THE HOUSING ‘GAME CHANGER’ THAT ISN’T

California’s emergence as the U.S. epicenter of poverty because of extreme housing costs has galvanized state lawmakers, but the resulting legislation hasn’t had a huge impact on the problem. The latest study to make this point was issued last week by the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. It found that 2021’s Senate Bill 9 has had “limited or nonexistent” results in 13 California cities, including San Diego. Superseding many local restrictions, the law let homeowners on single-family lots convert their homes into duplexes or break the parcel in half to allow for another duplex as well. The report said it was premature to assume that the law wouldn’t do better going forward, but it said duplexes were unlikely to be embraced by homeowners as much as accessory dwelling units (ADUS) so long as local officials still had ways to discourage applications.

This history is of crucial relevance in San Diego, where officials are considering a bill that — like SB 9 — is billed as a potential game-changer for the housing crisis. The measure, already OK’D by a City Council committee, would allow taller apartment buildings and more backyard units to be built when a property is within a mile walking distance of a mass transit site. The current limit is a half-mile as the crow flies, even over canyons and freeways. It’s estimated this would lead to about a third of the city being in a transit development incentive zone.

Last week, The San Diego Union-tribune Editorial Board discussed the proposal with leaders of Neighbors for a Better San Diego, which is wary of abandoning longstanding city policies without assessing their impact on quality of life, and the Building Industry Association of San Diego, which has long lobbied to reduce government obstacles to construction. Neither group was enthusiastic.

The neighborhood group questioned how this law could be adopted without environmental impact reports and assessments of fire risks and said there was no evidence that residents a mile away from transit stops would consider that convenient.

The BIA welcomed any recognition that city rules needed fixing. But its leaders also said that having a city standard of easing construction for projects within 1 mile of transit that was different than the state rule of a half-mile would create legal uncertainty — and that such variances were at odds with builders’ preference for standard rules. They said a better way to spur housing is to make less onerous the regulations that a famous 2015 Point Loma Nazarene College study found were responsible for 40 percent of the cost of housing in the county.

Both sides make strong points. So does Councilmember Joe Lacava, the sole “no” vote at the committee level. He said he could support the proposal — if it had a thorough review, not the fasttracked, cursory consideration so far. Such a review must precede adoption of a far-reaching law that seems certain to have unintended consequences.

While intense debates over aspects of housing policy are needed, there isn’t enough of a big picture view of what’s going on elsewhere in the world. Leaders in Japan, Britain and many other nations have embraced advances in technology that allow for 3D “printing” of safe, sturdy new homes at a fraction of the cost of the U.S. norm. But in California, both builders and construction unions see this option as inimical to their economic interests — and NIMBYS don’t want to make adding new units vastly easier.

In a recent high-profile speech, Mayor Todd Gloria said the city had permitted 5,000 new homes in 2022, that it has another 7,000 in the pipeline and that it’s creating tens of thousands of homebuilding opportunities in several neighborhoods. Yet talk is cheap, and housing is anything but. That’s why it’s time to be willing to think outside the box.