Post

Conversation

New anti-demolition rules will probably nix SB 79 projects on pretty much every site w/ >2 residential units (as they're rent-controlled under state law). This *despite* the right-of-return & tenant-relocation payments already required under Housing Crisis Act. 1/2
Image
Quote
Chris Elmendorf
@CSElmendorf
I see that the CA Assembly has bagel-topped SB 79, @Scott_Wiener's upzoning-near-transit bill, by borrowing BMR minimums from AB 1893 (builder's remedy) without incorporating AB 1893's check on infeasible local IZ ordinances. Do we want housing near transit or not?
Image
Image
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

I am told the WA prog. coalition debated including demo controls, right of return, etc. in their statewide TOD bill & decided against. They thought providing *lots more new homes* for renters, lowering market rents, was more important. 2/2
Quote
Chris Elmendorf
@CSElmendorf
Replying to @CSElmendorf
But Washington's AB 1491--enacted earlier this year to little fanfare--is truly next level. Consider: ▶️ SB 79 proposes to upzone land near fixed transit stops; AB 1491 expands the geography to include bus-rapid-transit corridors. /6
Image
Chris - say there's 3 lots that a developer has acquired for redevelopment - 2 SFH lots and 1 old duplex. Is the SB79 project they desire to put on this combined lot allowed (because none of the lots have 3+ units) or disallowed (because it's 3+ units on the combined lots...
"I would like to build SB 79 units in San Francisco but unfortunately the anti-demo rent control rules don't allow it. But you people in Daly City San Carlos Menlo Park Palo Alto Sunnyvale etc. - you must allow them, and lots of them."
Image
Image
Actually, it looks like not that many cities have rent control. In Bay Area, in CalTrain & BART loop, SF SJ MV Berk/Oak Richmond have controls, others not. Look like "lefty/commie" cities want to force other cities to develop and overbuild themselves, so lefties don't need to!
Image