A bill that would have made it much easier for cities to approve high-density housing close to transit hubs and job centers failed again in the California Legislature Thursday.
Senate Bill 50 by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, fell short of passing a Senate floor vote with 18 senators voting yes and 15 voting no.
The bill also failed by the same margin Wednesday, but senators voted to allow it back for another shot after Wiener asked for a reconsideration.
“I think the takeaway from the defeat of SB 50 is that this is a really hard issue and the aggressive, bold action we need is going to be controversial,” Wiener said during a news conference after the vote.
“The reason why it was so controversial … is because it’s a bill that makes significant change,” he said. “If it was a bill that didn’t do very much, it probably wouldn’t have drawn the excitement or opposition that
it did.”
The bill would have essentially changed the zoning rules across the state to require local governments to allow developers to build taller buildings with more dwelling units if those buildings are within certain distances of “transit-rich” or “jobs-rich” areas.
It would have also required that those projects either include affordable housing or contribute money to a local affordable housing fund.
It was designed, in part, to outmaneuver local opposition to new housing by inserting state-mandated zoning rules into local jurisdictions, which in California have the final decision-making authority over land use.
Much of the opposition to the bill came from city and county governments, which have a long history of fiercely beating back state efforts to curtail local control over housing and land-use policies.
John Dunbar, president of the League of California Cities, said his organization agrees that the state
needs more housing, but opposed SB 50.
“Any solution will require a long-term commitment that matches the scale of a crisis that has been decades in the making,” Dunbar said in a news release Thursday after the vote.
Wiener, who had been pushing hard for the bill since 2018, called its defeat deeply disappointing but vowed to keep working on housing supply and affordability legislation.
“We’ll be introducing several housing bills, so stay tuned,” Wiener said.
“Fundamentally this is about addressing California’s debilitating housing shortage,” he said, noting that the state is roughly 3.5 million homes short of its need.
37 comments
Good! For Once, California legislators made sense.
Now I’m kind of scared; could this be a trend?
Gee Whiz . California officials have done everything they can to attract illegal immigrants and then they complain there isn’t enough housing.
Even I can figure that out.
SB50 was a trojan horse, one that used the housing issue as a means by which to leapfrog local governance.
This particular senator, Wiener, has decided that suburbs, single family homes and local government are “problems” and that he and his supporters will determine the better future path. Unbelievable. Sacramento legislation seem to be a larger problem that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, what you see in SF will be the future everywhere.
Yep, he plans to save the world by attacking the suburbs cause they don’t meet his Utopian view.
I think people should move out of California if they can’t afford it. I don’t understand why they’re saying there aren’t enough houses for people because lately there’s been a boom of housing all over Contra Costa County and California.’ As far as the the homeless are concerned, why is it our job to build houses for them? The able bodied folks that are unhoused is that they cannot afford the cost of housing..then leave California. Tired of people thinking they deserve all for free without working. Also isn’t fair for the politicians to promise these people that they can have all these amenities or lifestyles without working I think that is just so they can get votes.
FWIW, there ARE homeless that have jobs. If we send everyone out of California that can’t afford the cost of housing, who will work the jobs that they had?
Ilovepopcorn “Just move out of California then”
Oh you make it sound so easy.
” As far as the homeless are concerned, why is it our job to build houses for them? ”
I’m happy that you can sleep well at night knowing that there are thousands of people living on the streets of no fault of their own. What about the children? Do you ever once think that this is so much bigger than your small mind can understand?
How dare you!
The answer is automation.
It won’t be long before we don’t need those jobs at all.
How many menial jobs have already been lost because of automation or outsourcing.
It’s not as easy as you might think to just pickup and leave. First off many may have no idea of where they want to movie to. Many will have relatives here and nowhere else. Those who were born and raised here have a problem with being forced out of the state they grew up in. But then those folks also have a problem with the cost of living flying out of control.
There is a lack of “affordable” housing because contractors want to build monster homes for the profit. However as history has shown before if the economy crashes again those contractors will be stuck with a bunch of homes that won’t sell. And people are getting wise to the ego driven monster homes and the hidden costs that come with them like enormous utility bills.
ilovepopcorn, when was the last time you tried to get a job? It’s not as easy as it used to be. And just “any job” might not suffice to keep up with Bay Area inflation. I know people who currently have “functional” incomes will wonder why others have such a problem but that too can change at any time.
Or maybe you just favor robots to take over all the lower income jobs like gardening your multi-million dollar estate and cooking your gourmet meals for you?
I agree. The government doesn’t owe us a living. Yes, moving is hard, and yet probably a million Americans do it every year. And how about all the courageous immigrants who leave their country every year to come here? They move in hopes of finding a better life. If it’s too hard to move away from their families, then they’d be living WITH those families rather than in a filthy tent on a sidewalk.
I don’t understand why people believe this fantasy that all these homeless people will be saved by taxpayer funded housing. The majority of the chronically homeless are NOT on the streets through no fault of their own. Most have addiction problems and aren’t interested in cleaning up and going back to work. They’ve opted out of society, but they still want society to provide for them. The more society enables this, the more homeless we will have. The economy isn’t an excuse as we have the lowest unemployment in the world and even entry level jobs are paying more than minimum wage to good workers.
I read an in-depth, well researched article on homelessness where the writer interviewed a doctor in LA who has been working to help the homeless for a decade. She said it’s a myth that the homeless are just normal people who want to get a job and get back on their feet. She said in 10 years, she’s only had a single patient like that. She said people like that are easy to help and don’t stay homeless for long. Most are uncooperative addicts and/or mentally ill, don’t take care of themselves, and have no interest in working, paying bills, etc.
That being said, we clearly need more rental units in CA. Our state legislature just keeps making it worse the more regulations they pile on and the more risk they require landlords to take. Maybe we need to relax codes on apartment size or encourage boarding houses again, or facilities like the YMCA or YWCA used to provide (temporary, transitional housing).
Angela: through no fault of their own, huh? Ok, whose fault is it that these people chose not to prepare themselves for life/ Whose fault is it that they made bad choices? Whose fault is it that the vast majority of homeless are on drugs? It sure is not MY fault. If YOU want to pay for them, by all means. But it is morally wrong to force everyone to pick up the ta for people who only leech off the system. Darwin had a good model. Let’s employ it.
I actually sleep very well, knowing that by working hard, I was able to keep my family housed and fed.
It’s all about NIMBYs
So state is trying to limit local authority for what the gov says is in the best interest…maybe weiner should stick to what he does best send texts with images…
Wiener needs to go away big time. I just pray he is voted out next round
He won’t be. The SF types love this kind of politician. I don’t know why they think authoritarian socialism will work any better this time than it has in the past. Maybe it’s because they don’t teach actual history in school anymore. Central planning doesn’t work. Concentrated power looses touch with the people it is supposed to represent and leads to government corruption and waste.
Well said T. Payne!
Authoritarian Socialism in the Transit Village!
Bye Felicia…
They’ll just keep introducing more garbage bills until it passes.
YOU DO NOT BART OVERSEEING HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. <Read that again and think about it.
You might want to read that again and think about it.
@Anon 🤣🙌🏻
Big government knows what is better for you than small government. NOT!
Wiener needs to go.
SB50 is part of Agenda 21. The allowance and acceptance of homeless camps and the so called Housing Shortage has nothing to do with SB50.
Agenda 21 is a non-binding action plan which means its more supposed to be a set of “suggestions” or “ideas” to tackle problems that might emerge in the 21st century. Unfortunately I think some city leaders just adopt the ideas listed. And then there is Agenda 2030…
Stop telling us what to do and what not to do. Liberal government is out of step and needs to be brought under control.
Second paragraph said 18 yes and 15 no and it didn’t pass. I don’t get it.
21 votes needed to approve any Senate bills. Many senators chose not to vote either way, as the bill was that dicey.
Wiener is just that.
Scott Weiner is essentially a Communist. “Aggressive and bold” government action = tyranny.
You mean Weiner is into “communes”? Can you parse the difference between “communism” (which has probably never really existed other than on paper) and “social programs” which are to help society function more fairly and equitably and not authoritarian? As for authoritarianism, rather than complain about it, all you have to do is remind government officials they are our servants not the other way around.
You know guys, our very own Steve Glazer in district 7 was one of only a few NorCal senators to vote against it. I think it’s time we vote him out in the primary.
Disagree. If Glazer keeps voting against Wieners bills, Glazer is priceless. Thank him if you happen to see him around.
Weiner’s a tool. He should not be allowed to dictate to the rest of the state.
Ramification from dissolving Redevelopment agencies means cities want to look for alternative ways to generate long term revenue. More $$ to stick up a hotel than to provide multi unit residential housing.
California doesn’t have a housing shortage, it just has too many people.
Keep Glazer. He’s one of the few with any sense. Get rid of Wiener.
I agree. It looks like Glazer opposed Weiner’s housing bill, so that is in his favor. Weiner really does have to go, but will San Francisco ever vote out a liberal when the just elected Boudin as DA?
Comments are closed.