> “I straight up told people I was going to file something if things didn’t shape up. I went to all the meetings and said, ‘Here are the deficiencies,’ he said. “We have so grossly underbuilt housing in California for a half century that you could drop a tent on the ground anywhere in the state and someone will occupy it.”
I really like that quote. Unfortunately I'm concerned instead of drafting adequate plans the city will just use all of its resources to sue people for using builders remedy permits.
Whether or not developers take advantage will still depend on market conditions and the costs to develop housing. For example, recently in LA county voters passed a transfer tax that is espected to quiet development somewhat:
https://www.planetizen.com/news/2022/12/120395-critics-expec...
Plenty of other things beyond taxes add to costs as well. Onerous environmental review, having to add amenities like open courtyard space or balconies, how many elevators might be required, parking requirements, all adds to the cost per unit which leads to fewer units built per loan and the need for higher rents to make those costs pencil out. Even the amount of time things sit in review at city hall has costs. You could very well hit a situation where due to these constraints, not nearly as many builders take advantage of builders remedy as one might expect. This is part of the issue with allowing the onus of adding housing supply in our cities fall on an overregulated industry that depends on achieving a certain profit margin to function.
The next target should be CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. NIMBYs can endlessly delay new construction by requesting CEQA assessments. I am hugely pro-environment, mind you, but an environmental assessment for a new development should be relatively fast and easy to complete, and it shouldn't prevent new builds wholesale except in the direst cases.
Exempting infill housing from CEQA is on the YIMBY agenda. That said, CEQA only applies to discretionary decisions, so if permitting residential development is a ministerial decision (i.e. anyone who meets certain criteria is approved), then the CEQA review for it is incorporated into the Housing Element. That is itself a huge step forward.
I think this article overstates the risks to those wanting to use the builder's remedy. It suggests wealthy towns would have the means to fight this in court. But the reality is the towns have very little legal defense. Just last year, 4000+ new units were approved via the builder's remedy in Santa Monica, a rich envlcave of LA that has notoriously fought development with oppressive zoning for decades.
Also, the point isn't to build giant high rises in the middle of Los Altos. It is to bypass restrictive zoning that doesn't let you build anything at all other than single family houses on large lots. In a lot of Bay Area towns that will be townhouses and low-rise apartments. But this can make a massive difference to the local housing markets.
The builder's remedy is just one of many measures the state has passed in recent years. Others include automatic approval for building residential above commercial and bypassing zoning for lots with wide rights of way. It all adds up.
Another aspect to this is just because you have an approved project, as a builder, it doesn't mean you have to build it. It does give you a hell of a bargaining chip with the city over something else you want to build however.
All these Bay Area NIMBY enclaves have been fucking around and I imagine a large number of them are about to find out.
This week a viral video tour of a high school in Carmel, IN has been circulating [1]. For those who don't understand, particularly non-Americans, schools are funded primarily by local property taxes. This means wealthy towns have facilities like this and poorer communities have buildings that are falling apart.
This is economic segregation.
A lot of wealthy towns in CA have been fighting state housing mandates because they want to maintain their "character". This includes some ultra-wealthy towns like Atherton.
One reason I support what CA is doing here is because by allowing a mix of accomodation it will increase access to facilities like this beyond just the ultra-wealthy.
I think it's overstating the case that 4000 units were "approved" in Santa Monica. Some guy pulled papers on the project. Get back to me if any of them break ground. So far, only 899 units worth have filed complete applications and zero of these have got anywhere in the rest of the process. I would not advise holding your breath.
Cities have various ways to stop projects. They can drag out things like demolition permits forever.
> For those who don't understand, particularly non-Americans, schools are funded primarily by local property taxes.
This was true historically, and may still be true in some states, but court cases since the 1970s [1] have been forcing reforms on school funding to be more equitable at the state level.
An earlier Chronicle article anticipates some ways projects will be blocked. It sounds like this isn't the unambiguous green light that some articles suggest.
> Environmental review is one such way. Normally, cities perform one environmental review for a citywide or neighborhood-wide zoning plan. So long as project applications comply with those plans, they can piggyback on the parent environmental report. But since builder’s remedy applications often disregard local zoning, cities can ask developers to complete a full environmental impact report for a project. Once that’s done, cities can then claim that any impact — noise, shadows, pollution — in the report was insufficiently studied and demand costly redos. Community groups can also take builders to court.
> Cities can further pile on costs for builder’s remedy projects by requiring infrastructure upgrades like new sewer connections. Local governments can also potentially exact revenge by making other applications from developers more unpleasant — for instance, by subjecting them to additional scrutiny or longer processing times. This threat will likely dissuade many developers from pursuing a builder’s remedy project.
The last portion, where local governments might intentionally punish developers, may be why there's not a bunch of large experienced developers rushing to submit plans.
My understanding is that they can still be delayed by CEQA lawsuits, which NIMBYs have become very good at, but at least CEQA usually only delays projects instead of blocking them entirely.
Projects can still effectively be denied/delayed from discretionary environmental review. State is working on pre-empting or expediting that as well for these affordable housing projects.
There is some talk that builders remedy may be exempt from CEQA because of some clauses in its law. It will surely face some CEQA suits so remains to be seen how the courts will handle.
That guy in the Mission District of SF who fought this for decades should deserve a windfall...
Ill try to find a link, but basically this guy got initial approval to build a building and got hit with a typhoon of zoning laws and knew he was in the right, but a bunch of SF NIMBYS were fighting him forever and he got F'd...
This guy deserves something like a payout for someone imprisoned for no reason.
> The builder’s remedy says that noncompliant cities must allow housing at any density and any height, anywhere in the city, as long as at least 20% of the new homes are affordable.
For most places in the Bay Area, is there an existing affordability percentage requirement? How much of an increase is this? I'm not a development/construction insider, but a quick search pulls up a claim that builders often are in the range of 10-20% gross profit. Does a 20% affordable unit requirement swing a normal project to being unprofitable, even if cities can't block it for zoning reasons?
20% IZ is usually a show-stopper when combined with height and FAR limits but the idea is that there must be some point in the solution space that works with 20% IZ.
San Francisco has IZ set at between 20 and 33% depending on the project and this is widely seen as a blanket anti-development policy.
Most cities in the Bay with IZ have close to 10% with a few close to 20%. Indeed, 20% IZ only usually works in high income areas where the market rate for housing is high enough to make the affordable unit requirements profitable. Most Builder's Remedy housing will therefore be proposed in high income areas.
"affordable" homes are just a give away to people on a magic list. I am all for more supply but spending significant quantities of cash on this is wasteful and counter-productive...
median residential home prices in Solano County (just north-east of San Francisco) went up twenty one percent over one year in 2021. The county overall lost population (again) primarily due to residents moving out of California.
Zoning laws broadly are probably still in effect, right? I doubt you could build something industrial in residential zones. It's just the bad parts of zoning that are disabled, if I understood the article correctly.
Excellent development in any case. Hope a lot of good dense housing gets built.
Basically, until these cities get a housing plan validated with the state, who is apparently sick of their crap like zoning in the middle of an active mall that will not be torn down, builder’s remedy is in place.
Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/ invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.
Yes, also residential "zoning laws" broadly still exist - it's just that they are state-level residential zoning regs rather than city/county ones.
The implication that this is anarchy is incorrect. Construction and zoning are still highly regulated, just by someone else this time (FWIW, I fully support this and hope many projects built and cities stop crying and get in compliance with the HCD).
Most of the existing lots aren't big enough for large developments. It's probably going to be more of what we have -- relatively low-rise apartment complexes and townhouses, with carport parking or garages underneath.
I'd also expect more people who have space for ADUs to build them, although many of the lots aren't the right size or shape to fit one.
The really big, dense housing projects are being built on commercial land -- stuff like what is being built in downtown Sunnyvale, Santa Clara Square, Lawrence Station, and the proposed replacement of Cambrian Plaza.
Notably, all that big stuff is either already finished, or in the process of building, and didn't need the builder's remedy to get done.
The builder's remedy applies to housing and only housing. Nothing else. It doesn't, however, stop developers from proposing housing projects in non-residential zones.
The same "Builder's Remedy" kicked in last year in many Southern California cities when they missed similar deadlines, and as far as I know it has led to approximately (if not exactly) zero new construction.
A mildly funny thing about vacant housing/everything is corporations conspiracists is they can't tell the difference between BlackRock and Blackstone. Though neither one is a hedge fund.
blackstone - private equity / alternative investments company (originally mediated M&A deals)
blackrock - primarily sells shares in index funds; one of the big 3 index managers (started as a partnership between blackstone and others... that's why the similar name)
Why do you care if they do? Now you should have the right to demand that the chicken farm controls the smell, and otherwise isn't polluting, but stopping chicken farms completely is the wrong solution. The above includes assurance that fire and accidents will not spread.
Of course land in the bay is valuable enough that nobody will do what you suggest. However that is economics, it shouldn't be law.
Also, given prevailing rents that would likely lose them money over renting it out, though you can certainly regulate your way into that being the best option if you "protect" renters enough.
Z_I_F_F|3 years ago
guywithahat|3 years ago
I really like that quote. Unfortunately I'm concerned instead of drafting adequate plans the city will just use all of its resources to sue people for using builders remedy permits.
asdff|3 years ago
Plenty of other things beyond taxes add to costs as well. Onerous environmental review, having to add amenities like open courtyard space or balconies, how many elevators might be required, parking requirements, all adds to the cost per unit which leads to fewer units built per loan and the need for higher rents to make those costs pencil out. Even the amount of time things sit in review at city hall has costs. You could very well hit a situation where due to these constraints, not nearly as many builders take advantage of builders remedy as one might expect. This is part of the issue with allowing the onus of adding housing supply in our cities fall on an overregulated industry that depends on achieving a certain profit margin to function.
GalenErso|3 years ago
shuckles|3 years ago
Lammy|3 years ago
This is my favorite graph for explaining how I can be pro-environment without necessarily being pro-Environmentalism™ https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gentrification...
klooney|3 years ago
ecf|3 years ago
https://www.sfgate.com/green/article/MERCED-UC-expansion-pla...
jmyeet|3 years ago
Also, the point isn't to build giant high rises in the middle of Los Altos. It is to bypass restrictive zoning that doesn't let you build anything at all other than single family houses on large lots. In a lot of Bay Area towns that will be townhouses and low-rise apartments. But this can make a massive difference to the local housing markets.
The builder's remedy is just one of many measures the state has passed in recent years. Others include automatic approval for building residential above commercial and bypassing zoning for lots with wide rights of way. It all adds up.
Another aspect to this is just because you have an approved project, as a builder, it doesn't mean you have to build it. It does give you a hell of a bargaining chip with the city over something else you want to build however.
All these Bay Area NIMBY enclaves have been fucking around and I imagine a large number of them are about to find out.
This week a viral video tour of a high school in Carmel, IN has been circulating [1]. For those who don't understand, particularly non-Americans, schools are funded primarily by local property taxes. This means wealthy towns have facilities like this and poorer communities have buildings that are falling apart.
This is economic segregation.
A lot of wealthy towns in CA have been fighting state housing mandates because they want to maintain their "character". This includes some ultra-wealthy towns like Atherton.
One reason I support what CA is doing here is because by allowing a mix of accomodation it will increase access to facilities like this beyond just the ultra-wealthy.
[1]: https://www.insider.com/carmel-high-school-tour-tiktok-publi...
jeffbee|3 years ago
Cities have various ways to stop projects. They can drag out things like demolition permits forever.
toast0|3 years ago
This was true historically, and may still be true in some states, but court cases since the 1970s [1] have been forcing reforms on school funding to be more equitable at the state level.
[1] https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/section-4-lawsuits/landma...
lokar|3 years ago
reducesuffering|3 years ago
hummus_bae|3 years ago
https://www.z blozek.com
digdugdirk|3 years ago
Also, does anyone know what legal recourse there is to block projects that are submitted under the current no-zoning state?
abeppu|3 years ago
> Environmental review is one such way. Normally, cities perform one environmental review for a citywide or neighborhood-wide zoning plan. So long as project applications comply with those plans, they can piggyback on the parent environmental report. But since builder’s remedy applications often disregard local zoning, cities can ask developers to complete a full environmental impact report for a project. Once that’s done, cities can then claim that any impact — noise, shadows, pollution — in the report was insufficiently studied and demand costly redos. Community groups can also take builders to court.
> Cities can further pile on costs for builder’s remedy projects by requiring infrastructure upgrades like new sewer connections. Local governments can also potentially exact revenge by making other applications from developers more unpleasant — for instance, by subjecting them to additional scrutiny or longer processing times. This threat will likely dissuade many developers from pursuing a builder’s remedy project.
The last portion, where local governments might intentionally punish developers, may be why there's not a bunch of large experienced developers rushing to submit plans.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/builde...
Analemma_|3 years ago
aggronn|3 years ago
HDThoreaun|3 years ago
avrionov|3 years ago
samstave|3 years ago
Ill try to find a link, but basically this guy got initial approval to build a building and got hit with a typhoon of zoning laws and knew he was in the right, but a bunch of SF NIMBYS were fighting him forever and he got F'd...
This guy deserves something like a payout for someone imprisoned for no reason.
abeppu|3 years ago
> Among large cities, only San Francisco is in compliance.
abeppu|3 years ago
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/builde...
For most places in the Bay Area, is there an existing affordability percentage requirement? How much of an increase is this? I'm not a development/construction insider, but a quick search pulls up a claim that builders often are in the range of 10-20% gross profit. Does a 20% affordable unit requirement swing a normal project to being unprofitable, even if cities can't block it for zoning reasons?
https://buildbook.co/blog/home-builders-profit-margin
jeffbee|3 years ago
San Francisco has IZ set at between 20 and 33% depending on the project and this is widely seen as a blanket anti-development policy.
Karrot_Kream|3 years ago
m3kw9|3 years ago
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
LatteLazy|3 years ago
theGnuMe|3 years ago
zitterbewegung|3 years ago
Ancalagon|3 years ago
anonuser123456|3 years ago
mistrial9|3 years ago
source: Solano County Govt. Economic Report 2022
syspec|3 years ago
Vapormac|3 years ago
occz|3 years ago
Excellent development in any case. Hope a lot of good dense housing gets built.
MarkMarine|3 years ago
https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/ca-cities-to-lose-all-zo...
Basically, until these cities get a housing plan validated with the state, who is apparently sick of their crap like zoning in the middle of an active mall that will not be torn down, builder’s remedy is in place.
mike_d|3 years ago
A bulletin from the Association of Bay Area Governments alludes to being able to use environmental laws to block the projects instead. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/Bu...
astrange|3 years ago
potatolicious|3 years ago
The implication that this is anarchy is incorrect. Construction and zoning are still highly regulated, just by someone else this time (FWIW, I fully support this and hope many projects built and cities stop crying and get in compliance with the HCD).
dagurp|3 years ago
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU1UH_3B5k
twblalock|3 years ago
I'd also expect more people who have space for ADUs to build them, although many of the lots aren't the right size or shape to fit one.
The really big, dense housing projects are being built on commercial land -- stuff like what is being built in downtown Sunnyvale, Santa Clara Square, Lawrence Station, and the proposed replacement of Cambrian Plaza.
Notably, all that big stuff is either already finished, or in the process of building, and didn't need the builder's remedy to get done.
Karrot_Kream|3 years ago
hardtke|3 years ago
flerchin|3 years ago
jdlyga|3 years ago
newaccount2021|3 years ago
[deleted]
nigrioid|3 years ago
thunkshift1|3 years ago
samstave|3 years ago
Nothing more.
REPLY TO BELOW:
- If they are not hedge funds, then what are they, BE SPECIFIC.
astrange|3 years ago
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
harambae|3 years ago
blackrock - primarily sells shares in index funds; one of the big 3 index managers (started as a partnership between blackstone and others... that's why the similar name)
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
jollyllama|3 years ago
mike_d|3 years ago
bluGill|3 years ago
Of course land in the bay is valuable enough that nobody will do what you suggest. However that is economics, it shouldn't be law.
tshaddox|3 years ago
johngladtj|3 years ago
Also, given prevailing rents that would likely lose them money over renting it out, though you can certainly regulate your way into that being the best option if you "protect" renters enough.
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
dmitryminkovsky|3 years ago
hackerlight|3 years ago
themitigating|3 years ago
AlgorithmicTime|3 years ago