☆ Perspectives: Why SJ doesn't need more upzoning (2/3)
Image by Wikimedia Commons
In part 2 of an Opp Now exclusive, Families & Homes SJ president Sandra Delvin and past Los Altos mayor Anita Enander discuss why they're dubious of proposed SB79—and what SF's housing situation might warn us about densification.
Opportunity Now: Your point about the importance of gathering community input on local construction projects is interesting. We suspect San Jose has a lot to do to catch up with other cities—in California, even the world—re: managing feedback.
Anita Enander: Take SB79, proposed by Sen. Wiener in this session. Without community input, SB79 will allow upzoning of whole swaths of cities from single-family to 55–75 foot tall, multi-family housing without any affordability requirement or community input—and in addition to the significant upzoning that the recent Housing Element update already required.
Sandra Delvin: Several lots in the city no longer require either a Planning Commissioner or Council review, as long as they provide some “affordable housing.” Taking the community approval part out entirely.
On top of that, the City of San Jose recently eliminated all parking requirements for new construction. This means you could build a multi-story building without any parking spots, forcing anyone working there to Uber, not drive.
ON: It sounds like you see a disconnect between well-intentioned brainstorming and then engaging the community about those ideas. What other communities in California should we be watching re: housing developments, and their potential impact on local residents?
AE: After the Los Angeles wildfires, Altadena, a majority non-white area, will likely see more densification as homeowners decide against rebuilding and instead take money for their property. This would hurt many second-, third-, fourth-generation homeowners who wouldn't be able to buy up a similar piece of property elsewhere.
I'd also watch San Francisco. SF has more housing units per capita now than they've had since 1990, yet affordability and other problems persist. Over 35k units in SF aren't moving forward on construction because developers are saying they don't pencil out; there's a lack of affordable available materials and an available workforce.
Look, none of this is easy—or it would've been solved a long time ago. There's not a single story for housing. Or for homelessness. But where's the Legislature's attention to solving these important policy issues? They're fixated on an unproven density myth.
Housing is an asset, not a commodity. It doesn't behave how the commodity market behaves.
SD: And it's land-limited. People think it's building-limited. The more you crowd on land, the more expensive it gets.
AE: Right. Vancouver more than tripled the density of their city, yet the cost per square foot of housing didn't change. There aren't many people on our city councils who understand this. Many of them don't have experience running a business and—good intentions notwithstanding—are making local housing more expensive.
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.