The Loss of Local Influence: The Impact of California SB9, Density Bonus Projects, and Proposed Changes to Article 34. “California Remove Voter Approval Requirement for Public Low-Rent Housing Projects Amendment” is on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on March 5, 2024. Ballot Measure
This is not NIMBY. This is a concern for every neighborhood, no matter what the income level may or may not be. Over the past few years, if you have paid attention in the slightest, you have seen the various mass building projects, the lack of parking on your neighborhood street due to all the ADU construction, the speeding of cars through neighborhoods, the vilification of single-family homes, Bills from the State legislatures that say too bad neighborhood you will take the massive building projects and you will like it. Another ballot measure touted as eliminating a racist constitutional amendment, article 34, in the California constitution regarding low-income housing. This Bill slated for the March 2024 ballot is designed to get you to vote yes because if you vote no, you are a racist. I am not a racist and agree we need more affordable housing, but when I see a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing, don’t tell me it’s not a wolf. This is a wolf. This is the foot that props the door open for the State to eliminate any local input. Voters should have a say in how our tax dollars are spent for any mass project, not just housing. Dare I say look at the bullet train to nowhere that has eaten up millions and millions of dollars. They want to eliminate local input. If passed, I feel the ultimate goal for the State is to ultimately say any project mass density, with partial low-income, 100% low-income, or homeless with any portion being subsidized with State money will also be exempt from any local input. We are already witnessing the elimination of community input on mass projects. We should not be labeled NIMBY or any other name because a community wants their voices heard regarding neighborhood development.
As cities and local communities in California grapple with the need for more affordable housing, concerns are rising over the diminishing influence of communities in shaping large building projects in their neighborhoods. Recent developments such as California SB9, density bonus projects, and the proposed changes to Title 34 have left communities feeling like their neighborhoods are being transformed into metropolitan cities without adequate consideration for maintaining their calm and quiet character.
California SB9, also known as the “duplex bill,” allows for the construction of duplexes on single-family home lots and lot splits, the sleight of hand elimination of single-family zoned housing, without requiring a public hearing, effectively bypassing local zoning regulations. At the same time, proponents argue that it promotes density and affordable housing, critisaygue that it erodes local control and can result in overcrowding, increased traffic, and reduced privacy in established neighborhoods. In addition, communities are concerned that decisions about the reasons are being made at the state level without meaningful input from residents.
Density bonus projects, which incentivize developers to include affordable housing units, are also raising concerns. While the goal of providing affordable housing is laudable, implementing density bonus projects has led to increased building heights, reduced parking, and changes to neighborhood character without adequate community input. Local communities feel that their voices are being ignored, and decisions about their neighborhoods are being made by developers and the State rather than the people living there.
The proposed changes to Title 34, which is a constitutional provision in California that requires voter approval for changes to local land use plans, have further fueled concerns. If passed, the State could build wherever they want without seeking community input. This potential erosion of local control has raised the alarm among communities, who fear that their neighborhoods will be shattered by large-scale development projects that do not consider their local communities’ unique characteristics and needs.
The balance between addressing the need for more affordable housing and preserving existing neighborhoods is a complex issue. While there is a clear need for affordable housing in California, communities are rightly concerned that the State’s push for increased density and development is being prioritized over residents’ voices. Communities should have a say in shaping the future of their neighborhoods and should not feel powerless in the face of large-scale development projects that may not align with their vision for their community.
Policymakers must balance state and local control and ensure that community input is considered in decision-making. Local communities have valuable insights and perspectives for planning and development decisions. Collaboration between state and local authorities, developers, and communities is vital to finding solutions that address affordable housing needs while respecting the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods.
In conclusion, the loss of local influence over large building projects in California neighborhoods, as exemplified by California SB9, density bonus projects, and proposed changes to Title 34, has raised concerns among communities about the erosion of local control and the potential for adverse impacts on their neighborhoods. Striking a balance between addressing the need for affordable housing and preserving the character of existing neighborhoods is crucial. Meaningful community input and collaboration between state and local authorities are essential in finding solutions that meet the community’s housing needs while respecting their unique identities and values. Policymakers need to consider the voices of local communities in shaping the future of California’s neighborhoods and ensure that the interests of both the state and local communities are carefully balanced to create sustainable and inclusive societies for all residents.