Special to the Vanguard
Sacramento, CA – A coalition of communities are pushing back on recent housing proposals, and warn that SB 423, a permanent extension of SB 35, “gives developers unlimited ability to develop nearly anything, anywhere in California.”
Recently Senator Scott Wiener introduced legislation that would make SB 35 permanent.
But for some, that means it would “permanently strip local communities of nearly all important land use decisions.”
The group calls itself Our Neighborhood Voices and describes itself as a “non-partisan coalition of residents and elected officials from every corner of California who believe that land use decisions should be determined by local communities and their elected leaders – not one-size-fits-all laws from Sacramento and for-profit developers.”
Our Neighborhood Voices is organizing to qualify a citizen-led ballot initiative that they say would “protect the ability of local communities to adopt laws that shape local growth, preserve the character of neighborhoods, and require developers to produce more affordable housing and contribute to the costs associated with it.”
Opponents note that while “the legislation – SB 423 – is touted as a tool to solve our affordable housing crisis, local elected leaders say that the legislation undermines local democracy by removing the ability of communities to plan and prepare for what is built in their neighborhoods.”
They explain, “It also can accelerate damaging ‘Builders Remedy’ projects across the state that see massive projects built in residential neighborhoods without adequate planning for water, schools, transit, safety fire danger and other priorities.”
SB 423, they argue, “also removes vital protections in our Coastal Zones – something no other housing bill has dared to do. Californians have consistently supported protecting our coasts – this bill removes many of those protections forever.”
“I was hoping SB 423 might be a tool to help us solve our affordable housing crisis, but it is not,” said Susan Candell, Lafayette City Councilmember. “Instead, it is the state’s final end game to undermine local democracy in cities and counties, and unleash unlimited development, including the ‘Builders Remedy,’ even in our treasured coastal zones.”
According to a release on Wednesday, opponents argue, “SB 423 can potentially release the ‘Builders Remedy’ where developers can just about build anything, anywhere.
“SB 423 is a permanent extension of SB 35 – a 2018 law that forces local governments to approve certain developments under a streamlined process if they fail to build, not just approve, but build enough housing to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers.
“Complex interactions with many other bills lead cities again to be subject to the ‘Builders Remedy’ in 2025 for Southern California and 2027 in Northern California.”
The RHNA numbers—which are set every eight years—“laid out impossible goals this cycle,” argued Jovita Mendoza, Brentwood City Councilmember. “Virtually no cities or counties will be able to meet their RHNA numbers. Cities and counties are now set up to fail, and as a result, local governments will lose their ability to have a say about what gets built in our communities. Instead, under SB 423, that approval process will be turned over to developers permanently.”
The group also argued that while coastal zones have been protected from profit-driven overdevelopment since the passage of the California Coastal Act of 1976, “This new proposed legislation would virtually undo decades of work to protect California’s coastlines.”
“Now local oversight, those who are the stewards of the coastal zone, is removed. Instead, those decisions are handed over to developers and their allies in Sacramento. We all know we need affordable housing in every part of California, but this bill drastically reduces the required affordable units,” said Redondo Beach City Councilmember Nils Nehrenheim.
Our Neighborhood Voices fully supports unrestricted NIMBYISM.
It’s not just “Our Neighborhood Voices” which is opposed to AB 423. It’s also the League of California Cities. It’s unfortunate that the Davis city council has apparently not joined with other cities regarding this effort:
https://www.calcities.org/news/post/2023/03/22/anti-local-housing-bill-heads-to-senate-governance-and-financehttps://www.calcities.org/news/post/2023/03/22/anti-local-housing-bill-heads-to-senate-governance-and-finance
In regard to Our Neighborhood Voices, they have initiated a petition which I believe essentially returns control back to cities. You can find it on their website. It generally takes actual suffering for people to finally react, in mass. (That’s how Proposition 13 came into being.)
https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/
What I fear is that the negative impacts of the state’s mandates will not be experienced prior to their permanent enactment. (Though maybe that’s part of what it will take for residents to become fed-up enough to get a proposition on the ballot.)
The biggest headwind that the state faces is the housing/economic/population downturn, which (in turn) will limit their negative impact at this time. Unfortunately, it will also limit the resulting opposition.
The League of Cities is leading the fight for NIMBYISM because its interests are mostly about protecting the latitude of city councils and city managers. The fact is that ONV wants to perpetuate segregation for its privileged members.
SB 423 does not eliminate local democracy–it just holds it accountable. Cities can’t simply delay indefinitely. Cities must plan to accommodate statewide housing needs. The Coastal Commission would still maintain control over development decisions–cities are not champions of protecting coastal zones. (In fact, why isn’t ONV railing against the Coastal Commission which is the state agency that supersedes local decisions more than any other?) ONV is upset because SB 423 eliminates the option of saying “no” by simply refusing to answer.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB423
And remember it has already been established that people are leaving California primarily due to high housing costs which is caused by an undersupply of housing.
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/02/commentary-housing-costs-are-driving-californias-population-loss/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/housing-affordability-helps-explain-why-people-move-from-california-to-florida-and-texas
https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-population-shifts-may-lead-to-new-income-divides/
Your YIMBY friends have sued about a dozen Bay Area cities so far – including places like Daly City, Martinez, and Pinole. Are all of these places “segregationists”? (I haven’t even looked into who they’re suing statewide.)
https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/yimbys-bombard-bay-area-cities-with-lawsuits-for-flouting-state-rules/
The state auditor found that the state’s claims regarding those “needs” are not supported. (And for that matter, have not been updated in regard to the exodus from the state, migration within the state, and the impacts of telecommuting).
If those “needs” (mandates) were actually based upon reality, the state would reduce the RHNA requirements for cities/counties which have been losing population.
That conclusion sounds like a “guess”.
How do you know whether or not ONV supports the Coastal Commission? Seems to me that this is the type of organization that they likely would support.
High housing prices are caused by pursuing economic development in locales where the residents didn’t even “ask” for it in the first place.
But let me ask you a question: Do you believe that housing prices should be the same in all locales? And, do you believe that’s possible in a capitalistic system?
For that matter, are you aware that housing prices vary within cities, as well (e.g., different neighborhoods)?
As a follow-up to this, wouldn’t the exodus from expensive areas like San Francisco reduce housing prices, there? There’s direct evidence that it does.
Wouldn’t this cause you to be a “supporter” of the exodus?
And on a related note, why are you a “champion” of maintaining “high” housing prices in Davis, in regard to your claims regarding the school system?
Are you actually concerned about “high” housing prices at all?
Because to me, your views are more aligned with the Chamber of Commerce (regarding the Ponzi scheme of continuous growth and development), rather than “affordable” housing. Or for that matter, any claimed concerns regarding segregation.
More evidence of this can be found in your support of developments such as DISC, which would have created a “housing shortage”. (It’s not the slow-growthers who were attempting to create that shortage.)
And if you actually were concerned about “segregation”, where was your concern regarding the Davis-connected buyer’s program at WDAAC?
Your claimed views do not align with your advocacy.
That statement is breathtakingly Orwellian.
Five comment rule is in effect for this article.
It certainly sounds like most of the push back to SB423 is from “the usual suspects”, i.e., cities that have higher overall income demographics, higher rates of home ownership and just plain don’t give a damn if someone can’t afford to live there. So they hide behind environment (all the sudden they are environmentalists) or hide behind water supply limitations (outlaw green lawns in rich areas and there will be plenty of water), or cite traffic problems (their own vehicles don’t count of course and “we are here first”) etc., well, you see the pattern. I’ve voted yes on the last three Measure J proposals, even when I wasn’t happy with all aspects of them. I’m tired of the emotional and knee jerk negative reaction of those, particularly on the fringe of town next to proposed new development. I would love to see these locales get crushed and I’m starting to feel that way about Davis. I can’t believe I’m saying it, but yeah, we need to be stomped on for being so intransigent and narrow.
Really? You think that the League of California Cities consist of the “usual suspects”? And you think that the cities that are getting sued by the paid YIMBYs (such as Pinole, Martinez, and Daly City) are the usual suspects?
Congratulations – you voted for a housing shortage, in the form of DISC.
Honestly, it seems that some don’t even read what’s noted on here before spouting-off with complete and total nonsense.
And yet, you’re the one who previously-described the upcoming 100% Housing DISC proposal as “leap-frog development”.
As already noted, I actually agree with you on this, but for reasons totally-opposite to yours. It sometimes takes getting “stomped-on” for folks to react.
Unfortunately, the housing, economic, and population downturn will probably derail the state’s mandates on their own (and more importantly – the resulting reaction from the populace). It may be years (if ever) before the populace realize what’s been done to them. Then again, I’m not sure that the population will ever really start growing again – despite the best efforts of business interests.
Yes, Ron. Look at the demographics of the cities objecting. Oh, facts. Yes, those inconvenient things.
Dave: I don’t find Pinole, Matinez, Daly City, or Elk Grove to have demographics that would lead one to describe them as the “usual suspects”. It’s not just Huntington Beach which is under attack by the YIMBYs and the state. (It appears that the active pushback from Huntington Beach is based more upon political views, than wealth.)
What do you suppose the demographics are of the YIMBYs, and more importantly – the demographics of those who support them (financially)?
Some of the truly wealthy places are getting a “pass” on housing mandates. For example:
https://gvwire.com/2023/02/26/why-oprahs-california-neighborhood-isnt-sweating-affordable-housing/
But from my perspective, I’m happy to see any city (wealthy, or not, Republican or Democrat) fight back against the mandates. It probably is true that the folks in middle/upper-income areas generally feel that they have more at stake, and put more effort into it.
I agree wholeheartedly.