Thoughts on SB 827, 828? - NIMBYs vs YIMBYs

1

There is legistation pending to force all cities in CA with subway/train stops and express bus stops to allow buildings up to four to ten stories high.

Has anyone been following this? Guesses on if it will pass? Powerful Wall St. money and developers are behind this bill, which is being fought by cities and towns.

Results could turn much of coastal CA into one giant city. And increase the supply of units to unimaginable proportions, not to mention traffic, demand on existing infrastructure, etc.

Would love to hear thoughts on this.

1 Like
2

There’s a thread on it. Cities need to get stop being idiots. They can’t allow construction of office space for 8 jobs per every 1 home. The math simply doesn’t work.

2 Likes
3

Thanks… can you point me to the thread?

I think this is a very complex issue with lots of implications. What you say makes sense. However, we also need infrastructure (roads, highways, schools, police, libraries, hospitals, etc) to support this plan of turning parts of CA into multiple mini-Hong Kongs. Will this also be paid for when those buildings get built?

I would love more input on this, pro and con. Also speculation on whether these laws will pass or not.

4

Not happening in Redwood City from what I hear. And the apartments that are being built have no green space or relaxation space. Someone called them “future tenement housing.” :frowning:

5

I think the chance of the bull passing is not much greater than zero. It stepped on too many toes. I’d love to see it pass though.

6

How would it impact San Francisco home and condo prices if it does pass?

7

Where more housing density is permitted, land values would be increased as long as demand is high.

It makes a lot of sense to build more housing at transit points where the jobs are. What the bill is proposing is a far cry from what larger cities already have (8-story buildings by Bart stations, 45’ wide streets). With more residents, property tax revenues would go up. Right now the burden is disproportionately placed on the recent buyers of expensive houses. For instance, I read that Palo Alto has the lowest effective property tax rate in the state, thanks to prop 13 and limiting construction in combination to the booming economy of Silicon Valley. City officials dont like SB 827 because it takes away some of the control they have over land use in their individual “kingdoms.”

3 Likes
8

A modest house in PA has $40k per year in property tax bills…I would say they are paying way more than their share…

1 Like
9

Well, we only have two (or being generous, a few) major highways in the South Bay, 280 and 101, ditto East Bay, one in the North Bay, um… zero SF? So, add thousands or tens of thousands of units up and down the coast? I call it creating a “pig in a python”.

The sudden surge in demand for schools, water, highways, etc, will not be covered by these developers’ fees, or renters, leaving cities to foot bills, and drivers mired in even worse traffic. And who knows what will happen to the money they get. Probably pay off pension debts!

And, oh, more mass transit? Fact is, mass transit usage is going down in every major city except Seattle, people need cars, not enough mass transit to get to where one needs to go, all to often out here in CA.

We are not like the East Coast or Europe in this regard. CA is not one major transit corridor where people can get to where they need to go without cars. Unless we do what Seattle does - which is create a transit grid that covers the entire area evenly and not just outer spokes which feed into downtown, we will be choking in cars and pollution. That would cost billions upon billions which are not going to be spent. Bus routes are being cut, not added.

Without resources. I call this a bad deal, and people will flee. I know i would. And i don’t think you can add water. We’re in a major drought again and highways take years to build and… schools and … teachers and … hospitals and so it goes.

This is why local governments, shady as they can be sometimes, at least should do what is best for their area.

But yes, if you own a lot, or a house, near one of these transit stops, you’ll probably be able to sell for more. How much will depend on a lot of factors. Others nearby, I have questions whether this is a bad thing or a good thing, moral issues aside re providing housing. The Sierra Club is against it so even moral moral issues are debatable.

1 Like
10

The premise is those people are already working in those bay area counties and commuting from much further away. If they live much closer to work, then there’d be less traffic not more. The bay area builds office space for 8 workers per every 1 home built. That means people are commuting from further and further out.

I wouldn’t worry too much about people in multi-family high raises having lots of kids and straining schools.

11

What you say might make sense if what you say were true. But we don’t know who will move into those apartments. We just built some around here, full of kids! And more kids! OMG!

Also, this allows ten story bldgs. at transit stops up and down the coast. At every major bus stop.

That’s an unthinkable amount of supply relative to our cities’ abilities to support this kind of population.

Are you assuming everyone will live there is a 20-something or worker bee? Maybe we’ll get retirees, people who just like the coast and don’t work, or work at home, so all day traffic, etc, etc… plus worker bees.

What if three or four roomies crowd in a two bedroom? Families move in with two or even three cars? Carmageddon. Water shortages. Pollution. Ugh!

Not to say i find the current rents and prices acceptable, they are shocking. But i don’t think ignoring the infrastructure realities makes sense, to me, it’s pie in the sky stupid. Just my two cents to a heartbreaking problem.

We need solutions, but let’s not make CA unlivable for everyone. It’s already pretty crowded. We have some of the worst traffic in the nation and very poor transit. Building more buildings isn’t going to make a dent. Only make things worse.

12

Palo Alto paid the lowest effective property-tax rate of any city in the state at 0.42 percent, less than half of the one percent caps introduced by Prop. 13.Dec 1, 2016

The homeowner paying $40K for a modest home in Palo Alto is not a typical one, however. If you take all of the actual prop tax revenues paid by current owners (not current buyers) and apply the effective prop-tax rate of PA it would be closer to:

$2.2 million*.0042 =$9240 as the property tax on the median property.

Obviously, the bulk of the property taxes are being paid by the recent buyers. This gap just widens over time with prop 13. It has become a vicious cycle where fewer properties are put on the market as corporate growth increases demand and prices. So as to the question of where the funds are going to come from-- lies in the efficient building of housing by transit and sales to new owners who will maximize the use of the land. It also gives desirable access to public transit so more people can actually use it! It makes a lot of sense to those concerned about traffic and pollution.

It is not in favor by NIMBY towns, but I think that it has more support in Oakland and San Jose. It is also being amended based on ongoing discussions.

*Edit: linked wrong article. This one points out “Five of the top 10 cities with the highest effective tax rates are in the Inland Empire.” Inland Empire (exurbs of traffic-congested Los Angeles) is in favor of SB827.

1 Like
13

No one on this forum owns a house in PA. PA can do whatever it wants and won’t affect any of us.

The assertion of this article you linked is deeply disturbing.
This is total bullshit. The state has no right to demand this shortfall from us that have owned property here for the last fifty years.
In fact I believe that property tax is an affront to 4th amendment rights. Essentially confiscation of property that is intentionally overvalued by government caused inflation. I feel the same about cap gains taxes.
Mexico has almost no property tax. Many countries do not tie property tax to schools.
Income, sales taxes, excise taxes, gas taxes are much more fair.

Why should some retired person like me me pay high property tax which is mainly school taxes that benefit newcomers. That is why they should pay a higher rate.

“California homeowners skirted more than $12.5 billion in property taxes last year due to Prop. 13, however those benefits aren’t being evenly distributed across the state.” Bullshit

1 Like
14

PA affects all of us. Many companies are based in PA. By refusing to build housing PA just forces people to live elsewhere and commute to PA for work. So more traffic for everyone.

Towns should be forced to build one unit of housing for every job they create. No housing? Sure. No office and retail buildings for you either. Fair is fair. After all, office buildings generate much more traffic than apartments.

1 Like
15

Politics isn’t about fairness. It’s about money.
People in PA don’t want houses or jobs. They want to take the city back to the 50s when it was a backwater known as the Farm.

16

Right. That’s why I have little sympathy to the “more traffic” complaint. Nothing generates more traffic than big ass office buildings. You want to live a quiet traffic free life? Sure. No jobs for your town and no tax dollars either.

17

BTW, people in South Lake Tahoe don’t want growth either. Nimbyies are everywhere. Nobody likes change. And nobody wants the state government telling locals what to do. That is why prices keep rising. Everyone becomes a nimby and Prop 13 supporter when they buy a house.
Btw Tahoe has the TRPA that only allows 80 houses to built in the basin (50k total population) every year, I bet even fewer houses are built in PA… Housing up here will have to be built in the Carson Valley. That is why I have been buying here for years . Nimbyies can make you rich if you understand the rules.

18

So I should have the right to live in PA because of what again?

Oh - Government forcing people who live there to accommodate companies that created jobs in nearby towns.

People always want the government to solve their problems. I think this makes sense when it comes to some level of mass transit, or basic health… but now we are pitting one group against another, homeowners vs renters. Why is it fair to override local zoning? We should be able to preserve the integrity, history, and beauty of our towns. That’s part of why people want to live here, too.

Maybe an equally unfair law would be for companies who don’t provide housing to move out of CA?

Let the market sort it out. Leave the government out, they are as corrupt as any company. YIMBYs are bought and paid for by developers, common knowledge, they tell the kids, you “deserve” cheaper rent, which, by the way, is not a given, and will destroy coastal CA in so many ways.

If you look: Every major city in the world is expensive. We are probably not even in the top ten.

Anyway… to be civil… my question is: do you think this will pass? Jerry Brown has said, Not in it’s current form.

19

I linked the wrong article and replaced it. This article points out “Five of the top 10 cities with the highest effective tax rates are in the Inland Empire.” Inland Empire (exurbs of traffic-congested Los Angeles) is in favor of SB827.

That one was focussed on the unfair effects prop 13. Combined with what is happening in SV, it contributes to growth resistance.

1 Like
20

Even if these zoning laws past not much will happen. They already passed a bill to make ADUs easier to build. Said it would create 150k units in the BA
So far 25 units have been applied for in SF

2 Likes