SB 50 heads to suspense file

Would hoped to have read that both these bills were sent to the local landfill, never to be seen or heard from again.

Oh boy, bills that give our control over to the state and make it easier to tax citizens. I don't know which one is worse. Gee thanks Mr. Wiener and Mr. Hill is there any other punitive bills you want to jam down our throats. Who needs enemies with legislation like this and legislators like you two.

SB 50 and Wiener both need to go to the garbage file!

[sad] Sen. Maguire of NIMBY central Marin County said it right that everyone must do their fair share and every ‘hood should see at least a little change, and that NIMBY strategy of just saying “No” is no longer acceptable in our humanitarian housing crisis. Only the poster-child NIMBY would think it intolerable that small towns are only allowing one extra floor w/in 1/4 mile of fixed rail (which most all small counties like Marin do not have, so practically off the hook) and more density w/in same size/height buildings w/in .5 mi of major bus lines. And, for big cities, those should be much more dense, urban living, not mostly NIMBY down-zoned suburb living as it is now. Over the past 40 years NIMBY’s immorally hijacked our big cities.
There is nothing progressive, pro-tenant, or pro-affordability about exclusionary zoning that says if you can't afford a whole building to yourself on a large lot inside a big urban city, you have to stay out of the neighborhood and effective stay out of the city, or or end up living on its streets, like what even happens to a high percentage of our college student that NIMBYs have disdain for by consistently blocking boarding housing and apartments in single family zoned 'hoods (i.e., they are banned in 50-70% of the city area, which is immorally reserved only for the NIMBYs).

The simple NIMBY truth is that they do not want any apartment (not even small or mid-sized 4-5 floor ones) next to them and they believe they have a GOD given right to zone 70% of urban cities to only allow single family homes, including along public mass transit corridors. Everything else they cite are just straw-man excuses and dissinformation hiding their only real issue: to block apartments being built next to them, trying to avoid automatically losing public support if the bad optics of their immoral position were explicitly stated as their primary issue and goal.

Obviously, no single bill can solve the affordable housing crisis. It took over 40 years of NIMBY down-zoning and gentrification to put us into this housing abyss. Yet, obviously, smart upzoning with a significant affordable housing percentage requirement and tenant protections is certain part of the solution, to counteract at least a little of the unbelievable amount of NIMBY down-zoning done.

So, no big surprise that the main opposition are NIMBY homeowner associations, city council/supervisors elected by the NIMBY homeowners, NIMBY special interest groups like the fake nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and all their various proxies.

For example, see the Community Venture Partners who litigates against any supporting of SB 50 is simply a proxy of the city of Marin because their president is on the Marin Board of Supervisors, and Marin (esp. Mill Valley) is one of the most gentrified, racist exclusionary city/county in all of CA.

“Livable California” is another Marin County ultra NIMBY offshoot is another group of NIMBY elected officials suing to keep apartments out of their cutesy single family zoned urban ‘hoods.
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2019-05-03/article/47582?headline=CVP-and-Livable-California-prevail-in-challenge-to-BART-s-illegal-endorsement-of-SB-50--Bob-Silvestri-
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/In-push-for-housing-YIMBYs-sue-suburbs-13352055.php

The NIMBY Coalition to Preserve LA does similar disinformation against SB 50 too. If they had a legitimate, moral position they would not have to resort to such despicable Trump style “race bating”/disinformation tactics.

Notice how the main opposition to SB 50 are these ultra rich and ultra gentrified (racist?) homeowners backed groups, whereas that large majority of everyone else supports SB 50?

For example, NIMBYs like to cite how Weiner’s home town is even against SB 50, which is not true. In fact, the is opposite is true, because in SF, a recent poll found that 70+% of voters support SB 50. Yet, SF city supervisors made a near unanimous resolution against SB 50 , just like LA and long beach more recently did. More broadly in CA Bay Area, a recent poll found that 60% of renters support SB 50 to build apartments and more affordable housing, and 60% of homeowners (NIMBYs) are against SB 50. This is also true in LA where 64% of LA voters supported measure jjj transit oriented communities, which is pretty much like SB 50, and the high support in SF. Similarly, a recent poll also found ~60 percent of Californians support SB 50. So, we can safely say with multiple, strong lines of evidence that at least ~60 percent of Californians favor Wiener’s SB 50. Thus, the primary opposition is the vocal minority of NIMBY single family home owners who have near 100% control of their city council/supervisor elected officials because renters simply DO NOT VOTE.

So, do NIMBYs really think SF voters, LA voters, and CA voters are all heavily pro making developers rich, or maybe we, the majority, are pro getting more affordable apartments into (immorally) single family zoned areas by mass transit or job centers? NIMBYs clearly are voting to enrich their pockets and perpetuate the exclusionary/elitist stranglehold they wrongfully got over our big urban cities, while the rest of average, non-land rich, Californian’s got pushed out into the streets to die, into the fire zones to die, and into life crushing commutes to kill their and family’s quality of lives while destroying the environment w/ massive more GHG, all to preserve the NIMBY prissy ‘neighborhood character and quality of life”. NIMBYs are the height of selfishness and careless disregard for the wide-scale human suffering they caused and are causing….

Support for the polls I reference above:
https://norcalpublicmedia.org/v (see this great program on how CASA compact was reached, at 5 min.)
https://sf.curbed.com/2019/4/11/18306753/poll-wiener-transit-housing-sb-50-california-housing
https://www.bisnow.com/los-angeles/news/multifamily/las-toc-program-will-be-a-win-win-for-developers-and-community-88369

SB 50, unlike the killed SB 827, was a product of extensive negotiations by all parties at the table. Just like the CASA compact, which rich old NIMBY single family homeowners (who created the CA housing/homelessness crisis) also are rabid against, but the young and renters (who are getting crushed and spit out of CA) strongly support it.
64% of LA voters supported measure jjj transit oriented communities, which is pretty much like SB 50. So, obviously, the will of the people is to upzone around transit. So, why do NIMBYs pretend that anyone but NIMBY homeowners are dead set against SB 50 thinking it is bad for LA??? Moreover, to show how inept cities are at producing housing, even w/ JJJ, LA cannot get those project build b/c they need a state-level law, like SB 50, to empower the city to implement JJJ over competing State level land uses. LA actually wants and needs SB 50! But for the very vocal minority of NIMBYs, LA and SF Bay Area (and rest of CA) would be making much more affordable housing production progress.

No one seems to have done the most basic research that there are hundreds of luxury apartment units sitting empty in downtown Oakland because no one wants them. Now they are trying to lure people in with 2 months free rent. I believe Mayor Libby Schaaf's directive to develop at any cost strategy isn't working after all. Even Berkeley City council approved a development with units that have $11,000 a month rent. This is what will happen if SB50 is allowed to have uncontrolled growth.

Sen. Weiner's bill is a disaster written all over, it's not going to solve the housing crisis, it's just a gateway for big developers to take advantage of the housing crisis and make an even bigger mess, with high density and low quality housing. The local communities should be the ones who decide on housing, not corporate paid and government officials like Weiner.