California bill to add more housing in single-family neighborhoods blocked by lawmakers

[SoCalNative]

A high-profile bill that would have increased home building near mass transit and in single-family neighborhoods across California has been killed for the year, ending a major battle over how to address the state’s housing affordability crisis that has attracted significant attention nationwide.

Senate Bill 50 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) would have allowed for four-to five-story apartment complexes near rail stations and four or more homes on land now zoned for only single-family homes across much of California.

But Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) announced at the beginning of the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Thursday that Senate Bill 50 would not advance this year, meaning the bill would not be debated again until 2020.

Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the bill’s author, said he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision, which he attributed to Portantino. Legislators can hold bills in appropriations committees without a public vote memorializing the decision.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-single-family-zoning-senate-bill-50-dead-20190516-story.html





GOOD!

[NBachers]

1. And and this is GOOD! because?

[SoCalNative]

2. Because it would have destroyed single family neighborhoods

and allowed developers to run rampant even more than they already are.

[EX500rider]

3. How does a apartment building on your street "destroy" a neighborhood?

And if the developers are building more affordable apts. sounds like something Calif needs.

[SoCalNative]

5. I have apartment buildings on my street

in fact I'm surrounded by them and the parking situation is abysmal and I detest living in a fishbowl. So no, I'm not a NIMBY. And the problem is that developers AREN'T building more affordable units. They build luxury buildings with rents higher than mortgage payments, and as a result the buildings sit half empty.

But there is a reason that people buy homes in neighborhoods away from such zoning and pay top dollar for them. And they don't expect someone to come along and change the rules after the fact. And these neighborhoods can be ruined by not having the infrastructure available to support dwellings that hold multiple families s opposed to single ones. If every house in an R-1 neighborhood was torn don and rebuilt as multiple family dwellings, the character as well as the overburden on systems would be ruining the neighborhood.

[LanternWaste]

4. Yours is the newest variation on the MIMBY argument I've heard in a while.

[EllieBC]

6. They aren't building social housing. "Affordable" doesn't mean

social housing.

In the Vancouver area they allow developers to build lots of condo buildings. The developers say they are “affordable housing”. The city agrees. Then you hear they’ll be $1400 a month for a 1 bedroom. Gee that’s not affordable! Oh but it is because “affordable housing” just means rental prices at 30% of AVERAGE incomes for the area.

Developers and the city councils that get little favors have zero interest in making more housing so that it’s cheaper.