By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
We have been warning all week – now the Los Angeles Times has come out with an editorial on it as well – “NIMBY cities, watch out. California is cracking down on jurisdictions that make it too hard to build much-needed housing, and the Newsom administration’s latest target is San Francisco — the liberal city that may be the NIMBYist of them all.”
The Times cites last week’s decision by HCD which announced for the first time it is launching a “housing policy and practice review” which aims to “analyze why it’s so hard to build homes in San Francisco.”
San Francisco is an interestingly high profile target. A large, high profile city that has become a poster child for the high cost of housing, gentrification, and the impacts on vulnerable populations.
As the editorial notes, San Francisco “has the longest timeline in the state for approving housing projects. From application to permit, it takes an average of 974 days for a development to get approved, according to self-reported data from the city.”
They argue, “That cumbersome process is one reason why San Francisco has among the highest construction and housing costs, and why state housing regulators have received more complaints about the city than any other jurisdiction in the state.”
The review will examine among other things, “why San Francisco’s approval process takes so long, which projects get approved or denied and why, and what barriers are preventing the development of low- and moderate-income housing.”
If the review finds that San Francisco is breaking state law, “details about the violations will be sent to the state attorney general’s Housing Strike Force.”
The Times notes, “The result of all this work could be legally enforceable commitments to improve San Francisco’s processes and boost housing production, such as streamlined reviews and deadlines to approve projects.”
Why we are tracking this however is the next piece of this.
“It could also create a template for development reform that other cities can follow, and an example of what might happen if they don’t,” the Times writes.
While San Francisco is an easy target – “because of its astronomical housing costs due to pricey real estate and city building restrictions, and the bare-knuckle fights over housing that often result in elected leaders saying “no” to new developments on flimsy grounds” – as we have reported – it is not alone.
The Times argues, “there are plenty of cities that make it far too hard to build homes and could easily be in the crosshairs of the Housing Accountability Unit.”
The reality is that while California has had the RHNA process to attempt fair share growth policies, “For decades, there have been no significant penalties for cities that flouted their obligation to plan and build enough housing to meet population demands.”
The state instead “took a hands-off approach” and left it to local government. But the result of that, “too many cities were allowed to ignore their housing responsibilities and bend to slow-growth, “not in my backyard” opposition.”
By now, regular readers have probably read between the lines here. As we have reported, HCD rejected the city of Davis’ Housing Element. We have heard from reliable sources that Davis is on the radar of HCD as one of those cities that has restrictive growth policies.
As we analyzed earlier this week, Davis is fine for now with respect to total units – 2000. The problem is going to be getting to 930 low and very low income units required by the state. As we analyzed earlier this week, the city has taken an optimistic view in reaching a 472 unit deficit. That requires the city to somehow build 83 in the downtown core area in just the next few years – that doesn’t seem realistic.
Moreover, to get to that number of low income units the city will have to figure out a way to do what it hasn’t been able to do – build standalone units or find space to put thousands of market rate units.
Either way, Davis should be on alert.
As the Times points out, “The housing shortage is at the heart of the state’s biggest problems, including homelessness, poverty, income inequality, clogged freeways and pollution from long commutes. California needs to add between 1.8 million and 2.5 million homes by 2025 to ease the shortage that has driven up rents and home prices.”
While Davis isn’t likely to move that needle very far, symbolically it might be like San Francisco much more valuable in demonstrating the sincerity of the state’s efforts.
Writes the Times, “even now with the effects of the housing shortage glaringly obvious, some cities continue to put up barriers to housing construction, including market-rate, mixed-income and affordable projects. The obstinance is especially galling in wealthy communities, such as Atherton in the Bay Area, where residents may bemoan the lack of housing construction elsewhere or donate to charities to address the fallout from the housing shortage, but refuse to make room for more homes in their own cities.”
I agree with the Times, the crack down is long overdue, “the state cannot afford to let communities stop or slow-walk construction. San Francisco may be the target now, but other cities should be next.”
Sooner or later, Davis is likely to find its way into the crosshairs of the state as well.
