News

Housing bills fizzle in California's frantic final day of legislative session

While lawmakers agree on eviction protections, proposal that sought to increase housing supply fall short

California legislators adjourned shortly after midnight on Sept. 1 without advancing several key housing bills, including SB 1120 and SB 1085. Embarcadero Media file photo by Veronica Weber.

After seeing their ambitious plans to address the housing crisis derailed by the COVID-19 pandemic, state lawmakers concluded their legislative session Monday with little progress on a topic that many continue to call out as a top priority.

During a marathon session that stretched from morning to midnight and featured dozens of votes, frayed nerves and a partisan Senate squabble, the Legislature came up short on advancing the most ambitious housing bill on the table, Senate Bill 1120. Authored by Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, the bill would have allowed homeowners to subdivide their homes and build duplexes in single-family zones.

Though the Atkins bill received approval in the Assembly just minutes before midnight, it did not return to the Senate in time for the final vote that would have been necessary to advance it to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk.

A similar fate befell a proposal by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, to reform the state's density-bonus law by adding incentives for construction of affordable housing and exempting cities from charging development impact fees for these units. The proposal, known as SB 1085, passed in the Assembly by a 67-3 vote on Monday but did not return to the Senate in time for a concurrence vote.

Both housing bills proved contentious in the final weeks of the legislative session, with San Francisco supervisors voting to formally oppose SB 1085 and various groups coming out against SB 1120, with some characterizing it as an affront to local control and others arguing that it would primarily benefit developers and speculators.

Sponsored
...
Wonders of the water: Meet the tide pool whisperer of the San Mateo coastline

Dive into the aquatic oddities, coastal creatures and other rapidly-disappearing denizens of the Peninsula shores.

...
Sponsored
Wonders of the water: Meet the tide pool whisperer of the San Mateo coastline

Dive into the aquatic oddities, coastal creatures and other rapidly-disappearing denizens of the Peninsula shores.

Proponents of Atkins' bill called it a modest proposal that gives homeowners more flexibility and builds on the state's recent successes in encouraging accessory dwelling units. Assemblyman Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said the new housing will be "small-scale units that are easy to build" and that will also "create equity for homeowners who want to help us solve this housing crisis."

Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager, D-Los Angeles, disputed the idea that the new units will be "affordable" and called the bill "an invitation into small communities by developers and speculators." The state, she said, should instead consider ways to develop "non-market, price-guaranteed housing" developments that teachers, grocery workers and California's working-class families deserve.

"I don't think we should be asking for an invasion by developers into communities across the state because we are too lazy, quite frankly, to have more meaningful conversations about how we're protecting communities and finding ways to build housing that people truly can afford," Kamlager said.

Others saw the failure of SB 1120 to advance, despite passing in both chambers of the Legislature, as a significant defeat. Randy Shaw, director of San Francisco's Tenderloin Housing Clinic and editor of Beyond Chron wrote in a Sept. 1 post that "when it came to taking major steps toward building more housing — the actions candidate Newsom promoted during his 2018 campaign — the governor and legislature failed miserably."

"Do legislators believe the pandemic has ended California's housing shortage? Their actions are consistent with such a misguided view," Shaw wrote.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Brian Hanlon, president and CEO of California YIMBY, said in a statement that California was "on the cusp of passing significant housing reform last night but the Legislature snatched defeat from the jaws of victory."

"Californians don't have the luxury of waiting out the housing crisis; our elected leaders shouldn't hold them hostage to politics any longer," Hanlon said.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco-based nonprofit Livable California, which last year vehemently opposed Senate Bill 50, celebrated the defeat of SB 1120, even despite the vote of support in the Assembly.

"We'll take the technical win!" the group said in a newsletter.

The sheer multitude of bills, many of them dealing with COVID-19, created tension between the two parties in the Senate, particularly after the Democrats proposed limiting the number of speakers and the speaking time allotted, for each bill. Republicans, most of whom were ordered to participate virtually as a COVID-19 precaution (this was because state Sen. Brian Jones, R-Santee, tested positive for the virus), strongly objected and claimed they were being silenced.

"Not only do you kick us out of the Chamber for no good reason, but now you're going to not allow us to debate and speak on behalf of our constituents," said state Sen. Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore.

Unlike Senate Bill 50, a proposal by Sen. Scott Wiener to allow more housing density in jobs-rich and transit friendly areas that fizzled in January, the latest slate of housing bills did not generate either strong support or heavy opposition in Palo Alto. Councilwoman Lydia Kou, who strongly opposed SB 50, advocated against bills such as SB 1085 and SB 1120, as did Livable California. The council, however, did not hold any discussions or take any formal positions about the various housing measures.

Nonetheless, the council is considering its own zoning reforms to encourage residential construction. The most notable of these is the revival of the "planned community" zone, which will allow residential builders to exceed zoning and development standards in exchange for providing affordable housing. The zoning designation had been used in the city for decades to create affordable housing as well as mixed-use developments before the council agreed in 2014 to effectively abolish it.

In agreeing to revive what will now be known as "planned home" zoning, the city is explicitly acknowledging that affordable housing is a public benefit that would justify the zoning exemptions. The council is scheduled to consider the affordability requirements for qualifying projects on Sept. 28.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

...
Sponsored
6 Steps to master the home buying process during a pandemic

Your no-stress guide to buying a home no matter what the circumstance.

Housing bills fizzle in California's frantic final day of legislative session

While lawmakers agree on eviction protections, proposal that sought to increase housing supply fall short

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, Sep 1, 2020, 5:15 pm

After seeing their ambitious plans to address the housing crisis derailed by the COVID-19 pandemic, state lawmakers concluded their legislative session Monday with little progress on a topic that many continue to call out as a top priority.

During a marathon session that stretched from morning to midnight and featured dozens of votes, frayed nerves and a partisan Senate squabble, the Legislature came up short on advancing the most ambitious housing bill on the table, Senate Bill 1120. Authored by Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, the bill would have allowed homeowners to subdivide their homes and build duplexes in single-family zones.

Though the Atkins bill received approval in the Assembly just minutes before midnight, it did not return to the Senate in time for the final vote that would have been necessary to advance it to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk.

A similar fate befell a proposal by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, to reform the state's density-bonus law by adding incentives for construction of affordable housing and exempting cities from charging development impact fees for these units. The proposal, known as SB 1085, passed in the Assembly by a 67-3 vote on Monday but did not return to the Senate in time for a concurrence vote.

Both housing bills proved contentious in the final weeks of the legislative session, with San Francisco supervisors voting to formally oppose SB 1085 and various groups coming out against SB 1120, with some characterizing it as an affront to local control and others arguing that it would primarily benefit developers and speculators.

Proponents of Atkins' bill called it a modest proposal that gives homeowners more flexibility and builds on the state's recent successes in encouraging accessory dwelling units. Assemblyman Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said the new housing will be "small-scale units that are easy to build" and that will also "create equity for homeowners who want to help us solve this housing crisis."

Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager, D-Los Angeles, disputed the idea that the new units will be "affordable" and called the bill "an invitation into small communities by developers and speculators." The state, she said, should instead consider ways to develop "non-market, price-guaranteed housing" developments that teachers, grocery workers and California's working-class families deserve.

"I don't think we should be asking for an invasion by developers into communities across the state because we are too lazy, quite frankly, to have more meaningful conversations about how we're protecting communities and finding ways to build housing that people truly can afford," Kamlager said.

Others saw the failure of SB 1120 to advance, despite passing in both chambers of the Legislature, as a significant defeat. Randy Shaw, director of San Francisco's Tenderloin Housing Clinic and editor of Beyond Chron wrote in a Sept. 1 post that "when it came to taking major steps toward building more housing — the actions candidate Newsom promoted during his 2018 campaign — the governor and legislature failed miserably."

"Do legislators believe the pandemic has ended California's housing shortage? Their actions are consistent with such a misguided view," Shaw wrote.

Brian Hanlon, president and CEO of California YIMBY, said in a statement that California was "on the cusp of passing significant housing reform last night but the Legislature snatched defeat from the jaws of victory."

"Californians don't have the luxury of waiting out the housing crisis; our elected leaders shouldn't hold them hostage to politics any longer," Hanlon said.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco-based nonprofit Livable California, which last year vehemently opposed Senate Bill 50, celebrated the defeat of SB 1120, even despite the vote of support in the Assembly.

"We'll take the technical win!" the group said in a newsletter.

The sheer multitude of bills, many of them dealing with COVID-19, created tension between the two parties in the Senate, particularly after the Democrats proposed limiting the number of speakers and the speaking time allotted, for each bill. Republicans, most of whom were ordered to participate virtually as a COVID-19 precaution (this was because state Sen. Brian Jones, R-Santee, tested positive for the virus), strongly objected and claimed they were being silenced.

"Not only do you kick us out of the Chamber for no good reason, but now you're going to not allow us to debate and speak on behalf of our constituents," said state Sen. Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore.

Unlike Senate Bill 50, a proposal by Sen. Scott Wiener to allow more housing density in jobs-rich and transit friendly areas that fizzled in January, the latest slate of housing bills did not generate either strong support or heavy opposition in Palo Alto. Councilwoman Lydia Kou, who strongly opposed SB 50, advocated against bills such as SB 1085 and SB 1120, as did Livable California. The council, however, did not hold any discussions or take any formal positions about the various housing measures.

Nonetheless, the council is considering its own zoning reforms to encourage residential construction. The most notable of these is the revival of the "planned community" zone, which will allow residential builders to exceed zoning and development standards in exchange for providing affordable housing. The zoning designation had been used in the city for decades to create affordable housing as well as mixed-use developments before the council agreed in 2014 to effectively abolish it.

In agreeing to revive what will now be known as "planned home" zoning, the city is explicitly acknowledging that affordable housing is a public benefit that would justify the zoning exemptions. The council is scheduled to consider the affordability requirements for qualifying projects on Sept. 28.

Comments

Allen Akin
Registered user
Professorville
on Sep 1, 2020 at 5:56 pm
Allen Akin, Professorville
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2020 at 5:56 pm
39 people like this

I wonder how much of this was driven by national politics. SB 1120 essentially would have eliminated single-family zoning in California. If it had passed, the Trump campaign would have exploited it as proof that Democrats intend to eliminate single-family housing everywhere. If Newsom had signed it, that might have ended any hope he would have for a Presidential run in the future. The last-minute shenanigans allow everyone to get away with plausible deniability.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 1, 2020 at 8:16 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2020 at 8:16 pm
15 people like this

You keep assigning outcomes in CA to DT. Try assigning outcomes to the electorate that does not want want they are selling. Dt has bigger issues then housing in CA. The people who care are the ones that are pushing the outcomes. Give credit where credit is due.


Allen Akin
Registered user
Professorville
on Sep 2, 2020 at 9:39 am
Allen Akin, Professorville
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 9:39 am
13 people like this

I'm sure you're right that Trump cares very little about housing issues in California. His campaign really does care about suburban voters in swing states, though.

Remember Trump's changes to the Fair Housing Act that prompted this tweet (Web Link)? "I am happy to inform all of the people living their Suburban Lifestyle Dream that you will no longer be bothered or financially hurt by having low income housing built in your neighborhood".

If not for the last-minute maneuvering by Assembly leaders, SB 1120 would have passed. By the usual definition that's the outcome "the electorate" wanted, even though there are plenty of reasons why SB 1120 would have done more harm than good.

So I wonder whether the Democratic leadership decided that passing SB 1120 this year would have given the Trump campaign a strong message in those swing-state suburbs, and held it back for now, knowing another bill like it will be proposed next year.

Maybe you're right, and the leadership responded to what citizens really wanted, instead of what the real-estate development industry wanted. I guess we'll see what happens next year.


Eric Filseth
Registered user
Downtown North
on Sep 2, 2020 at 9:59 am
Eric Filseth, Downtown North
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 9:59 am
46 people like this

Pretty sure Trump actually has said this, though he says a lot of stuff.

Look, here’s the Fearful Symmetry on the mid-Peninsula:

========================================
1. Office/R+D lease rates = $8.00-$12.00 /sf
2. Market-Rate Housing Rents* = $4.50 /sf
3. BMR Housing Rates (80% AMI)* = $3.35 /sf

Which building would YOU build? Exactly.
========================================

As long as there’s demand for #1 above, the region will keep creating new housing Demand faster than new Supply, and the problem will keep getting worse, not better.

For their own reasons, Sacramento is unwilling to consider anything that might affect #1. But as long as #1 is off limits, we’re fighting Math. These Legislative bills, including this year’s “ban single-family-home neighborhoods in California” effort, which some of our local representation supported, basically tinker around the edges of the problem with no hope of actually solving it.

The Leadership knows this, and rationalizes it with some form of, every-little-bit-helps, and communities-must-be-open-to-new-ideas. But every little bit does not help if your target keeps receding faster than you catch up to it, and perks to Developers is not in fact a new idea. (Here's an actual New Idea: balance your jobs and housing growth by managing both the Demand and Supply sides at once, and raise impact fees to fund BMR housing.)

The reality is we can’t keep adding jobs in the densest and most expensive parts of the Bay Area, and expect housing – especially affordable housing – to sprout in the same places, at least not without massive investments. The economics aren’t there. To solve Housing, and Transportation, we need to get smarter about the geography of Jobs, and the sooner the better.

You wish Sacramento would show a little more leadership on this, but the reverse appears to be underway: the same old ideas (don’t touch #1, but here’s SB50 wearing a hat!), just on a larger and larger scale, until the Bay Area’s woes finally snuff out #1 by themselves. Not a great look for Government.



*UC Berkeley Terner Center, 2019, “Upzoning Under SB50.” Data for Menlo Park.
Web Link




Me 2
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:17 am
Me 2, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:17 am
12 people like this

"You wish Sacramento would show a little more leadership on this, but the reverse appears to be underway: the same old ideas (don’t touch #1, but here’s SB50 wearing a hat!), just on a larger and larger scale, until the Bay Area’s woes finally snuff out #1 by themselves. Not a great look for Government."

Because state spending relies on income tax. More jobs means more revenue, which means more spending for special interest groups at the state level.

Until Prop 13 is sunset, this will be the dynamic.

Or we could reduce spending at the state level. (laughing maniacally...)


No more growth
Registered user
Downtown North
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:47 am
No more growth, Downtown North
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:47 am
26 people like this

So glad all these false housing bills failed. They were just a cover for developer giveaways allowing them to force cities to let them build dense housing with no parking and no funding for overcrowded schools, city infrastructure, parks and any other amenity to make life worth living as more than expanding fungus. It is time that voters started to stress over-population to their elected representatives and demand more open space, more parks, less pollution and that large corporations either build a home for each employee or go elsewhere. Plus look at climate change and stop building around the edge of the bay. It will all be either underwater in a few decades or they will tap taxpayers to build them a bath tub ring to keep out the rising water. Why are our elected representative so dim? They never seem to be able to wrap their little brains around the big picture of what is going on here and address the hard issues of the area is full, how do I make it work for the people here and not just pretend we can cram in more and more until we destroy it all?


rita vrhel
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Sep 2, 2020 at 11:12 am
rita vrhel, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 11:12 am
48 people like this

Thank you to everyone who took the time to call or email stating their disdain of Scott Wiener's continued assault on R-1 neighborhoods. Seems like lots of people all over California are tired of his generous "legislative gifts" to developers.
And thank you Eric for once again making it all so simple. Only so much land, developers will go for the highest return.
Let's start discussing ways to save existing below market rate housing rather than allowing these units to be torn down for luxury units. Higher developers fees, requiring building BMR units instead of in-lieu fees would help. Making developers pay their fair share, including fully parking their projects, would also be a start.
Using empty downtown office space for needed housing could be considered. But the job growth must stop; you can't build your way out. Thank you


Penny Proctor
Duveneck/St. Francis

Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 12:29 pm
Name hidden, Duveneck/St. Francis

Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 12:29 pm

Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.


Staying Young Through Kids
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 pm
Staying Young Through Kids, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 pm
17 people like this

A push for density without a majority of the new units being cooperatively owned (co-op, condo, etc) just helps the same developers.

People rail against developers in these forums when Sobrato, Jay Paul, Google, etc want to build offices instead of housing. But, when they do choose to build housing it's ether as rental units or super high density units at market rate. Either way the developers win.

No matter what your views are on density, our strongest communities are built by owners, not by renters. Things tend to go downhill when landlords control more units in a community than homeowners. Many in Palo Alto (and a few on our CC) are fighting the good fight to keep that from happening.

The only way to control this is with strong civic representation and aggressive zoning that maintains our communities by encouraging businesses while also ensuring the construction of units our local working families can afford to purchase.

Stanford catches a lot of flack sometimes, but it often seems like they are the only local entity constantly working to solve (some of) its own housing problems. Their housing buildup is not so great for the local tax base, but at least they are building and securing BMR housing and providing in-house financing for purchases in order to recruit and keep talent.


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Sep 2, 2020 at 2:48 pm
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 2:48 pm
5 people like this

“...our strongest communities are built by owners, not by renters.” Just wrong and discriminatory. Our communities are built strong from those who invest in our children, our health, our environment, our future. Are you going to tell me COVID -19 is going to be won by home owners? Was our WII victory won by owners. 45% of PA residents are renters. Are they making our town unlivable? You are most likely saying that property owners pay property taxes — yet we all pay taxes in one form or another. Here in PA landlords pass their property tax on to the renter with extraordinary costly rents. This rent burden is destroying our community. For fool’s sake, how many PA property owners housed an CZU fire evacuee at no cost or a COVID vulnerable homeless ? The buck stops at the city limit in this virtually “gated community”.


Markie
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Sep 2, 2020 at 3:09 pm
Markie, Palo Verde
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 3:09 pm
23 people like this

And how did our representatives vote on several of the "son of SB50" bills?

SB 1120 - ayes from both Marc Berman and Jerry Hill (a co-sponsor).
AB 725 - ayes from both Marc Berman and Jerry Hill.

Something to remember for the next election.


Rebecca Eisenberg
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Sep 2, 2020 at 3:40 pm
Rebecca Eisenberg, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 3:40 pm
1 person likes this

SB 1120 would not have mandated that all SFHs become duplexes, nor would it have subdivided lots automatically.

Rather, 1120 would have given homeowners the freedom -- if they chose -- to subdivide or build a second home on their lot. Many homeowners were clamoring for this right, and I don't blame them. (If I owned here, I sure would want that right. Unfortunately I rent.)

As the cost of living continues to skyrocket, at the same time that wages are stagnant and unemployment is rising -- why not allow homeowners the opportunity to take some liquidity from their homes, so they can continue to afford to live here?

It is this very need for additional income that leads many people to use Airbnb/VRBO for rooms or cottages. Most believe that communities are benefited more by subdividing or adding additional long-term owners/tenants than they are by bringing in short-term vacationers/business travelers.

At the end of the day, although SB 1120 would have increased density, it also would have increased private property rights. Most similar cities already have moved in this direction or are considering doing so. Isn't it better to put those decisions in the hands of the property owners than it is to put them in the hands of the state? I'm sorry to see this initiative fail.


Rebecca Eisenberg
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Sep 2, 2020 at 3:53 pm
Rebecca Eisenberg, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 3:53 pm
1 person likes this

As an added clarification, I strongly agree with Me2: NONE of this will be addressed until and unless we sunset Prop 13, replacing it with a tax program that fully protects qualified seniors and others with limited or fixed income, without offering the same "protection" to billionaires and huge corporations.

Every other state in the country has programs that protect seniors without giving windfalls to billionaires. Those senior protections include tax discounts, subsidies, exemptions, and the ability to carry tax obligations as a lien on the title, which is easily paid upon transfer.

The more that we require the wealthiest few to pay their fair share, the more money we will have to invest in services and subsidies for the people who need assistance most: low-income people, the disabled, mentally ill, homeless, families, children, and seniors.

These groups will continue to get shafted unless and until the wealthiest few are made to pay their fair share. No pleas to ABAG, or Sacramento, or even the White House can move the needle as long as the vast majority of our city services and public education is being paid by the people who are least capable of paying.

California is the only state in the country to have such a regressive system of taxation, and we are feeling the effects every day in countless ways. It's time for us to getting serious about reforming Prop 13. Voting for Prop 15 on the ballot this November is a clear, easy first step. And with the $12 billion we recover when we close the corporate loopholes, we can take the time to develop a robust means to protect those who need protection, such as seniors, while requiring the billionaires who have profited from the pandemic to pay a reasonable amount into the community that supported their success.


Anonymous
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:16 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:16 pm
12 people like this

Too often are such BAD bills described as “creating housing” or similar general statements. Details matter. Wow, do they ever.
CA state politicians are famous for their convoluted bills and schemes. They often do not make sense and are unfair, while pretending to virtue signal. It is astounding. Please stay involved and contact your state Assemblymember and state Senator when these schemes come up! It takes constant attention to realize what some of these politicians are up to:
- punishing successful cities (attractive, thriving, many jobs, built out, highly valued real estate, good schools), claiming single family homes are evil, taking major efforts to take over and fully control residential zoning, etc.) Why should these politicians get to install one size fits all schemes that damage successful cities, reward wealthy developers, all the while pretending to assist the poor.
Of course, CA needs more housing and there are many ways to incentivize this!
The current state legislature does not have our best interest in mind, though.
And in some cases court challenges are not even an option - on epic statewide changes!
Very close to leaving this state.


Me 2
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Sep 3, 2020 at 11:17 am
Me 2, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Sep 3, 2020 at 11:17 am
Like this comment

"As an added clarification, I strongly agree with Me2: NONE of this will be addressed until and unless we sunset Prop 13, replacing it with a tax program that fully protects qualified seniors and others with limited or fixed income, without offering the same "protection" to billionaires and huge corporations. "

Wait. You're not supposed to agree me with me. :-)

I bet most of the people who complain about job growth in this area are same ones who benefit disproportionately from Prop 13.

Ironic, isn't it.

Just one of those "unintended consequences." Beware of what you wish when you enact legislation.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 3, 2020 at 11:40 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Sep 3, 2020 at 11:40 am
43 people like this

1) What about the businesses that benefit from Prop. 13? They "live" much longer than residents and are usually way wealthier and aren't rushing to reduce rents to account for the huge difference between their cost basis/taxes.

2) What's being done to address foreign and domestic speculators who are buying up and have already bought properties in the hopes of converting them into multi-family apartment houses and making a fortune?

3) What's Palo Alto doing to address the empty "ghost" houses that are bought by mostly foreign investors as safe-haven "savings accounts"? Cities like New York City and Vancouver, Canada, have already instituted big "concierge" taxes on those types of investments where investors buy properties sight unseen strictly as places to stash their cash.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 4, 2020 at 11:49 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Sep 4, 2020 at 11:49 am
11 people like this

Glad for the failure. Mr. Weiner (SF) and Ms. Atkins (San Diego) have taken it upon themselves to dictate housing issues which would breakdown the R-1 neighborhoods. This despite the public opinion that they are not interested. People are now fleeing the downtown scene of big cities and looking for housing in the suburban neighborhoods so they have more space for their families to grow up. Being in a suburban home is now what people want. The Weiners are self-absorbed and not tracking what the public wants.
Mr. Weiner is creating his own problems by promoting legislation concerning the sexual activity of children and the age of consent. Not a good scene.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 5, 2020 at 6:52 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Sep 5, 2020 at 6:52 am
5 people like this

Reading about the legislative process concerning these issues in the SFC today it is infuriating that a small number of people are dictating major issues. The Real Estate industry fills all of the local papers with houses for sale indicating the neighborhoods where the houses are. That is a selling point. And the houses are very expensive. Where I live there are houses being torn down and replaced with bigger two story homes. People are working to make their street view attractive - that costs money and time to upgrade houses.

Meanwhile the infrastructure of the state is collapsing due to Covid, fire, drought, and poor planning on the energy system. We have been given our marching orders for this weekend. People are leaving the state due to high taxes and screwball legislative activity that is continually trying to manage every ones lives.

So who are all of the people that are going to descend upon the state that require the type of housing discussed here? Relatives from the old country? I suspect that is big. A lot of people here are first generation and they want to bring in all of their relatives? People coming to the golden state to work in high tech? Maybe the people who are pushing for this breakdown in the community can provide some insight on why they are pushing this type of activity.

Mr. Hill - he will be gone due to term limits. Mr. Berman? My guess is that the people who are instigators for this have multiple agendas - please enlighten us. And those agendas are personal.


Steve Dabrowski
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 5, 2020 at 5:48 pm
Steve Dabrowski, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Sep 5, 2020 at 5:48 pm
7 people like this

Rebecca Eisenberg-thank you for clarifying your stance on Prop 13 and that other bird brained SB 1120 effort. So we are going to come up with some scheme to keep seniors safe after doing away with Prop 13 protections by loaning them money than will be paid back by embargoing their homes. And serving private property rights that flood our neighborhoods with added units that also bring added cars, added utility demands, added congestion and added civic headaches is your idea of a good thing. Glad to know all this before the election so I can cross you off with a clear conscience. Thanks again.


Anonymous
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 5, 2020 at 8:41 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Sep 5, 2020 at 8:41 pm
5 people like this

@Online Name,
Thank you for your solid points.
BTW, taxpayers, look into how our Assemblymember voted.........


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 6, 2020 at 6:51 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Sep 6, 2020 at 6:51 am
3 people like this

Now we have an off-shoot of the SVLG - The Silicon Valley Recovery Roundtable - headed by our well know local business people. Their focus is in part housing which will be increased to benefit job creation. They have already appeared in attempts to spread housing like chunky peanut butter up and down the peninsula so any local city identity is eliminated. This going on while major planning and building is on-going in the San Jose area. One would think that the first objective is to complete the current plans, let them solidify as to end results. Does it all work by consolidating everything in one location? The biggest earthquake zone in the state?

The job of each city is to fortify what the profit centers are and protect those assets. Right now that would be identifying what assets the state brings to the table on infrastructure - power grid, water, dams - yes big deal in south SC Valley. Many attempts to encroach on the lower section of the county which are now replacing farm country with housing. Water in that area under siege as the dams are not able to meet earthquake specs. And flooding in San Jose has occurred in the recent years of high rainfall.

Since Ms. Atkins is in the San Diego area - she one of the perpetrators of housing mayhem - Bill Gates and Melinda have bought a house in the Del Mar beach area. That is a major area looking at location of major off-shoots of the big companies.

As a side note much of the building in the lower state has been related to the aerospace business which blossomed during the space age, went defunct, and is now breathing new life. And your favorite companies are deeply involved in that whole set of "new" business adventures.

So we have to track both the current location and the offshoot of SOCAL - where Ms. Atkins is heading up the assault on housing for the whole state.

One benefit is that the people who are directly implementing the assault on housing have term limits. That means we have to understand who the replacements are in the legislative process and who is funding them. And at this point that is a state-wide issue. PA can only react to what ever is on-going. So identify how that baseline is created and who is funding what candidates.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.