SB9 & SB10 HAVE BEEN SIGNED, ENDING SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. NIMBYS IN SHAMBLES.
By - ThankMrBernke
Congratulations to CA
This is a big step in relieving the housing crisis and addressing climate change
Edit: now bring in the mass transit
I really wish we could finish the High-Speed Rail.
Fuck the HSR. We need a better LA metro. We need a BART that runs more often to more places with less ticket price. We need actual intra-city public transit to not suck in most places. We need walkable downtowns.
Do I want HSR? Sure. But HSR is really, really, really low on my list of priorities. More flashy bullshit pulling mind-boggling amounts of money away from better causes.
Wish BART covered the South Bay
For more detail:
>SB 9 makes two important changes to state law:
> * It allows homeowners in most areas around the state to divide their property into two lots, thereby increasing opportunities for homeownership in their neighborhood; and
> * It allows two homes to be built on each of those lots, with the effect of legalizing fourplexes in areas that previously only allowed one home.
I believe this applies everywhere except fire zones
swag, nimby tears make me hard
[CALIFORNIA ÜBER ALLES](https://youtu.be/Dc3pvLPnWRU)
* local governments can enact an owner occupancy requirement on the new lots
* zoning and design standards still apply, as long as they do not make construction physically impossible (setbacks are limited too)
NIMBYs will probably abuse these as much as they can, or find other loopholes, but for now this is huge progress
IIRC this sort of thing is happening more and more as cities realize it's actually easier to get rid of it than it is to reduce the amount. Haven't seen a whole state do it though. People feel a lot less NIMBY when everyone is being treated the same.
I thought Oregon did it statewide last year or the year before
Kinda. Oregon's reforms only affected cities with populations of over 10,000 and 25,000. So, it affects Portland and Salem, but not the more rural areas.
So, can I divide my property into two lots, and then divide those lots into two lots each, and so on?
The new lots must be at least 1,200 square feet (unless the city or county allows for it to be smaller).
But it also allows for two homes to be built on each of those lots, legalizing duplexes.
Suppose I start with a 4900 Sq ft lot.
Can I divide that into two lots, sell one, and then divide the remaining into two lots again? What about the guy that bought my other lot?
Iirc you have to live in the house for 3 years before you divide it
Dumb. But doable.
it might be a protection against some kind of shell game cheese or something
Well... that puts quite a damper on this whole bill. How is some developer supposed to come in and turn a group of expensive single family houses into more affordable duplexes now?
They have the current owner do it as part of the sale.
I would prefer the bill to be more radical, but making the changes more gradual will help prevent some backlash.
This is not going to create "More affordable" housing. It's going to create expensive rentals for wealthy uni students, hipsters, tech and "creative" professionals, and young yuppie families.
Depends on what you mean. All else being equal, half of a duplex is slightly cheaper than an equivalent single family home, whether that's renting or buying.
People keep saying this, but the bill says:
>A local agency shall require an applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.
From the date means after right? So you'd have to own and occupy one of the units for 3 years from the date of the split. Which isn't that bad if it could take 2 years or so to build the 4 apartments from the date of the approval, you only have to live in it a short while, or just wait to sell that 4th unit for a bit.
It would have made more sense if it was 3 years before you divide it, but I'm not sure that is how the law is written.
Correct. Which means this bill is going to do absolutely shit all.
Like not actually 0, but as far as making a measurable impact it's going to do nothing.
You can still make duplexes as far as the eye can see
I'm not saying what the de jure ability of what this law allows people to do. I'm telling you the reality de facto effect of what is actually going to happen. I work in RE development. Let me assure you, the average person does not want to deal with this type of bullshit on a day to day basis.
Particularly if their lot is located in a jurisdiction subject to rent-stabilization schemes. Who would go to the headache of the construction expenses for that? These laws do not limit only rent increases. They tie landlords' hands in dozens of horrific ways, and are a nightmare for small mom-and-pop few-unit landlords, such as those building duplexes under SB9.
Which basically makes this bill useless. How many random home owners who live in the neighborhood for 3 years have the finances and desire to go through the bullshit of subdividing a lot and then living next duplexes being built.
No, from [this article](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/sb-9-it-s-not-a-duplex-bill-it-s-a-2431534/0)
>The original lot was not established through a prior SB 9 lot split.
The summary says you can divide your 'property' into two lots, not your lots into two lots
No, only once
Sure. Have fun with the rent-control scheme in your area, which does not only limit rent increases. It will tie your hands so those nightmare tenants living in your lap are impossible to get rid of.
First we build duplexes and triplexes.
Then we kill God.
How many residential units did the Tower of Babel have?
Shh that's Biden's job.
#DO NOT FACE YAHWEH ALONE WHILE ASTRAL PROJECTING
This is an amazing first step
Next is low/midrises and light commercial
Nothing could express how much I would like to simply walk to a corner grocery store
SB 10 would make it easier for cities to build low rises near mass transit. I don't think there's a statewide initiative for mixed-use zoning, but many cities are doing mixed-use infill projects themselves. For example, Sacramento has a large, mixed-use project in progress, as does Los Angeles.
Where in LA though?
It's in Inglewood. Just like Sacramento, the mixed-use infill project is centered around a stadium. In Los Angeles' case, it's the area around the SoFi Stadium.
Any news on whether Cali will do anything on those?
So how do i sign up for the YIMBY death squads?
Join a local yimby group.
Based Newsom. This kind of legislation is exactly why the recall was such a horrendous idea.
He’s punishing the NIMBYs who voted against him.
You come at the king, etc
RIP Michael Kenneth Williams😢
Amazing to see this type of legislation passed in the United States. I wish we could get ANY policy proposal near this by a major party in Canada. The Liberals aren't nearly as based as the Dems imo
Vancouver is getting as bad as SF, soon enough people will have to face reality. It took a housing crisis and literal years of screaming at people to do something more aggressive than this to actually get this done.
In the SF Bay alone over 400,000 new jobs were created but only 60,000 new homes were built in that same time frame. It's just math.
This legislation is years and years in the making. They shelved this type of plan for years before finally voting on it.
Holy shit this sub is gonna cummmm
We are cumming right now.
Realizing I have a YIMBY flair…
Remembering I live in California…
I love that this was clearly held off until after the recall
This was [my favorite tweet](https://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/1438639317690171393) about it:
>Gavin literally went to bed when the recall failed and said "tomorrow morning i outlaw single family zoning immediately"
You love to see it
Daddy Gavvy delivers
What would happen if a city doubled their minimum lot size?
This overrides it. You can go smaller if city allows it but 1200 is the max minimum.
Amazing. People are saying this isn't as big as SB50 would have been, but if you can subdivide your land into 1200 Sq ft lots *by-right* and you can build a duplex on a 1200 Sq ft lot almost anywhere in the state? That seems *bigger* to me.
What am I missing?
They’re just different in terms of goals. IIRC SB 50 was about adding higher density housing close to transit. This bill is more focused on missing middle duplex development, which is also super important.
I want SB50, too. 🥺
[MRW Single Family Zoning has been abolished in California](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo3jslsZ1vo)
California is back baby! If construction isn't somehow needlessly obstructed then this will be a turning point in California history and national YIMBYism discourse. I cannot imagine a better experiment against exclusionary zoning.
All the tears, all the jabs endured, all the steep costs and near misses, but it was all worth it. 🐻 state always come through in the end. Hella cool.
Now release the HSR funding
POG POG POG
HOLY FUCK WE DID IT
Excellent, hopefully this both improves the housing situation and enables similar movements in other states.
How soon do you think new homebuyers would start to see the benefits?
- From desperate in Bay Area
There was a study showing it wouldn't immediately do much.
I think it's going to take a few years before the value of land changes and actually shows this is the most profitable thing to do.
Speculating, but 5 years out you should see the effects really hit lot prices. At first they'll jump, especially for larger lots than can be subdivided, but after those are bought and start to get developed prices will fall.
NIMBYs GET WRECKED, YYYEEEEEAAAAAHHHH!!!!
You don't suppose this will change the *character* of our *traditional family* communities, will it? We don't want to see our cul-de-sacs *urbanize* and become *unsafe*. There's something so charming about keeping our neighborhoods *the way they have always been*.
Frankly, we just want to be able to sit in our backyards and blow our dog whistles as loud as we want without having to endure the sight of some ghastly quadplex next door!
Ah, the race card. It' s a little grubby and dog-eared, but it's still getting thrown down.
Does this allow infill or new plots to be built as a duplex? Or do they have to build a single family home first and later convert/split lots?
You can build a duplex on any lot
That’s good so future housing developments can build duplexes. Or would a development company not be able to do that and only a resident who will stay for 3 years?
Anybody who gets a permit approved by their county can add units to a sfh lot.
So I read through the actual bill and one thing jumped out at me. In order to get approval for the lot split, the applicant has to sign an affidavit stating that he will live in one of the homes for at a MINIMUM of 3 years following the lot split.
So uhh yeah, that means you're not going to have professional developers going around doing this and instead it's just going to be random home owners doing it. While I'm not saying this is going to be zero, the amount of people who have the time, energy, know how, and finances to subdivide a lot, and then build 3 units on it are fucking slim.
People who are celebrating too much are missing this point. It was put in as a compromise in order to get it passed but it primarily helps the homeowners and prevents developers from buying up places, subdividing them and selling them off which is going to dramatically limit it's scope. I'm still really glad this passed and it will help reduce the increase in rents and property values but the cost of living is still going to remain very high.
Yep. My job is an industrial developer. If people think that the average home owner wants to go through all the bullshit that I do on a daily basis, they have no clue what is involved.
God damn that really sucks.
No one in their right mind is going to the expense and trouble of doing this if it's subject to rent-control schemes, which don't only limit rent increases, but tie the owner's hands in dozens of horrifying ways.
Real question, isn't this just going to exacerbate the tyranny of homeowner's associations and they'll easily be able to block any 'undesirable' building projects from their neighborhoods and there won't be any way to really circumvent that?
I mean they already do that so ig people who REALLY want to have single family only will have to move to places with HOA’s. They’ll be the first ones we nuke of course.
This will fuel further gentrification, right?
I know lol I’m just memeing
you missed the \s
That would ruin it lol
Gentrification doesn't real
Gentrification is things I don’t like and the more I don’t like it the more gentrification it is.
Hopefully this would mean less californians coming to neighboring states and jacking up our real estate prices along with driving cars like in NFS. Stay in California please
This is dumb. First, this only benefits rich people who already own a house or have the money to buy and tear down/build property. And these people definitely aren't going to sell the duplexes they might build, they're going to rent them. Which means... it won't increase the ability for most to BUY property.... which is what most people are really complaining about. I certainly don't consider my shitty rental apartment a "home", and I definitely don't want to buy property where I'm sharing a wall with other people. That's one of the biggest reasons apartments suck.
And also, if you do manage to scrape together the money, are we now going to literally require every homeowner to be a landlord to pay their mortgage? Because that's basically what this is. I'm pro-more-options, but this will do absolutely nothing for the vast majority of people.
Correct. Your energy is better spent getting state and federal lawmakers to bar ownership of single-family homes under $XXXX value by Wall Street investors and other investment consortiums.