State’s housing wars are only just beginning

The Legislature’s long-delayed response to California’s housing crisis narrowly passed in September in a flurry of last-minute nail-biting and arm-twisting. Judging by the reception that has greeted one of the new year’s first housing bills, that was nothing.

The legislation, by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, would overrule local zoning in favor of high-density residential development near mass transit. Sounds wonky enough, but fans of the idea have already declared that it would “change the shape of California housing” and, indeed, solve the housing crisis. Detractors, meanwhile, called it a “declaration of war on every urban community in California,” comparing it to the law that enabled Andrew Jackson’s Trail of Tears; and even posited that transit officials have been running empty buses up and down Berkeley’s Ashby Avenue just so developers can have their way with the surrounding neighborhoods once the bill becomes law.

In reality, of course, SB827 is probably not a conspiracy or a cure-all. But, like Wiener’s contribution to last year’s housing package, designed to expedite residential development in urban areas that aren’t meeting housing needs, it does go to the heart of the crisis by taking on the local barriers that have suppressed home building. The controversy is one measure of its potential to alter a status quo that has the state constructing about 100,000 fewer homes a year than it needs. As Wiener put it in an interview with The Chronicle’s editorial board, “It is an aggressive bill for sure.”

As it stands, which Wiener acknowledged is unlikely to be its final form, the bill would prohibit a number of common zoning restrictions within half a mile of train stations and a quarter-mile of highfrequency bus routes, precluding density limits, parking requirements and height maximums under 45 feet. That could dramatically change what can be built from outlying San Francisco neighborhoods to commuter-friendly East Bay suburbs such as Orinda.

“We have quite a few major transit hubs zoned for single-family homes as far as the eye can see,” Wiener said.

Much as last year’s legislation to encourage private

development was paired with measures to fund government-subsidized housing, the year ahead also promises renewed calls to restore state spending on local redevelopment. Gov. Jerry Brown eliminated the $5 billion redevelopment program, which was troubled by waste and abuse, amid recessionary belttightening. Replacing the money remains a popular cause among local officials, legislators, and the leading candidates to succeed Brown.

“When redevelopment was eliminated years ago, California lost a critical tool for affordable housing,” said Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, who advocates new funding “on the order of magnitude of what we lost.” Chiu, the Assembly housing chairman, noted that the matter is more urgent because of President Trump’s corporate tax cut, a disincentive to bond investment that could cost half the value of last year’s bills to fund affordable housing.

A recent impasse over rent-control expansion in Chiu’s committee means a ballot-measure fight over the issue could be the backdrop of any debate over housing in the Legislature. The prospect of such an ultimately counterproductive response to the crisis makes legislators’ task that much more important.

Lawmakers likely will grapple with a number of other housing measures, including Wiener’s newly introduced bill to address serious flaws in the state’s process for assessing local housing needs. And Chiu said he is considering how cities could be discouraged from rejecting new housing while welcoming commercial development, exacerbating the imbalance between jobs and homes in places like the Bay Area.

It’s a problem that won’t be solved readily or easily, but the debate itself is yielding signs of progress. Officials in Brisbane, who have for years rejected a proposal to build thousands of homes on a closely watched site in San Francisco’s shadow, decided to reconsider this week, citing the mere “threat of ... legislative action.”