{"id":1728,"date":"2021-10-06T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-10-06T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.deeds.com\/articles\/?p=1728"},"modified":"2024-04-25T23:19:25","modified_gmt":"2024-04-26T03:19:25","slug":"high-density-politics-and-trends","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.deeds.com\/articles\/high-density-politics-and-trends\/","title":{"rendered":"High-Density Politics and Trends"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the Bay Area and Beyond, Housing Shortages Make Higher Densities Inevitable<\/em><\/h1>\n\n\n\n
\"A<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Governments are beginning to allow accessory dwelling units where they didn\u2019t before. They\u2019re rezoning to allow multiple homes per lot. They have to. They\u2019re responding to a housing crisis that needs answers. Otherwise, a state has no way to supply necessary housing in the face of pressing demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But hashing out the policies is no mean feat. There\u2019s plenty of opposition to zoning-up for more housing. Residents might see \u201cdensity\u201d and think: traffic, parking, noise, and so on, in the parade of horribles that will change the character of the neighborhood. Some assume a correlation between density and poverty. (Reality is not so cut and dried. In many cities, the wealthiest sections are dense sections with high-rise penthouses, while populations in neglected areas are relatively sparse.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Increased density can be beneficial and necessary. Supporting mid-density or high-density housing can curb sprawl, conserve natural areas, and reduce transportation needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

In California, a Densification Bill Failed. But the Ball Could Not Be Dropped.  <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

California\u2019s Senate Bill 50 was meant to support midrise housing around transit hubs \u2014 a helpful thing for employers, a life changer for workers, and a good way to streamline an area\u2019s driving patterns. It would have kept California towns and cities from downzoning (lowering density, that is) near those hubs. It would have also barred some purposefully low-density zoning \u2014 for example, striking ordinances barring homeowners from building in-law cottages on their properties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

S.B. 50 would have been effective in 2020 \u2014 had it passed. Some lawmakers faulted the bill for usurping local zoning control, even for such an important reason. What next? California still needed to deal with a housing affordability crisis \u2014 even if S.B. 50 wasn\u2019t the method of choice.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As outlined by the Association of Bay Area Governments, in December 2021, California will issue\u00a0a set of Final Allocations for creating more housing<\/a>, after reviewing local appeals. Through this process, the state will apportion shares of the Bay Area\u2019s housing goals to counties and cities. Local governments must then update their general plans to indicate where units can be added and how housing needs will be filled. In January 2022, after a public hearing, the Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Allocation will be updated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, local mandates to increase California housing may not be treated as options.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now Enacted: Senate Bills 9 and 10.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

So, in came a pair of new California housing bills to bar downzoning: S.B. 9 and 10. On Sept. 16, 2021, Gov. Newsom signed them into law. Here\u2019s a summary of the pair of new provisions:<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n