☆ Opinions: The case for local control in Silicon Valley housing (1/3)
Image by David Sawyer
No parking minimums. More zoning exemptions. Are SJ Council's attempts to make it easier to develop housing truly solving affordability issues—or driving up costs? An Opp Now exclusive Q&A on zoning, densification, and the builder's remedy, with Families & Homes SJ president Sandra Delvin and past Los Altos mayor Anita Enander.
Opportunity Now: Zoning—and its associated requirements—isn't always viewed in a positive light by local free marketeers. But you both believe it's key to protecting affordable housing. Why?
Anita Enander: First, let's acknowledge that what happens with zoning in rural or suburban areas versus intensely developed cities impacts adjacent landowners differently. When people start discussing zoning, you need to ask, “What are you really referring to?” Zoning that might change important agricultural land into essentially a city? Or that changes the use (or intensity of use) of a longtime developed city?
There isn't one answer or approach for every situation. We have to get down in the weeds of it. To say someone who owns 8,000 acres in Shasta County should be able to build whatever house they want is much different, in my view, than saying someone who bought a 20-year-old house in an established neighborhood shouldn't care about their neighbor asserting a “free market” right to build a 15-story building. Zoning exists, in part, to allow predictability and trust as to land use. The most significant asset most people have is their home. Do they have any rights or say about what happens next door?
ON: And where do housing costs play in?
SD: Many people think if we build more housing, the cost per unit will go down. That's why restricting or abolishing zoning laws can be pretty popular. But it's been proven in Vancouver (see the 2024 book Broken City: Land Speculation, Inequality, and Urban Crisis) that if you build duplexes or quadplexes on properties, the property values increase. The land value increases, and the density allows for the opportunity of increased income-producing units. There is a great video that explains this called “The Sick City.”
The City of San Jose did a study on this, too, in hopes that prices would go down after implementing opportunity housing; however, prices either stayed the same or went up.
AE: The March 2025 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research confirms this. There's no empirical evidence that upzoning or densifying results in the price of housing coming down. On the contrary, it drives it up. It's simple economic sense: if you allow a use of land that can generate more money, the land value will increase.
Sandra, you mentioned Broken City: the author, Patrick Condon, has been saying all of this for over 40 years (along with others like Australian economist Cameron Murray).
ON: In efforts to increase housing stock—presumably bringing costs down—California's “builder's remedy” loophole erases zoning requirements in cities without approved Housing Elements. What are your thoughts on this type of zoning exemption?
AE: We run into problems like creating new commercial and office buildings but without the necessary housing to support those working there. There's a proposed project on the historic Sunset Magazine property in Menlo Park that would do exactly this. Completely removing zoning requirements—through exemptions or otherwise—is unwise.
When I first got involved in land use issues 10 years ago, I began digging into the background of some of the older housing bills. A number of them were the result of some incident that had happened in a city, so the Legislature passed a bill to try to prevent it from happening again. But the bill ended up having unintended consequences, and became a tree to hang more ornaments on.
Recently, there's a different kind of legislation: undermining local democracy. For instance, only requiring staff approval for projects that previously needed a city council review and/or community hearings. Many residents—Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans, etc.—feel democracy is being destroyed at the local level. They no longer have a say in what gets built in their community. In our view, communities should have the right to set development standards, zoning code, and how they incorporate public input.
SD: Santa Clara County’s late submission of their Housing Element is allowing, under the builder’s remedy, development turning the Almaden Valley urban reserves—which are supposed to be large plots, sometimes parks, etc.—into townhouses and smaller lots.
Not to mention that last year, there were discussions of reducing affordability requirements for builder's remedy projects. This would mean we'd rely completely on densification to produce affordable housing, as the builder's remedy lets you bypass zoning requirements in certain contexts. And, as we have noted, this will not produce affordability.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
We prize letters from our thoughtful readers. Typed on a Smith Corona. Written in longhand on fine stationery. Scribbled on a napkin. Hey, even composed on email. Feel free to send your comments to us at opportunitynowsv@gmail.com or (snail mail) 1590 Calaveras Ave., SJ, CA 95126. Remember to be thoughtful and polite. We will post letters on an irregular basis on the main Opp Now site.