After several years of debates among state legislators, stakeholders, and grassroots activists, the California Governor has signed four bills that erode local control over zoning, aiming to increase housing construction in California. The first two bills were Senate Bill (SB) 9 and Senate Bill (SB) 10 signed in September 2021. The second two bills were Senate Bill (SB) 6 and Assembly Bill (AB) 2011 signed in September 2022. In this policy essay, you will analyze whether these laws are the right direction for moving toward sustainability. Also, if they are the right direction, do they go far enough or what would you add to them? If they are not the right direction, would you replace them with anything or advocate to repeal some or all of them and return to the status quo? A major proponent for laws like these has been State Senator Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco), who seeks to combat global climate change and desires to tackle the crisis of affordable housing and homelessness in California’s major urban regions. He believes that transit-oriented development (TOD) is a solution well-fitted to both goals. First, he argues that TOD will reduce vehicle miles traveled, thus making a significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions related to automobile transportation. Second, he argues that developing at higher densities near transit stops would put a larger supply of housing on the market, thus at least slowing the increase in housing costs, if not perhaps actually reducing costs. To accomplish the goals above, Senator Weiner proposed a series of laws starting in 2018 and ending in 2020, each of which failed (e.g., SB 827, SB 50, and SB 902). In many ways, the four bills signed recently are a culmination of this effort. In some ways, these bills are more carefully circumscribed and less ambitious versions of the previously proposed laws. The basic formula of Senate Bill 10 is to make it easier to build at higher densities in urban “infill development” or in “transit rich areas.” For the specific definitions of these types of areas see the text of Senate Bill 10 here. In general, transit rich areas are near rail stops, ferry stops, and “high-quality bus corridors.” Senate Bill 9 has a less targeted approach to increasing density but may lead to significant densification in some single-family neighborhoods. SB 6 and AB 2011 both facilitate conversion of retail developments to mixed-used multi-family housing, and developers can choose which law to operate under. You can see a comparison of key features of SB 6 and AB 2011 produced by a law firm here. A consulting firm called Urban Footprint has also released a report predicting possible housing growth under AB 2011, using spatial data and methods like we explore in our labs. 2 Notwithstanding the results of Urban Footprint’s research, it is important to note that overriding zoning and easing the approval process does not guarantee that building will occur. Specific decisions are still up to property owners and private developers. There is no additional government funding in these laws to subsidize building. Instead, the bills seek to remove barriers in either local or state laws and rules to such new construction, and thus recruit private capital or (limited) existing public funding sources for building. The laws seek to make it easier to build in specific places. To make it easier to build, one key attempt in some of these laws is to make projects exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA mandates gathering of extensive information on environmental impacts and sometimes mitigation of impacts. It is also well-known to slow the development process and may increase costs. Opposition to the changes like those enacted in these four laws come from a wide variety of folks. On the one hand, there is opposition from homeowners and legislators who come from lower density “suburban” districts (For a quick accounting of this skirmish in 2019, see the link to article by George Skelton (2019) in the Los Angeles Times on Blackboard.) On the other hand, there has been opposition from activists concerned with impacts on inner-city neighborhoods. Some activists are vexed by the idea of easing rules to encourage transit-oriented development (TOD). They fear TOD’s negative impacts on equity and the environments of inner-city neighborhoods. They believe that TOD will raise property values in the areas being “up-zoned,” leading to gentrification. They fear that many rental properties, including single family homes, duplexes, and small apartment buildings, will be demolished, and that the residents, many of whom may enjoy rent control protections today, will be evicted and might even end up homeless. Others argue that policies to encourage densification, including large-sale TOD projects, crudely ignore other important aspects of urban sustainability. Among other things, they are concerned for the value of the landscapes for biodiversity, infiltration of groundwater, and ameliorating the urban heat island effect. They are also concerned that high-density development in inner-city areas may harm quality of life by increasing noise, destroying historically significant architectural landscapes, and bringing people into closer contact with traffic-related air pollution. Some activists, legislators representing wealthy (suburban) areas, and local elected officials believe that, in avoiding environmental review and allowing city councils to authorize high-density projects without voter approval or over the objections of voters from the initiative process (plebiscite), the rights of citizens to shape land use plans have been lost. They see such proposals, rightly or wrongly, as a sort of a “growth machine in disguise.” 3 Assignment Please respond to the prompt and questions above drawing on our course readings, lectures, research on California’s major urban regions, studies of transit-oriented development, and basic research on the four laws. Research can come from newspaper articles, magazine articles, and/or scholarly sources, but the best papers will rely mostly on scholarly sources, government reports, or white papers. The expectation is for at least 8-10 sources outside of course reading and lectures. You may use the sources either for facts to support your argument or as a resource for ideas in your argument. Cite them appropriately whichever purposes you choose. Near the beginning, you should carefully define the idea of sustainable development that you are using to make your analysis of whether these two laws move in the right direction for sustainability in California. What are your priorities and what sort of definition are you working from for your argument? Do you have a view of sustainability like the dominant paradigm, the thin version, or the thick version? In many ways, the debate over these laws shows the difficulty of finding a pathway that simultaneously supports environment, equity, and economy. Do you prioritize one of these 3 over the others? Do you think the balance struck in these laws is the right one or do you see it differently? Also, near the beginning, clearly state your thesis as to 1.) Whether these laws are the right direction toward sustainability as you’ve defined it, and 2a.) If they are the right direction, do they go far enough or what would you add to them? OR 2.b.) If they are not the right direction, would you replace them with anything or advocate to repeal any or all of them and return to the status quo? Throughout your policy essay, be sure to provide supporting evidence and arguments, and deal with objections that a reader might raise to your evidence and arguments. Formatting and Writing Requirements Title Block/Format: At the top of your paper, centered in single space, please provide a one-line title, your name, and your student number. Please double-space the rest of the paper with left justification. You may use a limited number of subheadings in your paper if appropriate. Length: Not more than 6-8 double spaced pages at 12-point font or about 2,000 words. Please write concisely to convey your argument. Please do not use figures or tables. Source Formatting Requirements: Please take care to cite your sources where you draw on them. Please use the Chicago Manual of Style, Author-Date format. See this web link for a brief guide: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html
