In 105 jurisdictions of the Bay Area, anyone can build any residential projected at any height or density so long as 20% of the units are for low income.
Los Altos Hills did not upzone a grocery store; there are no grocery stores or any other businesses in Los Altos Hills. It offered three sites: a K-12 Catholic school, a community college, and a set of parcels owned by one owner. All three owners told the city repeatedly and in writing that they will not (the Catholic school and the large parcel) or cannot afford to (the community college) build.
Neighboring Los Altos did list a popular grocery store, but Los Altos also listed a lot of good, plausible sites.
Good points at the end about the ideal situation being reasonable zoning, not no zoning. The Builder's Remedy saga has cathartic "burn it all down" and "stick it to the NIMBYs" energy but those feelings aren't productive as an end goal.
The Newsom admin is getting the political clout and headlines he's looking for to become known as the housing candidate going into 2024 (though this might not be making as big of a national splash as it should), glad to see they're also still approving company housing elements instead of going full nuclear for headlines.
I'm trying to understand the impact of the inclusionary requirement. Like DO said, it seems complex and could be its own Substack. But the evidence presented in this post seems to argue against them. If they result in limiting BR projects to only the wealthiest neighborhoods, areas that will also be able to put up the biggest fight against BR or come up with the craftiest zoning plans, then that's a huge failure on the part of the BR law.
And I'm wondering if anyone can confirm my understanding of why inclusionary BR projects can't be built in low-income neighborhoods now. If I follow correctly, the inclusionary housing income limits are set low enough that it's effectively unprofitable to build housing in low income neighborhoods. That seems...bad? Its effectively forcing developers to directly provide for the lowest, say 10% income people at a cost of not being able to build housing for, say, people in the 30% income decile. The indirect cost of that is building less housing, which hurts everyone, especially those at the bottom of the ladder.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but how do they define which housing meets low-income requirements? Is it based on the rental price? Is it set to match a statewide cutoff or more granular? Does the income of the renter matter, and if it does, what happens if they begin to make more money?
And what does it end up meaning in practice? Do luxury unit builders build a few no-parking, no frills units next to their expensive units, or do they build the units more similarly but just mark down the price of a few?
Los Altos Hills did not upzone a grocery store; there are no grocery stores or any other businesses in Los Altos Hills. It offered three sites: a K-12 Catholic school, a community college, and a set of parcels owned by one owner. All three owners told the city repeatedly and in writing that they will not (the Catholic school and the large parcel) or cannot afford to (the community college) build.
Neighboring Los Altos did list a popular grocery store, but Los Altos also listed a lot of good, plausible sites.
Good points at the end about the ideal situation being reasonable zoning, not no zoning. The Builder's Remedy saga has cathartic "burn it all down" and "stick it to the NIMBYs" energy but those feelings aren't productive as an end goal.
The Newsom admin is getting the political clout and headlines he's looking for to become known as the housing candidate going into 2024 (though this might not be making as big of a national splash as it should), glad to see they're also still approving company housing elements instead of going full nuclear for headlines.
1) Please keep updating us on this young engineer’s progress!
2) Does this apply to communities in Tahoe?
I'm trying to understand the impact of the inclusionary requirement. Like DO said, it seems complex and could be its own Substack. But the evidence presented in this post seems to argue against them. If they result in limiting BR projects to only the wealthiest neighborhoods, areas that will also be able to put up the biggest fight against BR or come up with the craftiest zoning plans, then that's a huge failure on the part of the BR law.
And I'm wondering if anyone can confirm my understanding of why inclusionary BR projects can't be built in low-income neighborhoods now. If I follow correctly, the inclusionary housing income limits are set low enough that it's effectively unprofitable to build housing in low income neighborhoods. That seems...bad? Its effectively forcing developers to directly provide for the lowest, say 10% income people at a cost of not being able to build housing for, say, people in the 30% income decile. The indirect cost of that is building less housing, which hurts everyone, especially those at the bottom of the ladder.
What am I missing?
I can't believe Santa Cruz is in compliance.
Wow - wild! I'm excited to see what happens.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but how do they define which housing meets low-income requirements? Is it based on the rental price? Is it set to match a statewide cutoff or more granular? Does the income of the renter matter, and if it does, what happens if they begin to make more money?
And what does it end up meaning in practice? Do luxury unit builders build a few no-parking, no frills units next to their expensive units, or do they build the units more similarly but just mark down the price of a few?