Amusingly, the northern border of California is pretty much unpopulated. Perhaps you're thinking of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, which is 200 miles from the northern border?
Amusingly, the northern border of California is pretty much unpopulated. Perhaps you're thinking of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, which is 200 miles from the northern border?
In one of his first actions after surviving an election seeking to oust him from office, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday essentially abolished single-family zoning in California — and green-lighted a series of bills intended to bolster the state’s housing production.
By signing Senate Bill 9 into law, Newsom opened the door for the development of up to four residential units on single-family lots across California. The move follows a growing push by local governments to allow multi-family dwellings in more residential neighborhoods. Berkeley voted to eliminate single-family zoning by Dec. 2022, and San Jose is set to consider the issue next month.
While opponents fear such a sweeping change will destroy the character of residential neighborhoods, supporters hail it as a necessary way to combat the state’s persistent housing crisis and correct city zoning laws that have contributed to racial segregation.
This will likely increase property values in desirable areas. Being able to replace a single family home with four homes that can be rented or sold separately is likely to be attractive to...
a home should first and foremost be a place you live in, not your retirement plan
This will likely increase property values in desirable areas. Being able to replace a single family home with four homes that can be rented or sold separately is likely to be attractive to developers. So as retirement plans go, it's still pretty good for existing property owners.
More importantly, though, it will result in more housing.
Exactly. What single-family homes are left will be a rarity as there's much less incentive to build them in dense areas now. This actually seems like good politicking. I'm sure Palo Altoans are...
Exactly. What single-family homes are left will be a rarity as there's much less incentive to build them in dense areas now. This actually seems like good politicking. I'm sure Palo Altoans are still upset.
I live in a formerly single-family home neighborhood in LA that for whatever reason has allowed multi-family dwellings for quite some time (at least a decade, probably 2 or 3). Honestly, it looks...
I live in a formerly single-family home neighborhood in LA that for whatever reason has allowed multi-family dwellings for quite some time (at least a decade, probably 2 or 3). Honestly, it looks like other neighborhoods here in LA. Visually, I can't really tell the difference. For whatever reason, the majority of the multifamily units are on the outer rim of the neighborhood. (Maybe it was zoned that way at one time? I don't think it is anymore, though, as it seems like there are at least a few lots with 2 units on them on the interior.)
The houses are still hella expensive, though. The multi-family units are mostly rentals, for better or worse. It's probably made housing more affordable in this area, but not home ownership. The "character" of the neighborhood feels cozy, and I couldn't care less whether there are multiple units on any plot of land here.
Well, this is great news. This is globally great news as many top-edge projects are located in California. However, this upzoning might not be sufficient. It is also necessary to revoke/abolish...
Well, this is great news.
This is globally great news as many top-edge projects are located in California.
However, this upzoning might not be sufficient.
It is also necessary to revoke/abolish all other zoning-equivalent laws, such as parking minimums, height restrictions, setbacks, and the infamous CEQA.
Yeah, think the title oversells it a bit. But it's a sign of good progress, because upzoning was an incredibly toxic policy just a decade ago - hated by literally everyone (on one side, resisting...
Yeah, think the title oversells it a bit. But it's a sign of good progress, because upzoning was an incredibly toxic policy just a decade ago - hated by literally everyone (on one side, resisting change to neighborhoods, land value, probably some racism sprinkled in there, on the other, FUD over the evil developers who will fill the land with ugly empty luxury apartments). That this even passed on a state level is a miracle from that angle. Bodes well for the future of zoning reform.
Timely article. Was just having a conversation this afternoon with some friends in Ontario discussing the outrageous housing prices and homelessness problems there. Can only imagine what it's like...
Timely article. Was just having a conversation this afternoon with some friends in Ontario discussing the outrageous housing prices and homelessness problems there. Can only imagine what it's like in an even denser area like CA.
This is great news. I look forward to how conservatives are going to explain how this will destroy the entire state.
The urban jungle at California's northern border will lose its charm to all of the new duplexes.
Amusingly, the northern border of California is pretty much unpopulated. Perhaps you're thinking of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, which is 200 miles from the northern border?
I was being sarcastic as that’s where many of the conservative counties are
This will likely increase property values in desirable areas. Being able to replace a single family home with four homes that can be rented or sold separately is likely to be attractive to developers. So as retirement plans go, it's still pretty good for existing property owners.
More importantly, though, it will result in more housing.
Exactly. What single-family homes are left will be a rarity as there's much less incentive to build them in dense areas now. This actually seems like good politicking. I'm sure Palo Altoans are still upset.
I live in a formerly single-family home neighborhood in LA that for whatever reason has allowed multi-family dwellings for quite some time (at least a decade, probably 2 or 3). Honestly, it looks like other neighborhoods here in LA. Visually, I can't really tell the difference. For whatever reason, the majority of the multifamily units are on the outer rim of the neighborhood. (Maybe it was zoned that way at one time? I don't think it is anymore, though, as it seems like there are at least a few lots with 2 units on them on the interior.)
The houses are still hella expensive, though. The multi-family units are mostly rentals, for better or worse. It's probably made housing more affordable in this area, but not home ownership. The "character" of the neighborhood feels cozy, and I couldn't care less whether there are multiple units on any plot of land here.
Well, this is great news.
This is globally great news as many top-edge projects are located in California.
However, this upzoning might not be sufficient.
It is also necessary to revoke/abolish all other zoning-equivalent laws, such as parking minimums, height restrictions, setbacks, and the infamous CEQA.
Yeah. Turning a single family house into a fourplex is a lot harder if you also need to quadruple the parking you provide.
Related idea: we should give tax credits to people for not owning cars
Yeah, think the title oversells it a bit. But it's a sign of good progress, because upzoning was an incredibly toxic policy just a decade ago - hated by literally everyone (on one side, resisting change to neighborhoods, land value, probably some racism sprinkled in there, on the other, FUD over the evil developers who will fill the land with ugly empty luxury apartments). That this even passed on a state level is a miracle from that angle. Bodes well for the future of zoning reform.
Timely article. Was just having a conversation this afternoon with some friends in Ontario discussing the outrageous housing prices and homelessness problems there. Can only imagine what it's like in an even denser area like CA.
Also see the Sacramento Bee article, which covers the other two housing bills he signed.