Hi All,
A "housing rights" group is asking that people become aware of Senate Bill 35, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, and now in floor process. SB35 "Planning and zoning: affordable housing: streamlined approval" from the housing group's perspective removes the ability of cities and counties to negotiate with developers for "affordable housing." The bill says that's what it is, and city and county shut up. From a libertarian perspective, one might question not only the state dictating local actions, but also what business is it of government to micromanage housing. The email which I was asked to circulate below talks about negotiations between housing groups and Wiener to soften the blow of SB35 through some amendments. However, the amendments are not catching on, and some in the housing groups feel it is time to try to stop the bill altogether. Well, not so fast, Wiener is prepared for that and might just try to sneak the bill in as a rider in Brown's budget.
If you are really into following legislation, you can look at the bill here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB35
If you just want an overview of what the bill is about and why maybe you might be concerned: http://nine-county-coalition.squarespace.com/articles/
Libertarians might want to ponder on the principal point here. Free market in housing left the scene a long time ago in California, and what we now have is central planning, misguided objectives, politicians delighted with developers' well being, and folks fighting back the only way they know how.
Marcy
Marcy,
Are you suggesting that SB35 is a bad piece of legislation? I confess I'm not well acquainted with the details, but my understanding is that it's a moderate step in the right direction, basically limiting somewhat the ability of municipal governments to interfere with the property rights of developers. As you may be aware, there has been a recent trend in San Francisco for city politicians and interest groups to demand from builders that greater and greater percentages of the units in new housing projects be subsidized (i.e. sold or rented at below market rate) as a condition of supporting those projects (see letter from YIMBY activists below). If SB 35 limits the ability of local politicians to "negotiate with developers for 'affordable housing'" in this manner, I would consider that a good thing.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
"Less than a year ago in June 2016, in a botched effort to stimulate the production of apartments affordable to lower income San Franciscans, Supervisor Peskin proposed, and SF voters passed, an increase to the City’s Inclusionary requirements for new housing. The percent of developer subsidized, Below Market Rate (BMR) units required in new housing developments doubled from 12% to 25%. As housing activists predicted, the change was a disaster. After June 6th (election day) the overall numbers of applications to build housing tanked.
In the previous year, before the new, higher BMR requirement, between June 2015 and the first week of September 2015, 3,000 housing units were proposed, including 350 BMR units. During the same time period in 2016 only 1,250 housing units were proposed – a drop of more than half from the prior year. The total number of BMR units dropped 20% to 289.
The subsidy for Below Market Rate apartments comes from rents of the Market Rate apartments. Although real rents in San Francisco are high, evidently, they are not high enough to support subsidizing a full quarter of apartments in most proposed projects. We see therefore the percent of required subsidized housing has to be chosen carefully. If it’s too high (like 25%) then the purpose of the Inclusionary program is defeated: the overall amount of housing drops, and so does the amount of lower cost housing."
– From an April 10 letter sent by YIMBY activists to Mayor Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors – SF Inclusionary Housing Ordinances - YIMBY Action
Hi Starchild
Yes, you are correct that the bill limits what municipalities want. Some will see that as good, others as bad.
The thought just occurred to me that government micromanaging housing is akin to its micromanaging marriage. It should stay out of both!
Marcy
If "what municipalities want" in this context is more concessions extracted from developers in violation of their property rights than what those developers would have to deal with under state-level regulation, then it seems to me that limiting those "wants" means limiting government micromanagement of housing, and is therefore good from a libertarian perspective.
While I believe decentralism is an important libertarian value and, all else being equal, that a regulation enacted by local authorities is therefore preferable in libertarian terms to a regulation enacted by more distant government authorities, in cases where a local regulation is clearly more anti-freedom than a proposed state regulation, I'll take the latter.
Don't you agree that a state-level rule which involves less taking or fewer rights violations is preferable to a local rule that entails more such aggression?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Maybe the decline In building permits has something to do with the firs signs of air leaking out of Tech Bubble II?
The Fed vs. reality. who will win? This early indicator sez reality. We will see.
I am expecting that unfortunately the Tenderloin will recapture my mid market neighborhood when all the cute skinny jeans techies go back to their parents basement in Wisconsin.
Short answer to your question: no. No amount of trying to frame in "libertarian" or "property rights" or "displacement" the current mess that central planning is today will remove the fact that the best solution is to leave housing and land use pretty much alone.
BTW of course permits are going down. That's how the market should have been expected to work. And will again work as expected as forced crowding accelerates the outmigration that is happening right now in California. Meddlers have killed the free housing market, but will find impossible to kill the natural laws of the marketplace.
And I agree with Phil that a lot of skinny jeans will be returning to their parents' basement.
Marcy
Of course the best solution is for government to leave housing and land use alone! Don't you think it follows that a political proposal which gets us a little closer to that ideal is better than a status quo that does not? I don't understand your logic here, Marcy.
The YIMBY activists' point is that the stark decline in new housing units seeking approval was not primarily a market-based phenomenon, but a predictable result of the kind of local government meddling which I believe Scott Wiener's legislation is seeking to limit.
You also speak of "forced crowding". There is some of that, certainly, in the form of limits on where new development can take place. But there is also forced dispersal, in the form of occupancy and density limits. I'm sure that more freedom in either area – more freedom for sprawl, or more freedom for urban density – would bring down housing costs, and it doesn't seem at all obvious which is a greater driver of out-migration from California. However I think sprawl has significant negative environmental externalities that density does not.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I totally understand the "YIMBY" talking points. Problem is everyone seems to be wedded to a different set of talking points these days. My own talking point is: Say No to every meddling legislation that comes up. Say NO to every proposal that funds the meddling. Unfortunately, that is a one-person course of action. Too much at stake for too many people. Politicians know stack and pack gives them more control. Developers can keep increasing housing costs to pay for subsidies and still make money (until the limit of elasticity kicks in). Housing advocates can promise votes and get subsidies. And as long as all this stuff-stirring goes on, nobody is noticing the huge budgets, bankrupted pension funds, lousy schools and all other ills of California's Great Society.
So tell Scott Wiener to can SB 35; it's a start. Then tell Katy Tang you don't like her bonus plan either.
BYW. I found an article some months ago (or was it a government document? I don't remember) that gave some statistics on the number of housing units needed vs the numbers possible with developer-financed subsidy plans. The piece concluded no way that demand would be met without massive government intervention. Sorry, not something I would be happy about.
Marcy