cawacko
Well-known member
Today’s lead SF Chronicle editorial isn’t about housing affordability, it’s about political power. California refuses to build, which is why we are losing congressional seats while red states that keep building are gaining them
NIMBYism exists everywhere, but on the coasts it’s almost a religion. It's a fascinating case study that people seem willing to lose political power rather than see new housing near them.
When California’s leaders really put their minds to something, there’s seemingly no stopping them.
Last month, the Legislature declared a Nov. 4 special election to send voters a ballot measure asking them to approve temporarily allowing gerrymandering to increase the state’s Democratic delegation to Congress. So determined were California Democrats to counter Texas’ gerrymandered maps favoring Republicans — drawn at the behest of President Donald Trump — that they pushed three complex, politically challenging bills across the finish line less than a week after they were introduced.
If only California could summon similar guts to harness the most powerful political tool in its arsenal — housing.
For years, blue state political superiority was considered a matter of demographic inevitability. It was only a matter of time before the country’s increasingly diverse populace would give Democrats an unbeatable supermajority at the federal level.
That prospective future didn’t pan out for a variety of reasons — and a building boom in red states is now effectively putting a nail in its coffin.
Sure, California lawmakers did exempt urban infill projects from unnecessary environmental review this year. But they arguably did so only because Gov. Gavin Newsom craftily tied reforming the California Environmental Quality Act to the passage of the state budget — and they didn’t want to go without a paycheck.
California still lags far behind Texas, which continues to liberalize its already relaxed housing development policies and is projected to gain four congressional seats in 2030. Meanwhile, California is estimated to lose four House seats — obliterating whatever Democratic gains that could potentially be earned from partisan gerrymandering.
Other building-happy red states like Florida are poised to receive similar political boons as Texas. Republicans are positioning themselves for a demographic takeover that will survive even if Trump’s most authoritarian tactics are beaten back.
Meanwhile, California dithers.
Consider the whining and obfuscation surrounding Senate Bill 79 by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, legislation to require local governments to ministerially approve mid-rise apartment buildings within half a mile of train and bus stops that meet certain height, density and affordability requirements while also making it easier for transit agencies to pursue development on land they own.
The bill would make it easier to boost California’s population in areas with the best infrastructure to support new residents, reinvigorate struggling public transit systems and help workers avoid soul-crushing commutes in gas-guzzling cars. It also gives local governments flexibility and time to prepare. Cities that have already committed to a certain level of upzoning near transit in their current state-mandated housing plans — such as San Francisco — don’t have to comply with SB79 until the next regional housing cycle in 2031.
Yet, to listen to opponents’ rhetoric, sensible urban density is the greatest threat to the state.
Last week, after protestations from prominent Southern California leaders, such as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council, the bill was significantly amended in an opaque process known as the “suspense file,” in which lawmakers on the powerful Appropriations Committees race at warp speed through hundreds of bills, passing, killing or revising them without a word of explanation — and sometimes without mentioning them at all.
After this secretive culling, SB79 now applies to only about 15 of California’s 58 counties — those that are already urbanized. The revised bill also limits the type of transit stops near which dense apartments can be de facto approved.
And the bill still remains politically volatile. On Friday, it was further amended to require stronger labor standards for projects over 85 feet or on transit-owned land and to clarify it doesn’t apply to hotels.
Meanwhile, naked obstructionism at the local level continues to demonstrate why efforts like SB79 are still necessary.
Opponents of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s modest plan to rezone broad swaths of San Francisco for taller and denser buildings — a key part of the city’s state-mandated blueprint to accommodate 82,000 new homes by 2031 — are significantly ramping up their political pressure campaign.
The influential San Francisco Labor Council this week voted to oppose the blueprint unless it’s amended. The Chronicle also reported that former Supervisor Aaron Peskin has apparently communicated with labor and housing activists about a potential June 2026 ballot measure related to the zoning plan, though Peskin told the editorial board he wasn’t aware of any initiative.
Yes, some reasonable tweaks can be made to Lurie’s plan — even though it already contains significant concessions. Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman told the editorial board he wants to ensure historic buildings are adequately identified so they can’t be torn down without a discretionary process, and Lurie and the supervisors are working on legislation to strengthen protections for rent-controlled units and offset the impact on small businesses.
But we can’t afford to burn the whole plan down — which some officials and advocates seem intent on.
Supervisor Connie Chan recently described Lurie’s plan to the San Francisco Standard as a “monstrosity” that would be “demolishing history.” (Her office declined to comment for this editorial.)
Lori Brooke, the leader of Neighborhoods United SF, told the editorial board that she wants Lurie to “stand up” to the state housing department — which she described as “the bully behind the curtain” — and their “arbitrary” mandates.
This hyperbolic hand-wringing is about as logical as viral comments recently made on the Pod Save America podcast by Imelda Padilla, a Democratic member of the Los Angeles City Council who justified her opposition to SB79 by bragging about strong-arming an affordable-housing project from six stories down to three — leaving the host stunned.
The editorial positions of The Chronicle, including election recommendations, represent the consensus of the editorial board, consisting of the publisher, the editorial page editor and staff members of the opinion pages. Its judgments are made independent of the news operation, which covers the news without consideration of our editorial positions.
This is the grave California continues to dig for itself. In one breath, we say we want to save American democracy from Trump. In the next, we insist on blocking the very thing — housing — that would help the state preserve its political clout and ensure the immigrants we say we want to protect can afford to live here.
The walls are collapsing, but Californians can’t stop arguing over the wallpaper.
www.sfchronicle.com
NIMBYism exists everywhere, but on the coasts it’s almost a religion. It's a fascinating case study that people seem willing to lose political power rather than see new housing near them.
California will do anything to save democracy — except build housing
Republican states like Texas are undergoing building booms and positioning themselves for a demographic takeover. Meanwhile, California dithers
When California’s leaders really put their minds to something, there’s seemingly no stopping them.
Last month, the Legislature declared a Nov. 4 special election to send voters a ballot measure asking them to approve temporarily allowing gerrymandering to increase the state’s Democratic delegation to Congress. So determined were California Democrats to counter Texas’ gerrymandered maps favoring Republicans — drawn at the behest of President Donald Trump — that they pushed three complex, politically challenging bills across the finish line less than a week after they were introduced.
If only California could summon similar guts to harness the most powerful political tool in its arsenal — housing.
For years, blue state political superiority was considered a matter of demographic inevitability. It was only a matter of time before the country’s increasingly diverse populace would give Democrats an unbeatable supermajority at the federal level.
That prospective future didn’t pan out for a variety of reasons — and a building boom in red states is now effectively putting a nail in its coffin.
Sure, California lawmakers did exempt urban infill projects from unnecessary environmental review this year. But they arguably did so only because Gov. Gavin Newsom craftily tied reforming the California Environmental Quality Act to the passage of the state budget — and they didn’t want to go without a paycheck.
California still lags far behind Texas, which continues to liberalize its already relaxed housing development policies and is projected to gain four congressional seats in 2030. Meanwhile, California is estimated to lose four House seats — obliterating whatever Democratic gains that could potentially be earned from partisan gerrymandering.
Other building-happy red states like Florida are poised to receive similar political boons as Texas. Republicans are positioning themselves for a demographic takeover that will survive even if Trump’s most authoritarian tactics are beaten back.
Meanwhile, California dithers.
Consider the whining and obfuscation surrounding Senate Bill 79 by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, legislation to require local governments to ministerially approve mid-rise apartment buildings within half a mile of train and bus stops that meet certain height, density and affordability requirements while also making it easier for transit agencies to pursue development on land they own.
The bill would make it easier to boost California’s population in areas with the best infrastructure to support new residents, reinvigorate struggling public transit systems and help workers avoid soul-crushing commutes in gas-guzzling cars. It also gives local governments flexibility and time to prepare. Cities that have already committed to a certain level of upzoning near transit in their current state-mandated housing plans — such as San Francisco — don’t have to comply with SB79 until the next regional housing cycle in 2031.
Yet, to listen to opponents’ rhetoric, sensible urban density is the greatest threat to the state.
Last week, after protestations from prominent Southern California leaders, such as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council, the bill was significantly amended in an opaque process known as the “suspense file,” in which lawmakers on the powerful Appropriations Committees race at warp speed through hundreds of bills, passing, killing or revising them without a word of explanation — and sometimes without mentioning them at all.
After this secretive culling, SB79 now applies to only about 15 of California’s 58 counties — those that are already urbanized. The revised bill also limits the type of transit stops near which dense apartments can be de facto approved.
And the bill still remains politically volatile. On Friday, it was further amended to require stronger labor standards for projects over 85 feet or on transit-owned land and to clarify it doesn’t apply to hotels.
Meanwhile, naked obstructionism at the local level continues to demonstrate why efforts like SB79 are still necessary.
Opponents of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s modest plan to rezone broad swaths of San Francisco for taller and denser buildings — a key part of the city’s state-mandated blueprint to accommodate 82,000 new homes by 2031 — are significantly ramping up their political pressure campaign.
The influential San Francisco Labor Council this week voted to oppose the blueprint unless it’s amended. The Chronicle also reported that former Supervisor Aaron Peskin has apparently communicated with labor and housing activists about a potential June 2026 ballot measure related to the zoning plan, though Peskin told the editorial board he wasn’t aware of any initiative.
Yes, some reasonable tweaks can be made to Lurie’s plan — even though it already contains significant concessions. Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman told the editorial board he wants to ensure historic buildings are adequately identified so they can’t be torn down without a discretionary process, and Lurie and the supervisors are working on legislation to strengthen protections for rent-controlled units and offset the impact on small businesses.
But we can’t afford to burn the whole plan down — which some officials and advocates seem intent on.
Supervisor Connie Chan recently described Lurie’s plan to the San Francisco Standard as a “monstrosity” that would be “demolishing history.” (Her office declined to comment for this editorial.)
Lori Brooke, the leader of Neighborhoods United SF, told the editorial board that she wants Lurie to “stand up” to the state housing department — which she described as “the bully behind the curtain” — and their “arbitrary” mandates.
This hyperbolic hand-wringing is about as logical as viral comments recently made on the Pod Save America podcast by Imelda Padilla, a Democratic member of the Los Angeles City Council who justified her opposition to SB79 by bragging about strong-arming an affordable-housing project from six stories down to three — leaving the host stunned.
The editorial positions of The Chronicle, including election recommendations, represent the consensus of the editorial board, consisting of the publisher, the editorial page editor and staff members of the opinion pages. Its judgments are made independent of the news operation, which covers the news without consideration of our editorial positions.
This is the grave California continues to dig for itself. In one breath, we say we want to save American democracy from Trump. In the next, we insist on blocking the very thing — housing — that would help the state preserve its political clout and ensure the immigrants we say we want to protect can afford to live here.
The walls are collapsing, but Californians can’t stop arguing over the wallpaper.
California will do anything to save democracy — except build housing
OPINION: Republican states like Texas are undergoing building booms and positioning themselves for a demographic takeover. Meanwhile, California dithers, the Editorial Board writes.
www.sfchronicle.com