NIMBYs or that might be slightly outside of perfect. Just can’t let a suburban style strip mall with large surface parking to be put there in its place.

Texas and California are completely different situations. California is facing a massive housing crisis. We don't have enough housing at a reasonable price. Like I said, I'm willing to betray my own ideology if it means we can lower housing/rent prices and expand affordability. Unless the affordability of housing and rent prices in California is soon dealt with, California is probably going to have to deal with a net population loss in the near future. An average 3 bedroom residence over $2000 (at minimum) is going to cripple the state.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I'm willing to betray my ideology for solutions that reduce the cost of housing/rent in California. It's an interesting proposal, but I'm not sure it would totally rectify the problem facing the state right now.

What ideology opposes new housing? Misanthropic communism?

[politicallefty]

I'm willing to betray my ideology for solutions that reduce the cost of housing/rent in California. It's an interesting proposal, but I'm not sure it would totally rectify the problem facing the state right now.

What ideology opposes new housing? Misanthropic communism?

That's not what I mean. I mean those that oppose housing developments in certain areas for some random reason. We can't build within 2 miles of a certain area because we're going to kill off the blue-green Northern California wood fungus or something. I'm exaggerating of course, but that's basically what we're dealing with in terms of trying to expand housing throughout the state. I think the state needs to go further than this bill and eliminate all local obstacles to new and affordable housing. The only remedy to the cost of housing in California is to build and build fast. Not only will that lower the cost of housing, but it would also create many good-paying jobs in construction and ancillary areas.

[OSR stands with Israel]

why do people hate the Suburbs



I think they are awesome

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

why do people hate the Suburbs
I think they are awesome

nothing inherently wrong with them; but the low density nature of American suburbs make them hell for transport.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

why do people hate the Suburbs
I think they are awesome

nothing inherently wrong with them; but the low density nature of American suburbs make them hell for transport.

They are environmentally unsound and contribute to the racial segregation problem we have today. Plus many suburbs are in economic decline, in part due to the high economic costs of providing utilities over such low densities and the long distances from economic hubs.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I'm willing to betray my ideology for solutions that reduce the cost of housing/rent in California. It's an interesting proposal, but I'm not sure it would totally rectify the problem facing the state right now.

What ideology opposes new housing? Misanthropic communism?

That's not what I mean. I mean those that oppose housing developments in certain areas for some random reason. We can't build within 2 miles of a certain area because we're going to kill off the blue-green Northern California wood fungus or something. I'm exaggerating of course, but that's basically what we're dealing with in terms of trying to expand housing throughout the state. I think the state needs to go further than this bill and eliminate all local obstacles to new and affordable housing. The only remedy to the cost of housing in California is to build and build fast. Not only will that lower the cost of housing, but it would also create many good-paying jobs in construction and ancillary areas.

I couldn't agree more.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

why do people hate the Suburbs

I think they are awesome

Mostly because I hate cars and I hate yards and I hate cultural deserts. However, my personal preferences are not the issue. The issue is that governments have no place in telling developers they can't convert privately held suburban land into dense development (even though this bill, which requires significant transit mostly affects single family urban areas, like much of the inner Eastbay). You can live on a cul de sac, bit you have no place in stopping the market from developing what surrounds you. Suburbs are artificially protected and artificially subsidized, and that has to stop.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

I'm willing to betray my ideology for solutions that reduce the cost of housing/rent in California. It's an interesting proposal, but I'm not sure it would totally rectify the problem facing the state right now.

What ideology opposes new housing? Misanthropic communism?

That's not what I mean. I mean those that oppose housing developments in certain areas for some random reason. We can't build within 2 miles of a certain area because we're going to kill off the blue-green Northern California wood fungus or something. I'm exaggerating of course, but that's basically what we're dealing with in terms of trying to expand housing throughout the state. I think the state needs to go further than this bill and eliminate all local obstacles to new and affordable housing. The only remedy to the cost of housing in California is to build and build fast. Not only will that lower the cost of housing, but it would also create many good-paying jobs in construction and ancillary areas.

Oh, I'm pretty sure these "random reasons" aren't the real reasons. The real reasons include wanting to keep inflated property values and city-level xenophobia (especially if new transit or housing let "those people" into their bubbles).

[politicallefty]

Oh, I'm pretty sure these "random reasons" aren't the real reasons. The real reasons include wanting to keep inflated property values and city-level xenophobia (especially if new transit or housing let "those people" into their bubbles).

In a state like California, there are a multitude of reasons including those I noted, but you're definitely not wrong as to part of the reasoning. That doesn't change what I think should be the solution, at least in large part. The state needs to obliterate all local obstacles to new and affordable housing developments. If the Democratic Party cannot support affordable housing for all, we are failing.

A one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco now costs over $3200-3400/month. Housing all across the state is rising fast with no sign of slowing. California is at the epicentre of a full housing crisis and one that is mostly indiscriminately harming all but the richest amongst us.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Localities that want to avoid this would have a reason to discourage transit. That seems like a bad idea. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It depends, urban cities should have regulations that require actual urban development. Without that a developer will plop a craptastic urban sprawl style dump into the middle of a dense city which is unacceptable.

So you think Houston's no-zoning system is bad? (Not that I disagree; I just want your thoughts)

It turned Houston into a sea of parking lots downtown. Leads to dead downtowns to please suburbanites who rarely go there anyways. At the same time NIMBYism is a cancer that can exacerbate good zoning by not letting anything can get built. I love strict zoning to keep cities urban and dense but need to check that to allow things to be built at all over NIMBYs or that might be slightly outside of perfect. Just can’t let a suburban style strip mall with large surface parking to be put there in its place.

Actually, that isn't totally true. Houston has no zoning, but it does have parking minimums and massive, subsidized highways. In a truly free market, you get a very dense, walkable environment, because driving is really expensive and really subsidized.

Eliminate parking requirements and Prop. 13, that will work a lot better than this bill.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

It depends, urban cities should have regulations that require actual urban development. Without that a developer will plop a craptastic urban sprawl style dump into the middle of a dense city which is unacceptable.

So you think Houston's no-zoning system is bad? (Not that I disagree; I just want your thoughts)

It turned Houston into a sea of parking lots downtown. Leads to dead downtowns to please suburbanites who rarely go there anyways. At the same time NIMBYism is a cancer that can exacerbate good zoning by not letting anything can get built. I love strict zoning to keep cities urban and dense but need to check that to allow things to be built at all over NIMBYs or that might be slightly outside of perfect. Just can’t let a suburban style strip mall with large surface parking to be put there in its place.

Actually, that isn't totally true. Houston has no zoning, but it does have parking minimums and massive, subsidized highways. In a truly free market, you get a very dense, walkable environment, because driving is really expensive and really subsidized.

Eliminate parking requirements and Prop. 13, that will work a lot better than this bill.

This bill does eliminate parking requirements. It just also goes further with height restrictions and so on. I agree with you on prop 13, but that's sort of its own issue and it's politically challenging.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Localities that want to avoid this would have a reason to discourage transit. That seems like a bad idea. 

Transit is rarely run by the localities it passes through, and is generally operated by unresponsive (a good thing, in this case) metro-level boards.

[Sirius_]

Living in a sprawling suburb with absolutely no zoning laws, I know the effects of letting construction happen freely and carelessly. Zoning regulations are necessary to protect communities and prevent traffic. I can only imagine how much worse the traffic situations around LA and SF would get if this bill is passed.

[dead0man]

'cause if heavily regulated cities are known for anything it's no traffic problems and well protected communities.