You must log in or register to comment.

atreyal t1_j9qrboc wrote

> For the first time, a housing project of any height, any density, with any lot coverage and any or no parking, can be constructed in the vast majority of the Bay Area. As long as developments are 20% low-income or 100% middle-income and are environmentally sound, they can be certified by local planning departments with a swift, administrative approval.

That does sound like decent news?? Wonder what qualifies as low income in Cali though.


amitym t1_j9ro0xf wrote

>Wonder what qualifies as low income in Cali though.

It doesn't really matter. The Bay Area needs housing units en masse. After 300,000 new units have been built, we can assess whether there needs to be more targeted construction, but up until now a hyperfocus on whether the 20 new units of X project will be "low-income enough" has missed the point that 20 new units doesn't mean diddly squat, at any income level. It's the massive crushing scarcity of the entire market that's squeezing everyone.

Gatekeeping NIMBY crusaders have until now successfully derailed the conversation into the ditch of nitpicking over insignificant disputes. The real goal was to avoid large-scale changes in the housing market entirely. Fortunately it seems they have finally been thrown back.


Eswyft t1_j9tnli2 wrote

Vancouver has the same issue. They tried to go a large scale rezoning plan and there was a large push from rich residents to have it zoned like "Paris".

Paris, the thousand year old city with no real dt core and unlimited land with no geographical barriers.

Vancouver, a dt core where most business is that is a literal island and The broader area that has oceans or mountains on all 4 sides meaning it is very land restricted and there is an area that isn't even central, downtown, that is highly sought after . We've everyone river crossing requires a 15bn bridge because the rivers and ocean there are huge, unlike the over passes they have in Paris

Nimbys are cancer they got theirs, you can rot.

This from someone that lives in Paris and lives in the affected area and actually owns where that development was for, in other words I'm fine with you knocking down my neighborhood of low rises if it means fellow Canadians can actually own a home.

What nimbys have done is delay and deflect, first claiming it was foreign ownership, then landlords.

If there wasn't such scarcity, people wouldn't buy them to rent them out for profit but we're constantly at .2 percent vacancy.

Foreign ownership is taxed heavily and the money is put to affordable housing, their market share is tiny.

Also, even if you believe the first two points BUILD MORE AND FIND OUT, cuz the status quo of doing nothing isn't helping


atreyal t1_j9u7lkp wrote

Yeah the prices are so high because there is not enough supply. People bitch about the price of housing there. The people who all own don't want more houses though because it will tank the price of their own. Vicious cycle. Still change moves in small steps and hopefully this is the beginning. Dead right on there needing to be a lot of new houses built to have any real affect on price.


mtcwby t1_j9v82j0 wrote

Do you actually know how much it is to build a house? I think you're in for a bit of a shock and realize it's not all zoning.


atreyal t1_j9vq0im wrote

Considering I own one yeah. I also don't live in Cali anymore. You know you point isn't mute or anything but you could phrase it better to come off a little less condescending. Don't phrase your points in a question you are then gonna answer with no input back.


mtcwby t1_j9vtrst wrote

One of the big issues with our costs related to California housing versus other places is our code is rightly tougher seismic code and a lot of other code that isn't as necessary but adds on a lot of cost. The other part is the cost of permits, hookups and other fees. About 200k per house in my part of the Bay Area. That gets marked up. Single family house cost is over 800K now. They're not going to get cheaper.


atreyal t1_j9wrce7 wrote

That is insane cost wise, I dont see how a lot of people afford anything.


mtcwby t1_j9wsdlg wrote

It's worse than that with the current interest rates for mortgages and construction loans. The developers can't charge less than cost and their cost has gone up yet a huge portion of the population can't afford it either. So not much gets built because developer is also analyzing who is going to buy from them. Short of rates going down which I don't think will happen, only the state can step in and possibly take over some of the government associated cost. I don't think they will do it however.


atreyal t1_j9x61aq wrote

Yeah I think we are at a tipping point. Something has to give.


MS_125 t1_j9uebqh wrote

If they build enough, the prices will come down and the income requirements will become less significant.


atreyal t1_j9r0z9b wrote

Interesting. 80% for family of 4 is still a ways above 100k. Kind of sad. Thanks for that though.


mtcwby t1_j9r8xwv wrote

And they're not going to be built by developers due to cost and lack of margin for those groups. You can zone all you want but it the numbers don't work it won't be done privately without a subsidy.


atreyal t1_j9u7t4f wrote

Maybe, nothing really ever happens quickly and this sounds like a step to actually getting stuff rolling. If nothing happens they may look to subsidies for builders or not. Could all be a pipe dream.


mtcwby t1_j9ughmf wrote

The problem with subsidies is they encourage a lot of political wheeling and dealing and generally high build costs as people milk it.

I'd like to see them decouple the low income housing fees from new construction because I think ironically they drive prices up and create more of a need for low income housing. It's not that it's not funded but don't collect from new construction and do something out of the general fund instead. Local government's role in the increase in housing prices is not really mentioned but with hookups and the like it can easily top 200k. That gets marked up too by the developer because they're putting the initial cash out there. Ameliorate that some and we might get out of this vicious cycle we're currently in with high rates and high costs making it difficult to build. More so than zoning in many ways.


molotov_cockteaze t1_j9skchs wrote

$120k in SF. Someone please just kill me.


MasticatingElephant t1_j9tudcb wrote

Holy schnitzels I thought San Diego was bad. I knew Bay Area would be worse but San Francisco’s median is almost DOUBLE San Diego’s.


atreyal t1_j9u73mc wrote

I don't see how anyone could live in SF on 120k single even


thewhizzle t1_j9uhnb5 wrote

Roommates. Don't own a car. Be reasonable about your expenses.


atreyal t1_j9ut2dz wrote

Sounds like the American dream. Crowd fund basic living expenses. I'll pass.


molotov_cockteaze t1_j9vp1c3 wrote

It can be done but it’s not going to be like living on $120k in Omaha. Still probably better than living in Omaha tho.


atreyal t1_j9vq7e8 wrote

Probably. Pluses and minuses to each area. Depends what is important to you.


Tobias_Atwood t1_j9ynfb8 wrote

Omaha pluses: all the genetically modified corn you can eat.

Omaha minuses: you're in Omaha.


MasticatingElephant t1_ja4jagt wrote

I dunno. I’ve lived in CA my whole life, but have tried to move away a few times. I think if it wasn’t for the ocean, I could probably live in a lot of places.


ginger_guy t1_j9ty1w0 wrote

The real benefit of new housing in markets with high demand is that it keeps rich people from pricing middle class people out of their homes and middle class people from pricing working class and poor people out of their homes. Basically, it stops 'the great filtering' effect. So as silly as it seems, even 200 new luxury apartments can help keep low income residents from being displaced.


atreyal t1_j9u78m8 wrote

Hopefully it is a boon and not another way for rich people to take advantage of something. Really needs to be large scale to have any effect on housing prices though.


ginger_guy t1_j9uec7w wrote

I'm actually really glad they included the 20% low income requirement. The poverty rate in California is 12% so a 20% requirement (I know, its AMI, but still) is a great way to make sure lots of construction will happen without the negative side effect of hyper concentration of wealth.


mtcwby t1_j9r9g1o wrote

The cities in the Tri-valley have their plans in and there's some onus on the authority for them to be reviewed and give the feedback which apparently hasn't been done. Dublin would be the one that would surprise me if they had a problem. They're one of the fastest growing cities in California and have built a lot of housing in the past ten years. I can't say I love what Dublin has become but they've done the building.


Job_Stealer t1_j9sqvfz wrote

Dublin really pissed off their neighbors in doing so (looking at you, Livermore) because all the cities surrounding it wanted to stay small.


mtcwby t1_j9ssoxf wrote

I don't think what they did is particularly attractive or inviting but they certainly executed high density housing. The Livermore problem was mostly about trying to expand even farther east and then bitching about the airport where they built houses under the flight pattern.


Job_Stealer t1_j9ssxry wrote

Hohoho, you should see the communication between them and the airport land use commission...


mtcwby t1_j9starr wrote

They don't have much of a leg to stand on considering the city it's located in is pro airport and the FAA will flex too. The number of airports we have around the bay is not high and they're an important part of disaster preparedness including wildfires. Dublin can bitch all they want but it's not like that airport just snuck in while they weren't looking.


Job_Stealer t1_j9sthvt wrote

Well yeah, you don't mess with ALUPs or the airport land use commission. That's just dumb and a waste of time. Also, they take so long to respond, sometimes worse than coastal commission. OH and if your project will require a CDP and is within an ALUP area...


ElJamoquio t1_j9s7bbx wrote

When I'm a billionaire I'm putting a low-income mecca in the middle of Atherton


raiderkev t1_j9sh62x wrote

Lol, don't let your dreams be dreams... Atherton is getting some low income housing. Steph Curry's not too happy about it


calDragon345 t1_j9sqjo2 wrote

They’re scared of three story townhouses “looming” over them? What do they think they’re going to do?


raiderkev t1_j9sqwya wrote

The poors are going to be able to see them existing.


Job_Stealer t1_j9sqygh wrote

NOooOo ThEy brInG in NoN FaMly OrieNted PeoPle!! (Aka minorities and poor).

I get these comments as a planner so often it just becomes sad.

Also, for some reason, a lot of commenters will say the project itself is financially unfeasible. I bet those people wouldn't even know how to read a simple 10-year pro forma.


Job_Stealer t1_j9sstm7 wrote

This title is clickbait. Builder's Remedy just allows for the project to be considered ministerial instead of discretionary, meaning it doesn't need to go to a commission or council hearing.

It still has to go through CEQA if it meets the definition of a project. Also, it may need to go through local planning standards depending on the degree of which the housing element is out of compliance.

Don't get me wrong, still saves headaches for the developer (assuming they can pencil out a project that meets the requirements), but it isn't a playground for them.

Source: I am a CA planner currently updating a housing element.


kippypapa t1_j9se6cz wrote

Overall it sounds good but the 20% lower income requirement is a poison pill. The non-low income units will all be “luxury” priced to make up for the low rents/sales for the low-income units. When renters/buyers are paying a premium, they don’t want low income neighbors - plenty of complaints about this all over the state. Builders won’t build as a result. It won’t do much for regular people.

I’m generally not a fan of low income housing except for the seriously disabled. Keeping low wage earners’ cost of living artificially low just ends up as a subsidy for the wealthy - government pays most of their rent so employers don’t have to pay it as wages. trying to move up in income means you lose money because you lose the housing subsidy. It’s a feel good policy that provides a lot of carrots and sticks to keep people poor. This is how people who are able to move up the socioeconomic ladder don’t. This prevents low income housing from opening up for people with mental health issues and other disabilities that prevent work.


Starrion t1_j9sftjl wrote

We did that in Mass. and it got a lot of housing built. The thing is that when people hear 'low income' they are thinking Section 8. When even the low income people are couples that have 60K jobs, a lot of the stigma goes away.


EasternMotors t1_j9toz64 wrote

Government (people) could require monetary payments to benefit all instead of subsidized housing for households in the 70th+ income percentile. But all those middle class people who can't afford a house think they have a chance at winning this lottery.


Starrion t1_j9tsjk8 wrote

These units aren’t subsidized. The builder has to offer them to get them built. We really need to asses the effects of things like Airbnb on our housing supply. There isn’t enough space in many regions to increase stock without building high density developments.


EasternMotors t1_j9u4v83 wrote

They are subsidized. The difference between market rate and the rate paid is the subsidy. It doesn't matter that the government agreed to forgo some benefit ($$) instead of spending money to directly subsidize.

Fantastic if you are one of the upper middle class people getting the housing subsidy. If you aren't one of those people, you paid for the subsidy.


Starrion t1_j9udx98 wrote

Local government loses the chance to block development. There is no cash cost to the town that can be counted as a subsidy. The only net effect for the town is that people were able to buy the units cheaper or rent for cheaper than if the development wasn't built under that rule.

Putting payments to all would simply cause prices to rise further if you have more money chasing the same scarce housing stock.


EasternMotors t1_j9uk5it wrote

The cost is whatever they could have obtained instead of the subsidized units. Google "community benefits agreement" for examples.


Starrion t1_j9urpwg wrote

That would be valid IF the towns or cities were willing to negotiate towards building the development. In most cases the developments are built in spite of the towns objections, so there is no CBA asked or offered.


AftyOfTheUK t1_j9u8ctw wrote

>The non-low income units will all be “luxury” priced to make up for the low rents/sales for the low-income units.

Thats the entire point. The wealthier people will be subsidising the lower income units. That's literally the intention of the law, not a problem to be complained about.


kippypapa t1_j9utg2j wrote

It is a problem because there is no middle class housing. It means that aspiring to be middle class no longer becomes possible. These laws and similar start with the assumption that the poor will always be poor and that no change is ever possible in someone’s life, that there’s only rich and poor.

When you install policies like this, you pull rungs from the ladder. If you’re goal is to alleviate poverty, the best way of doing so is by making people’s labor more valuable. By keeping a mass of people in place, you devalue their individual labor because there’s always someone who will take the lowball wage offer. If housing were let to be dictated by the market, the poor would face a choice: upskill to make their labor more valuable or move to an area where their labor/cost of living calculation is in their favor. Over their lives, this ends up bettering them and reduces poverty. By removing incentives to do so, you keep people poor.

I’ve seen this a lot. I lived in LA and my neighbors all had some form of rent subsidy. None of the kids had an education and worked low wage jobs. Some who moved away ended up owning homes in other cities and gained wealth through appreciation hence reducing the wealth gap. Their kids all went to college because there were not enough low skill jobs where they went. In the end, the people “pushed” out had better lives and were less precarious financially than those who stayed.

We shouldn’t care about places: all this talk about displacement, erasure and gentrification. We should care about people. A feel good solution that appears to be nice to the poor ends up hurting them long term. We should incentivize people to move to locations where they are able to make financial and educational investments in themselves since self sufficieny is the best way to guard against the dangers of poverty. Many people on Reddit want government action in all aspects of life. My answer to that is we had 2 years with Trump, Republican Congress and conservative Supreme Court. The only thing preventing them from destroying safety nets was Trumps incompetence. Some day there will be a Trump who isn’t incompetent and that person will end safety nets. The people dependent on government at that time will face a harsh reality since they won’t have experience in self sufficiency.


AftyOfTheUK t1_j9vgijv wrote

>It is a problem because there is no middle class housing.

Middle Class in a city in San Francisco simply has different income requirements to other cities. All cities are different.

>These laws and similar start with the assumption that the poor will always be poor and that no change is ever possible in someone’s life

The laws have nothing to do with changing circumstances, they simply force everyone else to subsidise people who don't earn a lot of money.

>When you install policies like this, you pull rungs from the ladder.

I agree, I don't like affordable housing policies because they've fucked me over for most of my life. I've been renting, and paying out of the ass to rent, because the properties I'm renting are in the band that's subsidising affordable housing.

I'm 44 and don't own a house. A friend of mine bought an affordable unit in a neighbourhood I lived in over 15 years ago. He's got his house bought and paid for, completely paid off, yet I don't own one despite subsidizing him with both my taxes and increased rent.


kippypapa t1_j9vitgr wrote

Right, your living my exact same life almost. If I get a worse paying job and move to SF, I’d qualify for a below market rate condo or section 8 and be fine. I’ve honestly considered it but the BMR stuff in SF is a dumpster fire. I was living in LA, and as you say, paying tax and high rent so my neighbors could live cheaply.

A big draw of SF are the amenities. If you didn’t have rent control, section 8, and BMR, low income people would leave. That would mean fewer restaurants, fewer bars, clubs, cultural events, etc making it less attractive and more people would leave. Eventually, the city would find its balance between people, wages and business. The way we do it now, we create these imbalances where the rich get cheap labor, the poor get stuck and everyone else gets fucked. If we just let the free market work, we wouldn’t be in such a mess.


TV2693 t1_j9szteq wrote

Nice summation. But I have a question, in LA what is generally the cap income for receiving a rent controlled apt or house(does having dependents also factor in)? Also, let's say a six figure income earner wants to live under their means to build wealth. Could they rent in the same property as the lower income folks?


kippypapa t1_j9ur96s wrote

I lived in LA. So low income means you qualify for a housing subsidy like section 8. Rent control means your rent is capped your initial rent plus a 2-9% increase every year depending on inflation.

Yes, a wealthy person can get a rent controlled apartment and live there to benefit from the limit on rent increases. The issue is that landlords don’t maintain the property so you’re getting a 70 year old apartment that feels like a 70 year old apartment. My neighbors would do their own repairs when legally the landlord has to do them because he wouldn’t. It prevents natural turnover in apartments so the next person coming in pays a lot more. I was paying $1000/month more than my neighbors for the same crappy place. I was basically subsidizing them. I’m some cases, they made 3-4x what I made. There was no reason for them to continue in those apartments, but they were able to benefit from it since the next place would have cost double.


TV2693 t1_j9wr2xz wrote

Sounds like a crock of shit. That doesn't incentivize people to try for better jobs and educate themselves and such.


DeadFyre t1_j9rddm8 wrote

Don't get excited, lawsuits are incoming.


AveryRedlance t1_j9samep wrote

We need this where I live. Our city is growing like crazy, and so many people can't afford the rising rents and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.


GoldenBull1994 t1_j9sqx6n wrote

If I was a lotto winner, then Outer Sunset district better be lookin’ nervously at their surrounding, because a whole bunch of land would be about bought up and replaced with a hi-rise boulevard, a second market street, and surrounded by 4-10 story apartment blocks.


thewhizzle t1_j9ui107 wrote

You'd have to win a 9 figure jackpot, even in the Outer Sunset land is in the multi million dollars per acre.


GoldenBull1994 t1_j9uim87 wrote

As if 9 figure jackpots aren’t becoming kinda common these days. We just had multiple within the last couple months.


wbsgrepit t1_j9rki4p wrote

There is also the small matter of funding -- not quite "anyone"


greenhombre t1_j9ucq3d wrote

Huge victory for YIMBY. Well done, folks.


AutoModerator t1_j9qnhjk wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


amoral_ponder t1_j9s45d2 wrote

OMGF finally something is being done about the zoning law scourge.


Ultimate_Driving t1_j9ts22b wrote

And by "low income" they actually mean "upper middle class" income.


AftyOfTheUK t1_j9u8k4b wrote

Well, yes. And "low income" in Denver is "Arms dealer megawealthy" in Somalia, but that's not relevant at all because... wait for it... Denver isn't Somalia


Ultimate_Driving t1_j9ubeqe wrote

My point was that even if a percentage of the units built are dedicated for what they consider to be "low income," it's only families with upper middle class incomes who can afford to buy those units. They're still too expensive for people earning low incomes to afford.


AftyOfTheUK t1_j9umts2 wrote

I notice you edited your post to remove the Denver reference.

80% of median is not upper middle class income in the area that this article is about. It sounds like a lot of money, but it is not in those areas. Not all areas are alike. Upper middle class income would be 200k or more.


autimaton t1_j9uawwt wrote

If this is actual low income housing, expect a bunch of wealthy white liberals to start checking out Texas real estate.


Graywulff t1_j9uf7wj wrote

I’m boston it’s 12% of units anyway. So allowing them to go to any height should be 24-30% if they do it here.

They’re trying to pass rent control which might deter landlords from building, but also I moved a dozen times bc my rent got jacked up like 250/mo or more after my first years lease was up. Typical boston scam, along with realtors fees.


markmevans t1_j9uom5f wrote

Can they build mixed use walkable neighborhoods? It’s great they can build but I fear zoning and profits will just lead to more car dependent hellscapes. But denser.


Snoo6435 t1_j9v6wvw wrote

You'd save about $7,000 a year on car payments. Every bit helps


Remarkablebunny t1_j9vf9s4 wrote

Would kinda be uplifting if it wasn’t Bay Area lol…”low income” must be a pretty ballin’ income elsewhere…


LunaGreen-177 t1_j9wcffb wrote

Before everyone gets upset- Teachers would qualify as low income under this is some cases. No one is going to try and house you next to homeless people.


Snoo6435 t1_j9vz8pr wrote

A lot of Gen Zers on the thread not native to San Diego or California. Entitled doesn't mean you can destroy our city, so you can afford to live here. We value San Diego's heritage and aim to preserve historic neighborhoods. You should consider moving to a state that you can afford to live in rather than trying to destroy ours. It's more affordable, in Mississippi, Tennessee and other hillbillies states where ya'll will feel more at home.


RedditOR74 t1_j9toxw7 wrote

Well this sounds like a disaster in the making.


No-Independence828 t1_j9rcvbh wrote

So you can put a high rise in the middle of houses? This is not good urban planning.


plummbob t1_j9rkx6x wrote

If people want to live in high rise, its great urban planning. The idea that housing needs to be segregated into blocks comprise of only one style is absurd, and the market has expressed deep desire to get rid of it.


mtcwby t1_j9ssywc wrote

The market has nothing of that sort. Highrise buildings are still a function of land value. You don't build up until the building footprint cost gets extremely high simply due to cost.


No-Independence828 t1_j9ro929 wrote

Free market only knows how to make money. Improving people’s lives is not in their agenda.


plummbob t1_j9rohqh wrote



you mean the consumers? of course consumers are going to only choose the options that are best for them. which is why having more options gives residents more options to optimize over.


No-Independence828 t1_j9t6ulq wrote


As free market / developers / those who build and sell houses / those who will put anything anywhere if they can make a profit out of it.


plummbob t1_j9t8m0x wrote

The reason they make any profit is because people have strong demand for where they put them.


Mickey-the-Luxray t1_j9tg0fd wrote

But another libertarian on Reddit told me that if you remove all zoning then the free market will efficiently distribute housing density to the people's wants!


dolphins3 OP t1_j9rmdqc wrote

California NIMBYs keep racking up L after L and it's honestly delicious.


Joshau-k t1_j9rv6ir wrote

With the price of housing in the Bay area, why are there any houses there? It should all be medium density minimum


No-Independence828 t1_j9t6w82 wrote

Houses where there already


Joshau-k t1_j9xd1hm wrote

Yes but you can rezone it to medium density.

That doesn't mean you have to immediately demolish the existing boss e


Job_Stealer t1_j9srxk4 wrote

It's called Builder's Remedy, and it just means the project will be passed ministerially instead of going through a discretionary review. It still has to follow the regulations of the city, which includes height and density. However, developers are aloted 3 density bonuses if they meet the percentage of affordable housing required by the state.


Starrion t1_j9sfy3h wrote

They buy the houses and put up a high rise.


Snoo6435 t1_j9qww1o wrote

I hope their is a referendum put on the ballot against state interference in local zoning. In San Diego, developers can build eight story buildings without parking 25 blocks into neighborhoods.


moonfox1000 t1_j9rhwwd wrote

Good, they should be able to build as high as they want. The market incentivizes housing that has parking so they would only be hurting the value of their own property by not building sufficient parking for their residents. The alternative is nothing but expensive SFHs for everyone to bid up.


Scrandon t1_j9ryeyf wrote

Wrong - while they will be hurting the value of their own property, they won’t only be hurting their own value when parking overflows into the surrounding area. Just gotta think a little harder, champ.


Snoo6435 t1_j9rq1aq wrote

We won't allow developers to destroy century old historic neighborhoods by building rental units. Go somewhere else if you can't afford to live here or go out to the suburbs so you aren't living beyond your means. That way you can still make payments on your BMW's and Audis...when you should drive a beater in order to save for a down payment on a home.


fml87 t1_j9rwqy7 wrote

Century old isn’t historic sorry, and old shit isn’t worth preserving for the 1% to enjoy and continue the march of gentrification.


worm600 t1_j9rx4yo wrote

Even if it was, the principle that because a building didn’t fall down for a while it needs to remain forever is not one worth defending. Take pictures.


Mississimia t1_j9rztor wrote

Yeah, driving a beater will really help make a dent in the 300k down payment. I hope the developers build that hypothetical 8 story building right next to your house.


summertime_taco t1_j9rfh4w wrote

Too bad they can't build higher.


Snoo6435 t1_j9rnauh wrote

Which historic neighborhood did you buy in? I didn't think so.


summertime_taco t1_j9rselb wrote

Poor baby has to suffer the fact that people born after him need somewhere to live.


Mississimia t1_j9s03vy wrote

He's retired and doesn't even contribute to the economy and wants to price teachers and firefighters out of his neighborhood. Selfishness is a disease.


Joshau-k t1_j9rv1gr wrote

Parking isn't the issue, public transport is


molotov_cockteaze t1_j9skwet wrote

Nah. Cities and counties have had decades to get this NIMBY shit handled on their own and the proof is in the pudding; they've almost unanimously failed and hordes of lifelong Californians have had to suffer the consequences from your entitlement. The state has been threatening to step in for years so here we are. Hopefully as many eight story buildings as humanly possible get built before any such ballot initiative is a glint in Steph Curry's eye.


Snoo6435 t1_j9v66l2 wrote

Currious... how old are you? Im guessing gen Z. since you appear entitled. Are you a CA native? Are you a homeowner so that you are invested in our community? Destroying history so that people moving here from outside the community can afford to rent is rediculous. If you can't afford to buy or rent, then move away.


Job_Stealer t1_j9sropc wrote

This comment right here is why as a CA planner, I hate ballot box planning. Non professionals voting on matters that they dont have time to understand that become non caring the moment it gets passed.

This is such a mischaraterization of the current SD land use regulation and general plan that I'm assuming you live somewhere like Chula Vista or Oceanside.

It's not even a referendum. You're referring to an initiative!!!


Snoo6435 t1_j9v4dda wrote

Are you saying that the city didn't change rules to allow 8 story apartment buildings up to one mile from transit hubs into historic neighborhoods? And that no onsite parking is required? And that the neighborhood planning groups aren't included in the process? I seriously like to know. BTW, my home is in Mission Hills. My degree is in landscape architecture and planning from Cal Poly.

What is a referendum California?

In California, a ballot proposition is a referendum or an initiative measure that is submitted to the electorate for a direct decision or direct vote (or plebiscite).


Job_Stealer t1_j9vffd7 wrote

Hello fellow Mustang alumni,

Unless you have a minor in CRP, I have never met a LARC that has any idea about the planning process outside of anecdotes, and that's what I wished CAED did more of. Integrating our allied professions.

A referendum is "the power of the electors to approve or reject statues or parts of statutes..." Cal. Const. Article II 9(a). The power of a referendum only applies only to NEWLY enacted legislation and is subject to constitutional limitations. In local government respects, they are used to reject an ordinance or resolution that has been RECENTLY passed (30 days before they take into effect). Also, they can't contradict state law.

Have you seen your city's general / specific plan? Have you read your land use matrix? Probably not. I don't expect the average individual to do. That's partially why public planners exist. But unless I see specific language allowing for that specific type of development you are talking about to occur, your statement is considered a pretty uncredible NIMBY argument. In fact, Mission Hills is a very wealthy neighborhood of sfh next to the downtown specific plan area, from what i recall. This means that the neighborhood will eventually become high density over time. It was designated as a Tier 1 in respect to the housing solutions portion of the city's complete communites approach. THIS ITSELF WAS A PRODUCT OF AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS.

Those local ordinances you mention are an extent to comply with SB10, which is a state mandated statute. There has been recent debate within the planning field here whether or not the state is overreaching in its power. I'm on the side that it is. HOWEVER, we have had an official housing crisis for the past decade. If cities try to designate "historical neighborhoods" for the sake of blocking high density development (especially wealthy places that want to keep the poors out), then they get what's coming to them with current state law. However, well planned places will integrate a plethora of intensity of land uses well, even if they're "historical neighborhoods".

You're right to an extent of the overreaching power of the state and the lack of public participation in planning. It's a problem as commissions are overrepresented by a rich minority and public hearings are only being visited by landowners or old, advantaged individuals.


plummbob t1_j9rkmc3 wrote

>In San Diego, developers can build eight story buildings without parking 25 blocks into neighborhoods.



bummer its not 10 stories. housing for people > housing for cars