California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

Here's a summary of the themes from the Hacker News discussion about California's SB 79:

Strategy of Incremental Pro-Housing Legislation

A significant theme is the effectiveness and strategy behind passing multiple smaller, incremental pro-housing bills rather than one large, comprehensive bill. This approach is seen as more practical and less likely to galvanize significant opposition.

• “SB 79 is just the latest in a long sequence of pro-housing bills to get passed in California in the last 5-6 years. I’d rather them do one or two small winnable battles per year than bet it all on a giant do-everything bill which might galvanize more opposition,” noted Analemma_.
• Analemma_ further elaborated, "Frankly, this strategy seems to be a good one considering what a winning streak CA YIMBYs have been on."

Ministerial Approvals and Legal Protections

The structure of the new laws, particularly the shift towards "ministerial" approvals, is highlighted as a key mechanism to prevent lengthy legal challenges and bureaucratic slowdowns, especially those related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

• “This law (and other recent CA YIMBY laws) don't create much surface area to sue or slow a project: * The approvals are designed to be 'ministerial', meaning there is no discretion on whether to approve or not. If the project meets the objective criteria spelled out in the law, it must be approved,” explained nilsbunger.
• nilsbunger continued, “Ministerial approval protects the project from CEQA lawsuits. CEQA requires the government to consider the environment when making decisions. When the approval is ministerial, the government doesn't make any decisions, so there is no CEQA process to sue against.”

Concerns About Infrastructure and Transit

A recurring concern is the narrative that proximity to transit alone is sufficient justification for adding housing without commensurate infrastructure upgrades. This can lead to increased traffic congestion and strain on existing services.

• "I don't understand this narrative that California has been pushing the last few years - basically, 'There's a bus stop in the neighborhood, therefore we can add a bunch of new housing without doing any other infrastructure upgrades.' I just don't see it. What I do see after new housing is added is insufferable traffic and no parking - and empty buses," stated jimt1234.
• Rebelgecko countered this, suggesting the goal is to emulate denser cities where car ownership is less necessary: "I think the goal is to make it more like dense cities outside of California (NYC, Paris, Tokyo, etc) where car ownership can be unnecessary or even a liability. Public transit is a lot more scalable than cars."
• flomo expressed skepticism about planning development around existing transit: "My take is you build it, and THEN they come. Put in some GOOD transit. Make sure the utilities are in place. Developers will then flock to the place. This whole thing is using inside-out logic. Have a real plan first."
• ec109685 voiced a different perspective on infrastructure, arguing for road improvements and parking: "In addition to condos next to transit, California should be fixing roads, so people can move further from their job. I know it’s unpopular nimby opinion but hoping people in these homes won’t be driving cars is misguided. Give them parking, fix roads for further commute and let people live where they want."
• stouset disagreed with the road expansion idea: "More roads just does not scale. Look at LA. Look at San Francisco. More capacity isn’t just going to magically appear."
• stouset also commented on autonomous vehicles: "Waymo is only going to increase overall utilization by reducing the marginal cost of running a car. They aren’t magic traffic-solving devices, they are traffic-adding like DoorDash and Uber have been."
• baron816 raised concerns about private ownership of driverless cars: "Robotaxis are good, but everyone owning a driverless car is bad. Imagine you get to your destination, there’s no parking (or no free parking), so you tell your car to just circle the block while you’re inside... What happens when everyone does that?"

The Impact on Neighborhood Character and Quality of Life

A significant debate revolves around the effects of increased density on existing neighborhoods, with some users lamenting the potential loss of quality of life and neighborhood character, while others prioritize addressing the housing crisis.

• "HN has one particular view, which is to keep increasing density without care for any other factor. But density does change neighborhoods and quality of life in many negative ways, including the example you shared. Someone may get to move into that area at a lower price. But someone else loses what they had," argued SilverElfin.
• SilverElfin continued to express a desire for tolerance of mid-sized towns that wish to maintain their current size: "But I wish there was more tolerance for mid-size towns that don’t get density forced on them, but can stay a healthy balanced size because that’s what the locals want to hold onto for their own quality of life."
• AlotOfReading responded by emphasizing the housing crisis in urban centers: "The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them. This discussion is and has always been centered around the housing crisis in urban centers, where it's been illegal to build density for decades."
• AlotOfReading further linked housing shortages to the ability of communities to provide essential services: "As I explained in the previous post, it causes issues because it results in people who would otherwise fill jobs providing critical services to the community like teaching either moving to cheaper areas or switching careers entirely."
• jjav highlighted that these laws are not limited to urban centers: "Whether good or bad, it's important to realize this is not true in California, with regard to these laws. They apply everywhere, not only in urban centers. So if there are people who want small towns without dense development, that option has been taken away entirely."

The Role and Impact of Developers and Property Management

The discussion touches on the potential for these laws to benefit developers and property management companies, and whether the resulting housing stock will meet the needs of families or primarily serve transient individuals.

• "The discourse around high density housing does not make it clear what specific type of development do advocates prefer. Its likely that the market will have to decide for itself, but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments, targeted towards transient younger people, I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class, and families with kids/older parents looking for larger places and hoping to establish roots are still going to stuck fighting the pricing/supply wars," warned mutator.
• nilsbunger offered insight into the challenges of building family-sized units: "The economics of 3BR family units are typically hard for developers to make money on."
• davidw mentioned a counter-trend: "Single stair reform is something that helps in terms of making more family sized units (aka 'homes')."
• lalaland1125 countered the concern about family housing: "What middle class SFHs? There are no middle class SFH neighborhoods remaining in Los Angeles or the Bay Area. Take a look at Zillow. Your average young person isn't buying anything anyways."
• lalaland1125 also argued that building smaller units would free up larger ones: "Building 1/2 bedrooms would help those people move out, freeing up larger units for families. The property management class benefits most from the current system with no construction and high rents. Building a bunch of 1/2 bedrooms, triggering lower rents, would cause them to lose money."
• epistasis argued against singling out beneficiaries of housing policy: "The attitude of 'this doesn't benefit a narrow band of people that I want to benefit, therefore it must be stopped' is why California is in such a housing mess right now."
• terribleperson predicted a positive outcome for larger housing: "An abundance of 1/2 bedroom rental apartments would reduce the price of larger places, because there would be lower demand."
• ehnto noted the potential for capitalism to align with denser housing but also cautioned about exploitative scenarios: "Developers with deep pockets aren't interested in maintaining property values for single family homes, they will want to buy up land cheap and build station/commercial complexes for dense housing to build up around... For a country that lets the rich eat the poor, there is potential for exploitive scenarios to arise without the right regulation in place."
• wewewedxfgdf raised a cynical point: "All so the new housing can be sold to investors and foreign buyers."

The Debate Over Car Dependency and Urban Living

The discussion frequently returns to the issue of car ownership, its relationship with wealth and lifestyle, and its impact on urban environments.

• epistasis argued that not owning a car doesn't equate to lower wealth: "If you assume that people who don't own cars are poorer than those with cars, you are wrong and don't understand wealth. Those who move to cities and can live without cars have far higher incomes than median, and because they are not burning the average of $700/month on a car, they accumulate wealth far faster."
• doctorpangloss challenged this view, citing economic trends in cities like Seattle: "Seattle median income growth is the lowest it has ever been in the last three years, since 2022, in low single digits compared to its past high-to-double-digit growth since 2013. In a completely positivist sense, it would be really improbable for that to occur and also for reduced car ownership to be associated with greater wealth."
• doctorpangloss continued, "People make less money and cars are more expensive so fewer people own cars: that shouldn’t be a controversial POV."
• rconti stated that condo dwellers near transit are likely to have lower Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): "People who pay a premium to live in a condo close to transit will almost certainly have vastly lower VMT than people who live in a SFH in a non-walkable area."

Broader Trends in Housing Reform (Oregon and Washington)

Several users draw parallels with housing reform efforts in other West Coast states, indicating a growing trend in this direction.

• "This happened in Oregon a few years ago: any cities with 25k or more people had to permit greater density. I'm optimistic about housing on the West Coast for the first time in a long, long time. This will transform things in a big way," said xrd.
• davidw highlighted further actions in Oregon: "Oregon - thanks to governor Tina Kotek - pushed those reforms further this year... rather than larger buildings close to transit, we legalized 4-plexes and a variety of other housing types that use land more efficiently, throughout cities."
• dmoy noted similar actions in Washington: "It happened in WA two years ago as well, but Seattle dragged its feet as long as humanly possible in implementing a compliant zoning policy."

The Role of Transit Hubs and Future Development

Specifics about the applicability of the law to transit hubs and the potential for future transit development are discussed.

• "There may never be another transit hub built," mused klooney.
• TinkersW questioned the applicability to small towns: "Nine stories anywhere in the state near a bus stop seems abit much, most small towns don't have anything over 2 or 3 stories(nor do they have a housing shortage)."
• cortesoft and nilsbunger both clarified that the higher density allowances (like 7-9 stories) are generally tied to significant transit infrastructure and are unlikely to be economically viable or applicable in smaller towns or areas without robust transit.
• nilsbunger also pointed out that, "The law only applies in cities with > 35,000 people."
• m463 wondered about gaming the system: "I kind of wonder if this can be gamed, by closing train stations or moving bus stops, or bus lines."
• modeless expressed concern about cities fighting transit to avoid density: "Seems like cities will fight transit much harder than before."