Photo: Mountain Jackpot
Living in the North Valley of Los Angeles, I hear a lot of "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) toward the development of multi-family housing (i.e., apartments including high-rises). Across the State of California, as legislature passes that is supposed to unleash a new wave of affordable housing development, the actual construction has yet to ensue. Why?
As one can imagine, the opposition is small but strong. The opposing constituents are surgical in their approach to antagonism toward multi-family housing development. Out of this dismal opposition, good news finally arises for advocates of multi-family housing (i.e., affordable housing). Below is an update from Politico California Playbook's morning briefing on the matter:
A YEAR FOR YIMBYS — Pro-housing activists had a blockbuster year in the Legislature, notching some of their biggest wins since the YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) movement got its start in the Bay Area more than a decade ago. Newsom cemented those victories Wednesday by signing dozens of housing measures into law. The most significant, Senate Bill 423 by Scott Wiener, expands state rules that streamline housing construction in cities that haven’t met their state-assigned housing goals. It also does away with an exemption for parts of the coastal zone. That could lead to urban areas of the coast looking more like Miami and Fort Lauderdale where high rises proliferate near the sea. Other major victories for housing groups: Senate Bill 4, also by Wiener, which allows religious groups to more easily build affordable housing on their land; Assembly Bill 1633 by Phil Ting, which limits the ability to challenge projects under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA; and Assembly Bills 976 and 1033, also by Ting, which make it easier to sell or rent backyard cottages. Wiener took a victory lap on Wednesday night. “The era of saying no to housing is coming to an end,” he said.
Eventually, housing will be developed in urban neighborhoods that were only once home to single-family homes. Why? Simply space. There is no affordable housing, and shortages will eventually drive the development of those who seek it. Families that work in various cities need to get to work. The only significant opposition I see is if transit development outpaces the construction of apartments. Both are needed. However, if California's major cities can be better connected with transit (buses and trains), the opposition could theoretically use this argument to stave off multi-family housing development. I do not see that happening. Both are sorely needed to accommodate the growing population of California.
