Susan Shelley: Yes to more housing, no to social engineering

Once again, Sacramento is trying to force high-density living down the throats of people who have worked their whole lives to own a single-family home in a low-density neighborhood.

You may remember that in 2021, Sen. Toni Atkins, now a candidate for governor, abolished single-family zoning throughout California with her Senate Bill 9, which required cities to approve lot splits that turned one single-family home into four residences on the same parcel of land.

This week, the Senate Housing Committee considered SB 677, a bill from Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) that would make changes to SB 9. In a statement, Wiener said that although the law sought to “functionally end single family zoning,” it has “at times proved difficult to utilize effectively, and as a result, too few applications have been submitted.”

It could be that very few homeowners want to have four homes in the space previously occupied by one, especially if they have to live there themselves. SB 9 required owner occupancy for three years after the lot split.

Wiener’s bill would remove the owner-occupancy requirement. That would allow investors to buy up single-family homes and quadruple the density on block after block, street after street, city after city.

However, SB 677 was defeated in the Housing Committee by one vote, including the vote of the chair, Sen. Aisha Wahab. She also voted no on a second Wiener-authored housing bill that was heard in her committee, Senate Bill 79. That one, however, was nudged across the finish line by one vote, despite the chair’s opposition.

SB 79 would fully abolish single-family zoning within one-half mile of transit, defined as including an ordinary bus stop if it has frequent service during rush hours.

Every single-family home within one-half mile of transit could potentially become a high-rise apartment building, with extra height if it’s within one-quarter mile of transit. Developers are not required to include any affordable housing in these projects, but if they do, they can get additional “incentives or concessions” that include more height and density.

If you own a home within a half-mile radius of a transit stop, these developments will rob you of what you bought with your savings and your earnings. Your house could soon be surrounded by high-rise buildings. You’ll feel the impact in noise, traffic, parking, and likely on your property tax bill when the city needs money for new infrastructure and the renters who don’t pay those taxes outvote the property owners who do.

These so-called transit-oriented developments, or TOD, are said to be “part of California’s overall strategy to combat climate change.” According to the Housing Committee’s analysis of SB 79, the Legislature began the process of “encouraging” TOD in 2008 with the passage of Senate Bill 375, which is “aimed at reducing the amount that people drive.” The idea is to reduce greenhouse gases in California “by requiring the coordination of transportation, housing and land use planning.”

All of California generates just 1% of global greenhouse gases, so SB 375 has absolutely no effect on the global climate, but it is destroying the dreams of young families who want to own a home. It’s virtually illegal in California to build single-family homes in new communities outside the “urban boundary,” an imaginary line invented by climate zealots to prevent new suburbs from being built up. It’s urban density or nothing. Housing approvals hinge on a bureaucrat’s calculation of the “vehicle miles traveled,” or VMT, from residents commuting to work. Suburbs are prohibited and urban apartments are mandatory.

This is arrogant social engineering. The committee analysis of SB 79 cites a study imperiously titled “Income, Location, Efficiency and VMT: Affordable Housing as a Climate Strategy.” It found that “lower-income families living near transit were likely to drive less than their wealthier neighbors.” Limiting lower-income families to living in urban apartments is a “climate strategy.”

Those same people might want to own a single-family home, and they could more easily afford one if homes were built where land is less expensive. But in California, families are not allowed that option. Instead, they can put their name on a waiting list for the few affordable units that developers set aside in their market-rate buildings. Or they can move to another state.

For all the talk about affordable housing, SB 79 doesn’t require developers to build any of it. They can build market-rate housing in five- to nine-story buildings, depending on the distance to a transit stop. Guess how many residents will spend their evenings circling the block to find parking. Transit-oriented development means never having to provide parking spaces.

SB 79 also contains provisions that enable transit agencies to develop land the agencies own. But the bill doesn’t require them to build affordable housing, or any housing. Transit agencies could develop entirely commercial projects to “generate revenue.” They need more revenue because there are not enough passengers. So in addition to trying force more ridership through housing policy, Sen. Wiener has introduced SB 63 to fund Bay Area transit with a sales tax increase.

This is so twisted. Housing decisions are tied to transit locations. Transit decisions are tied to developer interests. Both should instead be tied to consumer demand: where do people want to live and where do they want to go? By the way, there would be more of those places if the government did its real job of protecting public safety.

Central planning never produces prosperity because government is not innovation, it’s force. When government officials seek to impose central planning in a free country, they can only do it by inventing some kind of universal guilt to justify the use of force against everyone. “Greenhouse gas emissions” serve the purpose. Force is exerted through absurd regulations. Money is collected by selling permission to do what the government has needlessly forbidden.

California voters have the power to change course. We could unleash housing construction as if World War II just ended. It starts with repealing SB 375.

Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on X @Susan_Shelley