California Today: A Divisive Housing Bill Is Defeated in Sacramento

This bill, while noble in intention, would have had a slew of unintended consequences if enacted in current form. First of all, the threshold for 'frequent' transit service was a joke - 15 minute peak frequency is insanely infrequent - people will end up driving to reach their jobs, that by the way, are located nowhere near effective mass transit, with scads of free and plentiful parking such as you see in Silicon Valley. If anything, and this is also absurdly extreme, the state should financially penalize these jurisdictions that continue to add thousands of new jobs (no one complains about that, really) without adding sufficient housing, or provide financial incentives for those cities that rezone near true high-frequency mass transit to support high density housing AND jobs.

We need a comprehensive urban planning solution to California's housing challenge, one that is fair to all current stake holders. But overturning longstanding zoning laws by fiat from Sacramento would unfairly pull the rug out from under single-family homeowners who worked hard and chose their neighborhoods and way of life fair and square. Mr. Wiener's appeal to "hard choices" sounds uncomfortably like the Jacobin who could rationalize any heavy-handed act of the state in order to achieve his vision of planned paradise.

I very much admire Scott for his intelligence, honesty, and pragmatism. I didn't expect the bill to pass for the same reason we have a housing shortage: Middle class and wealthy suburbs' howling at the idea of adding denser development anywhere within their borders. The bill, I think, targeted suburban areas like Berkeley, Marin County, Palo Alto, Atherton, and other communities (usually richer and whiter) who can't even meet their regional housing needs allotment goals. They don't seem to understand that adding appropriately scaled housing and mixed-use projects would revitalize their downtown areas and improve transit service. Are they dedicated to more sprawl and longer car commutes? These are the same people complaining about traffic congestion. Don't they want to be able to move to a nice town home or condo in a walkable area of their community when they retire and the "big house" becomes a burden, or driving everywhere becomes difficult? How about housing for their kids' teachers so they won't need to drive an hour or more to work? Scott's bill got everyone's attention and called out these NIMBY towns and told them that if they don't do their part absorbing the population growth, the State will step in. I hope he comes up with a passable version or SB-827 because we really need it.

This housing bill being defeated is liberal hypocrisy in action. Californian liberals support the current immigration policy that allows 1 million+ people a year into the US legally. On top of that, they are against deporting illegal immigrants. I guess they’re fine with immigration so long as those immigrants aren’t going be living in their neighborhoods. And now it seems they don’t care whether these immigrants will have a place to live.

We really need to do something about foreign money in the housing market here in California. My neighborhood is seeing spikes in prices because of a lot of Chinese investors--to name but one country. They come through in buses to look at real estate and then purchase with cash. When 1500 square foot houses, built in the early 60s, are averaging $1.2 million in sales price, something is amiss. British Columbia managed to do something to stop this, it's time we did too.

I read a little more detail about the plan--it seems to be 20% or so has to be set aside for low income and very low income residents (about half each). I guess I wonder--where do the teachers and nurses and firefighters live? I assume they are not going to be low income / very low income--and market rates (the rest of the apartments) might be too expensive. So if I'm rememvbering accurately, it seems like this is a continuation of dividing the state into the very well off, and the poor, and the quickly vanishing middle class can fend for itself (or move to Texas).

I’m very much in favor of immigration. But to not even deport criminals who break into and steal from peoples homes? Are you kidding me??

I have a BS degree in Electronic Engineering from Cal Poly (class of 1972) I also have a JD in Law (class of 1989). Frankly getting my law degree was a lot easier than my engineering degree. Cal Poly has been in the top tier of engineering schools in the nation for almost 50 years. The course are very challenging and require high achievement in high school in order to be successful. Because our elementary and high schools have failed to provide the necessary quality of education to minorities, they lack the grades and skills to make it at Cal Poly. Even in my time there, fraternities and sororities were housed off campus. What adult students do off campus is not the responsibility of fault of a college.

I cross the San Francisco Bay to Silicon Valley every week to see my mother in law. The trip is a nightmare. I negotiate stop-and-go freeway traffic for two hours to arrive in an area covered, in large part, in one-story buildings. El Camino Real, the main north-south surface street, features closed restaurants, gas stations, shuttered restaurants, and even a couple of quonset huts left over from god knows when. There's no reason in the world why they can't be housed in new buildings with commerce on the first floor and apartments / condos above. But the solution being proposed is yet another bridge across the bay, to funnel still more zombified commuters into this human ant farm. California can either move housing into these areas or move the jobs out. The alternative is permanent gridlock, rancid air, and miserable citizens.

It should be defeated, and thank's jove. The man ran on many lies against his opponent, chief among them that he would take care of Public Transit in the city, by by MUNI, the San Francisco public transit, is more strained for cash and nothing in it is improving. Housing? Scott Wiener is an absolute lackey for the powerful construction force that has turned San Francisco into a cow that is milked to death, building every corner for cash disregarding the engorgement of the city and the threat of earthquakes.

Re the Cal Poly SLO issue. This fraternity should clearly be suspended and their students disciplined or at the very least be forced to attend some training. Now, regarding the response. I too would be upset and would particpate in some manner of protesting. I myself was a student of color in a majority white school. However, I don't believe that campuses are a place where one should feel "safe". The world is not a safe place. Insulating students in echo chambers does nothing to prepare them for life after university. Our campuses should absolutely do everything in their power to ensure students feel welcome and that the environment is conducive to learning and growing. Part of learning and growing is being challenged, engaging in discussions with those you disagree with and sometimes being hurt. The world is an offensive place. This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it better, but demanding that your university be "safe" is tantamount to requesting that your training wheels never come off. Aside from protesting and exclaiming that the University isn't making them feel safe, what do the protesting students propose as a solution? If solutions aren't being proposed and discussed then there's no point in protesting.

Scott Wiener, along with his boneheaded legislative efforts, can't go away soon enough. Wiener's legislation to DECRIMINALIZE deliberately infecting someone with AIDS was nothing more than PC Madness. If DELIBERATELY infecting a sex partner with HIV isn't sexual assault, nothing is.

There is absolutely no question that housing must be built in the cities where all necessary infrastructure already exists. Consuming open space in the hinterlands is no longer viable and not a sustainable strategy. The subject also screams for addressing the issue of human population growth. It must end, period. Our species cannot be a cancer on the planet. We must look at the big picture if we are to survive.

I'm disappointed in the title of this piece because it makes it sound like there are good arguments against it. This is a good piece of legislation. It will address the housing crisis in an economically efficient way, and it will benefit people across all income brackets. There are many reasons for the housing crisis, but the most infuriating is the artificial lack of supply. Homeowners don't support legislation for more housing because doing so would limit the growth of their home values while blocking the pretty views from their houses. Politicians who support this NIMBYism do so under the false pretense of focusing on low-income housing (when the number of new low-income units they want to build far trails new jobs in regions like San Francisco, and adding these units won't address the influx of new tech workers' housing needs). Building housing near transit centers minimizes commute time, simplifies peoples' lives, conserves energy, and prioritizes development in an economically sensible way. Most importantly, it lowers the cost of housing for everyone. This bill wouldn't be divisive if there weren't selfish people involved.

This is another example of "trickle down" government from Sacramento. Why do we have a housing problem? The economy is doing great and population is continuing to grow, but income is unevenly distributed and land and other resources are finite. The Legislature sits in their ivory tower in Sacramento seemingly listening mostly to the lobbyists. We're told that the problem is "NIMBYISM," but no one I know objects to having truly affordable housing projects built. We do object to expensive housing being built as "affordable" and the state overriding years of local planning efforts and negatively impacting our existing neighborhoods. When the census is completed, we will likely have 35 million or more people living here. Most want to live near the coastal areas where the job opportunities, life style, and climate are best. It is also where there is limited developable land and developers largely build high-end housing to maximize their profit margins. Sacramento's answer is legislate "affordable housing" laws that appear to be written by the Building Industry Association and other real estate-related entities. These laws override local zoning and planning, but allow the builders to profit by providing more density but not housing that meets the needs of the low and middle income citizens.

As a Millennial who fears that he will be priced out of his home state, I applaud Sen. Wiener on his bold efforts to address the housing crisis. Too many cities in California have proved unwilling to permit the kind of mixed-use, higher-density growth that could support our expanding population. Too many California homeowners have abetted such restrictions so that they could watch their home values skyrocket, charge higher rents, or attempt to arrest the changes that are inevitably occurring in this state. Their efforts have resulted in the highest rate of poverty in America, some of the nation's longest commutes, and the displacement of our own middle class. This bill may have failed, but unless California cities—especially wealthy enclaves like those on the Peninsula—stop obstructing natural growth, state control over housing policy will increasingly win over more voters.

Re Cal Poly SLO student body: article neglects to mention it is by far the most selective of the Cal State campuses, with an average admit GPA of 4.0 and SAT 2 part scores near 1400. And, since CA state admissions are an enormous exercise in crowd control, admissions rely very heavily on GPA and standardized tests, which tends to hurt the chances of underrepresented minorities (and clearly, judging from this fraternity, does not exactly yield the cream of the crop!) Balancing the ethnic composition requires reopening the "meritocracy" versus "affirmative action" debate.

Scott Weiner would do well to remember that all politics is local. Stripping local control is not a good long term strategy; citizens get upset.

Few are able to see the trap we have set for ourselves. We grew rapidly and developed willy-nilly (individual liberty!); now we'd like to do it over, or at least fix the glaring problems that have resulted from overdevelopment. But we are hemmed in on all sides by the hopelessly inefficient system that the "efficient" invisible hand has wrought. Those who lived in the Santa Clara Valley during the second half of the last century will recall how difficult was the construction of Highway 85. Even WITH planning that commenced in the 1950s, the road wasn't completed until near the end of the century. It has helped alleviate traffic congestion, but rush hour drivers can tell you the problem isn't solved. I wish Californians all the luck in the world as they grapple with the problems brought on by the bounty and the beauty of their state.