SB 50 is just a power grab from the state from the local authorities. Most cities such as Mountain View are and have been zoning for high density housing near transportation hubs.

High cost land is not a problem as that actually tends to increase denisty to be financially viable for developers.

The real problem is the regulations and permitting which increase all costs and greatly delay building schedules. Fortunely, we have some leaders such as London Breed in SF who are fighting the execisv regulations. Good on Simitian too.

Not just a power grab by the state but by real estate developers and other special interests that could make billions buiding luxury high-rise condos in single-family neighborhoods - with little or no on-site parking. So what kind of local politician would support SB 50? A local politician who fancies himself a candidate for higher public office BANKROLLED BY THE GIANT CORPORATIONS behind SB 50.

Sorry gentlepeople, but you seem to be entirely missing the point of how political power, the power of sovereignty, is distributed between the Union (USA) and the States. There is no sovereign power of cities and counties and other local governments!

The state of California (Legislature + Gov. acting as representatives of the people, in their version of the people's best interest) may decide to take back it's control of the housing-control function (sovereign power) of California law.

The state of California, through it's Constitution and laws has the power to do that. It already does - in many, many, legal ways! Want to discriminate in how you sell or rent out YOUR apartments? (can't 1963 Rumford Act + others, DFEH enforced).

SB50, however it ends up after amend, is just a legitimate exercise of the power of our State (like the tax restricting Proposition 13 was/ limited local taxation). I personally support the intent of SB 50. And I support the local public train agency (CalTrain) using their transit oriented property for high rise/high density 20% lower income residential new development (Mercury News 12/21 pg. B2)

BTW; Masthead headline "Region's job market just keeps growing" and Local News headline "Analysis: Rent in Bay Area balloons". I believe, 'cause their is some 'faith', in the analytical power of micro-economics.

@Steven Nelson. The state legislature can pass bills that become law unless vetoed by the governor or invalidated by voters on a referendum and except as provided by the federal or state constitutions. You are right that SB 50 is within the province of the state government under the CA Constitution as currently written. Accordingly, if the state legislature is going to require cities and counties to approve mid-rise or high-rise market (and/or subsidized) housing on the street where you live - and limit or outlaw onsite parking requirements, then CA citizens may and should: (1) challenge such a law by referendum, (2) circulate and get approved by voters a state constitional amendment that provides otherwise and (3) stop electing state legislators beholden to the giant corporations behind SB 50.

What a shame that many local legislators are not representing us well to the state. Ceding zoning control to the whims of a SF politician who hates successful cities and wants to punish single family homeowners. It’s complicated, but seriously damaging and does not solve real housing shortages. This is the style of the CA state legislature “leaders.”
No on SB50 or whatever new # they assign it in 2020.
Be aware of the CA state legislature and: excessive bills, excessive taxation.
They are milking the golden goose until it....moves out of state, businesses and individuals.

SB50 is badly needed to address the statewide housing shortage and short-sighted nimbyism that is killing home affordability here.

Hopefully we can start to move away from public policy discussion language like: "shame", "whims", "hates","punish" when we write about those holding legislative positions we disagree with? @Neighbor ?

Steve Nelson is correct when he says states have control. The have passed laws allowing charter cities, and giving them local control over housing and other local issues. However, they cannot simply pass a law and take away local control. Unless they amend the law about charter cities they have several hurdles to overcome. One of them is the argument that the housing shortage/crisis is a state problem. Unfortunately there may be some shortages in some areas of CA (like silicon valley), but clearly this does not apply to most suburban and all rural areas in CA. The LCC will take the state to court to sue the STATE to preserve local control. The LCC will likely win.

Zoning for housing is not a local affair over which a charter city has control under the CA Constitution. It could be - by state constitutional amendment. But such a proposed amendment would go too far and not pass.

I do see online a Dec. 3 SF Chronicle article about a trial court level judge stating in a decision involving housing in San Mateo that planning and zoning were classic "municipal affairs" of a charter city. But appellate court decisions have upheld various state laws concerning local plannung and zoning. In other words, the judge's broad declaration, if accurately reported, is not the law in California. Still, the extent to which some local control might be constitutionally guaranteed for charter cities is worth considering. There are lots of cities in the Bay Area with their own local constitutions called "charters."

In response to Charter cities you said:

“Steve Nelson is correct when he says states have control. The have passed laws allowing charter cities, and giving them local control over housing and other local issues. However, they cannot simply pass a law and take away local control. Unless they amend the law about charter cities they have several hurdles to overcome. One of them is the argument that the housing shortage/crisis is a state problem. Unfortunately there may be some shortages in some areas of CA (like silicon valley), but clearly this does not apply to most suburban and all rural areas in CA. The LCC will take the state to court to sue the STATE to preserve local control. The LCC will likely win.”

Not if you look at the history of the Huntington Beach case. That case is identical to Mountain View. The history of their case can be found in the story “Lawsuit forces Huntington Beach to reconsider new condo proposal” (Web Link

The facts are this, it doesn’t matter if the city is charter or not, the courts cannot give them special treatment. The CITIZENS of any city are required to have the same rights whether they are in a charter city of a regular one. Simply put the state laws ARE required to be equally enforced for ALL citizens.

You are misleading the readers because Charter Cities are allowed only limited enhancements of local power as defined by the League of California Cities that states (Web Link

“Charter Cities

Did you know that, under certain home rule provisions in California's state constitution, voters can exercise a greater degree of local control than that provided by the California Legislature? Becoming a charter city allows voters to determine how their city government is organized and, with respect to municipal affairs, enact legislation different than that adopted by the state.”

This clearly does not state that a City Council is immune from state laws at all. It states that the VOTERS can exercise local control and not the City Councils. You are making a very misleading argument.

On top of that there is information from CARMEL & NACCASHA LLP, ATTORNEYS AT LAW which can be found here stating:(Web Link

While adopting a charter gives a city control over its municipal affairs, charter cities are subject to the same state laws as general law cities on matters considered to be of “statewide concern.” What constitutes a municipal affair as opposed to a matter of statewide concern is a fluid concept. OVER TIME, WHAT WAS ONCE VIEWED AS A MUNICIPAL AFFAIR CAN SUBSEQUENTLY BECOME A MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN. IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE OR THE VOTERS OF THE STATE DECLARE A MATTER TO BE ONE OF STATEWIDE CONCERN, ANY LOCAL CHARTER PROVISION OR ORDINANCE GOVERNING THAT AREA BECOMES PREEMPTED BY THE SUBSEQUENT STATE LEGISLATION.

Please provide more than just a generalization?

See Anderson v. City of San Jose decided on 11-26-2019 - a published opinion of the CA Court of Appeal concerning the relative authority of state law and a charter city over local housing matters. The opinion became final 30 days after issuance (on Dec. 26). There is a 10-day period within which the City of San Jose or other aggrieved party could petition the CA Supreme Court for discretionary review (by January 5).

Monday, January 6.

@Charter cities: I would guess that the former President of the LCC (League of California Cities) would be approximately correct in his assessment of laws intersecting and colliding! But then again, another practicing lawyer seems to be advocating a different legal argument in 'his "brief" brief'. And of course @The Business Man has a longer and more detailed posting, with the (usually) welcomed inclusion of language from Calif. statutes and court cases.

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for your attention to legal detail, and your continued participation in the MV Voice public discussion forums - on a basis that, to me, makes the Process of local democracy "interesting".

Happy New Year!

for those not quite 'up to speed' on some of these legal 'back-and-forths'

In California a trial court judge decision does not mean it covers "case law" for the entire state, or even other trial judges in the same court area. If the case is appealed to a Calif. Court of Appeal it 'might' be decided and BECOME "A PUBLISHED" appellate court decision, for that district. [my understanding is that most Appellate Div. written decisions are not "published"]

ONLY "PUBLISHED" appellate court decisions start to apply to other cases. "PUBLISHED" appellate court decisions may be "unpublished"! Yikes. My understanding (not a CA appellate attorney) is that "unpublished" happens when two or more appellate districts disagree on the law (different decisions) - and the Calif. Supreme Court usually intervenes.

Use Google Scholar! Set the checkcircles to "case law" "California courts" - happy hunting!

As usual BM is clueless about what he quotes. The same goes for SN? The last quote from the law firm actually supports my point. “ What constitutes a municipal affair as opposed to a matter of statewide concern is a fluid concept. “. This supports my point in the post. The state alleges The housing crisis as a state wide crisis , which it isn’t , as opposed to a local concern, which it is. They do this because they want to assert control over charter cities. No one seriously believes the “housing shortage “ is a state wide problem.

In response to Charter cities rule you said:

“As usual BM is clueless about what he quotes. The same goes for SN?”

WOW talking about attempting to make personal derogatory comments instead of discussing the subject. You said:

“The last quote from the law firm actually supports my point. “ What constitutes a municipal affair as opposed to a matter of statewide concern is a fluid concept. “. This supports my point in the post.”

Granted it does, but the recent cases decided by the appellant courts and the give up by Huntington Beach seems to disprove your claim. Why not provide any cases that proves your point? You said:

“The state alleges The housing crisis as a state wide crisis , which it isn’t , as opposed to a local concern, which it is.”

What case can you present to prove this? What authority do you possess to make this determination? Frankly it is just your opinion, which is your right. But you do not have the authority to proclaim this. Unless you have any legal case to prove this point. You said:

“They do this because they want to assert control over charter cities. No one seriously believes the “housing shortage “ is a state wide problem.”

Actually since it is documented that there is as much as 4 million housing unit deficit. At the very least the California Legislative Analyst’s Office in 2015 stated at least 2.7 million housing unit shortfall. Specifically it was reported:

“Estimated under-supply of housing units

The California Legislative Analyst's Office 2015 report "California's High Housing Costs - Causes and Consequences" estimates that for the state to have kept housing prices no more than 80% higher than the median for the U.S. as a whole (the price differential which existed in 1980, as opposed to the >150% differential which exists today), California would have needed to add approximately 210,000 new housing units each year over the past three decades (1980-2010), rather than the 120,000 / year which were built. Their midpoint estimate of the underbuilding for the last three decades is 90,000 units per year, an estimated shortage of 2.7 million housing units (20%) by 2010.[1]:21”

Please understand that it seems that your belief is that as long as you can deny the reality, reality can be ignored. It looks like the “non-partisan” LAO office clearly knows that the minority of the state areas that are claiming there is no deficit of housing cannot make up for that large a deficit. But you will simply declare that the LAO must be “fake” news. Just understand that the areas where the housing is the least short are the areas where workers are the least needed.

Why not let the public make up their own minds instead of acting as an “authoritarian” and dictate your opinion above all others. Let’s let the courts make the decisions, using the process of providing real evidence and process.

“As usual BM is clueless about what he quotes' of course you take this personal because it shows your lack of making a coherent argument.

You provide state statistics as if they apply to every local area in california. They don't. My relatives live in the sacramento area. there is no shortage of housing. Plenty of empty land and tens of thousands of homes planned and being built. Same goes for cities like Elk Grove, Lodi, Modesto and Tracy. All you have to do is drive out of your safety bubble in MV and take a look at the incredible number of housing units being built in these towns.

I agree that there is a severe housing shortage in the Bay area. But when the state claims the housing shortage is a statewide crisis they are lying. By quoting state statistics, you fail to show evidence that the issue applies to all local areas except in a few areas of CA.

I am no authority but I also know the state is no authority on housing issues. This is a purely political move by state legislators top rein in charter cities.

In response to Charter cities you said:

“You provide state statistics as if they apply to every local area in california. They don't. My relatives live in the sacramento area. there is no shortage of housing.”

Then why is there so much news about unaffordable housing in Sacramento like this one “Sacramento City Leaders explore Manufactured Homes as option to solve affordable housing” (Web Link and Regional Leaders Discuss Affordable Housing Solutions” (Web Link This would appear to disprove your claim there is plenty of housing set up in that area.

As far as Elk Grove, they report a deficit of affordable housing found in the Elk Grove Citizen report titled “Affordable Housing Addressed at Community meeting” (Web Link

Lodi reports that there is problems with development due to current infrastructure found on the CW 13 website story found here (Web Link You also said:

“All you have to do is drive out of your safety bubble in MV and take a look at the incredible number of housing units being built in these towns.”

It looks like they are not able to make a dent in the housing crisis. Why bring up information that can be used to impeach your claims? You said:

“I agree that there is a severe housing shortage in the Bay area. But when the state claims the housing shortage is a statewide crisis they are lying. By quoting state statistics, you fail to show evidence that the issue applies to all local areas except in a few areas of CA.”

It looks like the information I researched demonstrates the opposite. You simply claim that the State is lying, but stories seem to prove their legislative determination is not false. You said:

“I am no authority but I also know the state is no authority on housing issues. This is a purely political move by state legislators top rein in charter cities.”

Charter Cities are not special, given that the legislature must satisfy both the state Equal Protection Clause and the U.S. Constitutions Fourteenth Amendment. No City can act that violates these provisions, if they do they are acting unconstitutionally. The Courts are in effect preventing unequal protection of citizens whether they live in a city or a charter city, its simply does not matter.

OH Well, it was nice for the Holidays to not see the usual spammer around.

There is a difference between market priced housing and subsidized housing. There is no shortage of market priced housing in the cities you cite. The reports you cite all refer to subsidized housing. Saying there is a shortage of a price controlled product is silly. It’s like saying there is a shortage of free ice cream or rent controlled units. Once again your arguments are not applicable because you fail to understand basic economics. This is my last reply, since you have failed miserably in your attempt to understand my basic points about charter cities and housing markets.

Odd back and forth. I cited a case of a decision and "opinion" (supporting statement of facts and law) that the Court of Appeal (panel of 3) has certified for publication. State Court of Appeal decisions and opinions (not extending to dictum) are the law of the State if certified by the court involved for "publication"- unless trumped by a decision of a higher court. There is one higher court in the state court system: the California Supreme Court. There is no appeal to the California Supreme Court except in a death penalty case. A civil litigant, such as the City of San Jose in the Anderson case I cited in an earlier post, may request (petition) the California Supreme Court for review of issues in a case decided by a Court of Appeal. Review is discretionary and denied 99% of the time. A party or anyone else may write the CA Supreme Court advocating that it de-certify a Court of Appeal decision-opinion as not properly certified for publication. However, such a request is not properly based on the merits of the decision-opinion but just on whether it explains the law so as to add to the body of law in the state. If a certified for publication Court of Appeal decision-opinion conflicts with another such Court of Appeal decision-opinion, the law is unsettled and lower level judges (of the Superior Court) may choose the decision-opinion to follow. Such a conflict is one reason the CA Supreme Court may be pursuaded to grant review in a case. In any event, if you want to know the status of the power of charter cities over planning and zoning for housing, look at the Anderson v.
City of San Jose decision-opinion online. You will see that the state generally may impose its planning and zoning rules on cities and counties - even charter cities with their special state constitutional authority over "municipal affairs." Charter cities do have the special power vis-a-vis the state government as just stated. The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution has no application to this division of power under the CA Constitution. Any city can become a charter city. The bottom line is that California voters may want to consider proposing by initiative a state constitutional amendment - or preemptive initiative statute - which, if adopted at a statewide election - would empower counties and cities or just charter cities (whatever is proposed) to make certain decisions about local land use regardless of what the state government might otherwise dictate in response to the demands of corporate bigwigs or other monied special interests operating in Sacramento. Most likely, voters will do nothing. People pay a high price for allowing corporations and other special monied interests to get their way in local, state and national politics.

In response to Charter Cities you said:

“There is a difference between market priced housing and subsidized housing. There is no shortage of market priced housing in the cities you cite.”

Well if that were the case, you are correct there is no housing crisis. But you know that simply is only your narrowly focused point of view. Given that those housing units are unaffordable, thus they are vacant. That is why you are opposed to any means that will increase inventory especially regarding affordable units. You said:

“The reports you cite all refer to subsidized housing. Saying there is a shortage of a price controlled product is silly. It’s like saying there is a shortage of free ice cream or rent controlled units.”

It was not my words, it was the Legislative analyst’s office words, I am just the messenger here. You said:

“ Once again your arguments are not applicable because you fail to understand basic economics. This is my last reply, since you have failed miserably in your attempt to understand my basic points about charter cities and housing markets.”

Economics you say? Well if the market was not manipulated by only providing premier housing by the private sector you would have a good point. But instead you have the private sector dictating what products it will provide, skewing the costs because they force only the highest priced products on the market. That is not REAL economics, it is price fixing and gouging and you know it.

Also that is the failure of only promoting “supply-side” economics, where in REAL economics the “demand-side” has equal power to balance the market and provide more resources than what is “dictated” by the private housing sector, and you know that too.

If the market “demands” lower cost housing and it is not provided, the state does have the power to regulate it so it does. That is simply the facts also and hyou know it.

In response to Gary that said:

“The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution has no application to this division of power under the CA Constitution.”

But the 14th Amendment is supreme over the CA Constitution. Thus is any Citizen is not provided the same rights no matter where they live in the state, simply based on their geography, it would violate the U.S. Constitution. Remember the 14th Amendment states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.”

Thus the State Courts are required to act in compliance with the 14th amendment, and any attempt to dose selective enforcement of the state laws will be prohibited under such constitutional control. Why if you read this:

“Equal Protection

Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.”

So that means again it does not matter whether they are in a chart city or a regular one. No court has ever proclaimed that a Charter City is immune of the 14th Amendment. In fact the following document from the Institute of Local Government found here states: (Web Link

“Other Restrictions on State Legislative Powers Relating to Cities and Counties

California’s Constitution forbids the Legislature from taking certain kinds power away from county and city officials and giving it to private parties.10 More specifically, the Legislature may not delegate to private persons or entities power over municipal improvements, money (including taxes and assessments), property, or functions.11

The Legislature also may not single out a particular city or county for special legislation.12 However, the courts have allowed the Legislature to create classes of cities and counties as long as the individualized treatment bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose.13 One way of classifying counties and cities is by population.14
State and Federal Constitutional Limitations

Local officials’ actions must also comply with the United States Constitution and federal law. Areas of federal law that frequently arise for local agencies include:

The First Amendment establishment of religion, free exercise of religion and free speech clauses.18

The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search or seizure.19

The Fifth Amendment right to remain silent (for example, in police interrogations) and the requirement of just compensation for the taking of property.20

The Fourteenth Amendment’s protections of due process, equal protection and property rights.21

California’s Constitution also contains similar declarations of rights, as well as other provisions that may limit local actions. Some examples include provisions relating to water rights,22 workers compensation,23 alcoholic beverage regulation,24 public housing projects25 and the non-partisan nature of municipal government.26

Local officials should also be aware of the various federal civil rights laws, which prohibit public agencies from discriminating against individuals based on a number of protected characteristics (for example, race, gender, physical disability and age). The state also has a number of laws that contain similar—but not always the same—protections”

So this further reinforces that any Charter City that violates the equal protection clause will be subject either state or federal court violation of the constitution. Thus the court will not allow such actions. You are right in making a statement that said:

“Any city can become a charter city. The bottom line is that California voters may want to consider proposing by initiative a state constitutional amendment - or preemptive initiative statute - which, if adopted at a statewide election - would empower counties and cities or just charter cities (whatever is proposed) to make certain decisions about local land use regardless of what the state government might otherwise dictate in response to the demands of corporate bigwigs or other monied special interests operating in Sacramento. “

But if that ballot measure is used to violate the Equal Protection Clause, the courts will most likely call it unconstitutional as well.

The 14th amendment's "equal protection clause" does apply to an evaluation of state constitutional provision but it has no application to the different authority given to a charter city and a non-charter city because any city may become a charter city with special authority over "municipal affairs." Think of a city charter as a marriage contract between a city and its citizens. Non-citizens don't count. They can't vote. The law says so. Does that law violate EQUAL PROTECTION? Do borders violate Equal Projection? Does a law that says you cannot take another's property without paying for it violate the right to EQUAL PROTECTION of someone poor or broke? But let's stick with my marriage example. The law empowers married persons to make decisions for one another that cannot be made by unmarried persons living together. The law does not deny the unmarried couple EQUAL PROTECTION if they could get married. Do you agree? EQUAL PROTECTION does not require that everyone or every relationship be treated the same under the law. For example, in California, a 17-year-old cannot get married without the consent of parents or others as provide by state law. A 15-year old cannot get married at all. A father cannot marry his daughter. A prisoner on death row cannot marry. A man cannot marry his best friend DOG. So far, a bisexual is not allowed to marry in accordance with his (or her) dual sexual orientation (i.e., at least one man and one woman). And how about men that want 10 wives? Consider that EVERY LAW DISCRIMINATES. Think about that one. Cite a law and I will tell you how it is discriminatory and yet not violative of the Fourtheen Amendment. Don't cite 10 laws. I don't have all day to respond.

In response to Gary you said:

“The 14th amendment's "equal protection clause" does apply to an evaluation of state constitutional provision but it has no application to the different authority given to a charter city and a non-charter city because any city may become a charter city with special authority over "municipal affairs." Think of a city charter as a marriage contract between a city and its citizens. Non-citizens don't count. They can't vote.”

A City Charter is not a “marriage” contract. And in fact this concept is not applicable at all. The Citizens of the City do not sign away their rights under the State or Federal Laws or Constitution. They in fact cannot be coerced or voluntarily waive those rights in any way. You went on to say:

“But let's stick with my marriage example. The law empowers married persons to make decisions for one another that cannot be made by unmarried persons living together. The law does not deny the unmarried couple EQUAL PROTECTION if they could get married. Do you agree?”

Again, the idea to compare marriage to that of State and Federal Laws and Constitution protections are coerced or voluntarily waived by living in a Charter City is simply false. You said:

“EQUAL PROTECTION does not require that everyone or every relationship be treated the same under the law. For example, in California, a 17-year-old cannot get married without the consent of parents or others as provide by state law. A 15-year old cannot get married at all. A father cannot marry his daughter. A prisoner on death row cannot marry. A man cannot marry his best friend DOG. So far, a bisexual is not allowed to marry in accordance with his (or her) dual sexual orientation (i.e., at least one man and one woman). And how about men that want 10 wives? Consider that EVERY LAW DISCRIMINATES. Think about that one. Cite a law and I will tell you how it is discriminatory and yet not violative of the Fourtheen Amendment. Don't cite 10 laws. I don't have all day to respond.”

To bring up of all things such unrelated examples not involving the DIRECT protections that the State Legislature has determined the urgency of affordable housing shortages is nothing but a distraction. The simple truth is that where the law gives unequal protection simply because one lives in Cupertino versus Mountain View is the Constitutional Question? NO, the laws must and do equally apply on both persons, it does not matter where they live.

Granted that the last 20+ years the state did not require any rules for the housing market. But that caused the extreme lack of affordable housing being built. People have gotten spoiled and never took into account the fact that the legislature reserved the power to do what is occurring today. And those with a financial interest to not be subject to those regulations are simply trying to distract from that fact.

You did not cite a law - any law - that is not discriminatory. You do not understand EQUAL PROTECTION.

Gary,

How about the law against Murder/Homicide? Does it Discriminate?

How about the Civil Rights Act? Does it Discriminate?

How about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? Does it discriminate?

Your use of discriminatory is in error. The problem is that the words of law are non-discriminant. The problem is the people use their "discretion" to unequally enforce the laws. I agree that is a serious problem.

So here are some laws. Are you saying that prosecuting a murderer is discriminato? How about the ability to vote, does protecting one to be able to vote discriminate against another who votes? How about the ability of a paralyzed student being able to go to school, does that discriminate against one able bodied?

Try to understand you are misrepresenting the problems that do occur. But you do not disregard the big picture simply because there are those that try to abuse the laws.

That is what the courts are responsible to deal with. And yes there are judges that can abuse their power. But they get removed like the judge Persky who acted in such disregard of the law he was expelled.

Of course you will defend him because he disregarded the laws.

So do you really understand EQUAL PROTECTION?

Equal Protection does not apply to money, it may apply to land, but land value is not determined by law. It is determined by those who either wisely or unwisely evaluate the value of it. The courts are not insurance policies, the land value can decay rapidly based on all kinds of factors.

Please look at (Web Link

Historically, the equal protection clause has rarely been used by property owners challenging actions by government denying, conditioning, or delaying development plans. This reluctance to use equal protection is due to the judiciary’s reluctance to strike down government land use decisions on the basis of a clause that seems better suited to matters involving race and gender discrimination, or violation of fundamental rights, such as the right to vote or travel. THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP LAND FOR A PROFIT IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. When land use and property issues are attached to an equal protection claim, COURTS EMPLOY RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW AND DEFER TO THE LAND POLICY DECISIONS OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

Also read this:

“Another problem facing property owners who rely on equal protection is that courts often require evidence that the plaintiff was treated differently from others similarly situated. THIS STANDARD IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO SATISFY BECAUSE THERE ARE USUALLY SOME FACTUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF’S LAND AND PLANS FOR THAT LAND, AND OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS. When a reviewing court looks at whether the plaintiff was in fact treated differently from other, similarly situated property owners, THERE ARE NO SUCH “SIMILARLY SITUATED” OWNERS TO BE FOUND, AND THE PLAINTIFF FAILS TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF.

Also read this:

“The unavailability of equal protection has been a true disadvantage for aggrieved property owners. THE GRAVAMEN OF THE HARM IS IN MANY CASES THE PLAINTIFF’S SUBJECTIVE ASSUMPTION THAT ITS LAND USE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN SELECTIVELY DISMISSED BY A MEAN-SPIRITED GOVERNMENT, WHICH HAS DECIDED TO “PICK ON” THE PLAINTIFF BECAUSE THE RELEVANT OFFICIALS ARE HOSTILE TO EITHER THE OWNER-PLAINTIFF, OR ITS LAND PLAN. These facts, if proven, certainly suggest the viability of an equal protection. Moreover, an equal protection claim has the terrific advantage of end running two requirements that too many times cripple takings claims—the need for a defined property interest, and ripeness.”

The simple fact is there is no way to establish a “scientific” and “universal” standard of land value, it is simply an opinion. The California Courts have said so in many cases where buyers tried to sue appraisers for over-evaluating properties. “Opinions” cannot be established as a standard because everyone can make a different one. And the courts found that said opinion is “protected speech” under the First amendment, so no one can be found liable for their opinions.

So please address the real topic from now on?

So, you still do not cite any law that is not discriminatory. None exists. You cannot understand Equal Protection until you understand that every law is discriminatory. If the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE rendered every discriminatory law unconstitutional, there would be no laws. So, as your last blast acknowledges, the courts have interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as invalidating laws only in limited circumstances. But you are not yet ready to re-think the issue.

Gary,

I understand now. You are a classic libertarian. You will simply say if any law is discriminatory in your opinion, the law should not exist.

Well, lets just than allow everyone the right to a gun, and the freedom to kill anyone for any reason.

Lets make it so only white men who own land the right to vote.

Lets make it so a person in a wheelchair cannot go to school. Better yet sterilize them so they cannot reporoduce. Lets do the sam for any reason to anyone.

Gary, do you really agree with this? If you do please say so?

No. Wrong again. You seem incapable of answering my basic question and understanding why the courts have held that "equal protection" only operates to make unconstitutional laws in limited circumstances. No slight intended. Most lawyers do not get it either.

In response to Gary you said:

“No. Wrong again. You seem incapable of answering my basic question and understanding why the courts have held that "equal protection" only operates to make unconstitutional laws in limited circumstances. No slight intended. Most lawyers do not get it either.”

We are simply in disagreement here.

But the fact that SB 50 is back on track as reported here (Web Link seems to be of some concern of many people.

This law if passed will require increased affordable housing in areas where jobs are outpacing homes in the area. This is a threat to those who are investing in projects in areas where long commutes will increase the cost of workers enough to not make living in those areas feasible.

There are other issues at play here, AB 5 is going to cause a significant move of workers out of state, especially the 50% workforce that works in the valley. All of the “big tech” companies are using worker misclassification in violation of the Federal Microsoft Case Web Link and the Dynamex Case (Web Link There is going to be either a significant change over to employees regarding this work, or these companies are going to relocate that work outside California.

On top of that there is AB 1482 that creates temporary state wide rent control for any person or group that rents out more than 10 units in the state. And it doesn’t matter whether they are single family homes, duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes or apartments and condos.

The simple real issue is that the laws are going to cause a significant real estate correction in the bay area. This is reported by the Mercury News found here (Web Link The reality is that real estate values are about to go through a serios downgrade and recent investors are about to get a serious hit.

Gary, we will just have to wait and see if Mountain view will challenge enforcement of the state laws. But if Huntington Beach is any predictor, that seems highly unlikely. And any citizen can file a lawsuit to get a writ of mandate to force the city to comply with the state laws.

The fact is that practically all of California has not achieved housing needs reported here (Web Link in the Orange County Register. This leaves these cities vulnerable to lawsuits because they are resisting compliance with the new laws that were passed and made effective in 2018 and 2019 along with 2020.

Until the City of Mountain View achieves the current need under the RHNA report, the city simply does open itself up to lawsuits.

This appears to be a perfect storm to cause a major reduction in population in this area and thus will in effect force prices to drop no matter what the laws are, but the laws will force more price cuts.

Instead of forcing cities to permit higher density housing in areas currently reserved for single-family homes (and sometimes duplexes) in order to provide more nearby housing for corporate employers such as Google and Facebook, corporations should be allowed to expand (greatly) the number of its employees only in areas with space and a plan for adjacent housing. In Santa Clara County, that is mostly south county. SB 50, as last written, required NO BELOW-MARKET RATE HOUSING - not ownership or rental. State Senator Scott Weiner had added density bonuses for "affordable" units just as a sideshow. Weiner is schedule to unveil his latest version of SB 50 next Tuesday. We shall see the new game plan for the corporate employers then.

In response to Gary you said:

“Instead of forcing cities to permit higher density housing in areas currently reserved for single-family homes (and sometimes duplexes) in order to provide more nearby housing for corporate employers such as Google and Facebook, corporations should be allowed to expand (greatly) the number of its employees only in areas with space and a plan for adjacent housing. In Santa Clara County, that is mostly south county. SB 50, as last written, required NO BELOW-MARKET RATE HOUSING - not ownership or rental. “

You are nitpicking on the current bill. However that is a major mistake because there are concurrent laws that will require affordable or below market housing to be built in any new project.

The first law is SB 166 Enforceable since Jan. 2019 (2017): NO‐NET‐LOSS LAW STRENGTHENED FORTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT SITE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS

OVERVIEW

The 2017 California legislative session yielded a “housing package” of 15 bills that significantly increased both the financing of affordable housing development and the obligation of local governments to plan, zone and approve affordable housing developments. This memorandum focuses on SB 166 (Skinner), a bill that substantially strengthens the No‐Net‐Loss Law’s1 obligations for jurisdictions to preserve sufficient sites to address the community’s identified need for lower‐income housing.2

SB 166 amends the No‐Net‐Loss Law to require that the land inventory and site identification programs in the housing element always include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA. When a site identified in the housing element as available for the development of housing to accommodate the lower‐income portion of the RHNA is actually developed for a higher income group, the locality must either (1) identify and rezone if necessary an adequate substitute site or (2) demonstrate that the land inventory already contains an adequate substitute site.”

On top of that there is SB35 Enforceable since Jan 2019 as I pointed out states:

““(B) The development is subject to a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on one of the following:

(i) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or that production report reflects that there were fewer units of above moderate-income housing approved than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period. In addition, if the project contains more than 10 units of housing, the project seeking approval dedicates a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income. If the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires that greater than 10 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income, that zoning ordinance applies.

(ii) The locality did not submit its latest production report to the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or that production report reflects that there were fewer units of housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area median income that were issued building permits than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period, AND THE PROJECT SEEKING APPROVAL DEDICATES 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS TO HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS MAKING BELOW 80 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, UNLESS THE LOCALITY HAS ADOPTED A LOCAL ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THAT GREATER THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE UNITS BE DEDICATED TO HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS MAKING BELOW 80 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, IN WHICH CASE THAT ORDINANCE APPLIES.”

The other LAW is SB 540 Enforceable since Jan. 2019 Which states:

“(3) At least 30 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME, as defined by Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008; AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code; and AT LEAST 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE RESTRICTED FOR A TERM OF 55 YEARS FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, as defined by Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE SHALL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF ABOVE MODERATE INCOME.”

Gary, just understand that you are not taking the entire picture into account here. SB50 will not operate in a vacuum. It will be required that all state laws be working together. Thus the new project will have price controls and BMR housing requirements.

Also these laws are also required to be in compliance by any City in the state of California. Charter Cities are not immune of these laws. Thus there are laws in place that will cover BMR housing Inclusion.

A quick look at SB 540 indicates that it allows a city to allow a developer to obtain project approval without doing the usually CEQA (ENVIRONMENTAL) review if some units affordable to middle-income families are included. That would not guarantee any "affordable" units in projects authorized by SB 50 (if it becomes law). SB 50 is about providing more nearby housing for well-paid corporate employees - current and planned. Any benefit to others would be trickle down.

Gary I think you did not do much in the way of research on SB50. This is long but it includes the text that was in the previous version of SB50. Now I do not have the updated text yet, but if this text is copied into the current bill than if you look at the California Legislative Office website here (Web Link especially dealing with affordable housing specifically:

65589.5. (a) (1) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(2) In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following:

(A) CALIFORNIA HAS A HOUSING SUPPLY AND AFFORDABILITY CRISIS OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.

(B) While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor.

In the act the following rules will apply:

“(K) The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing FOR ALL ECONOMIC SEGMENTS OF CALIFORNIA’S COMMUNITIES BY MEANINGFULLY AND EFFECTIVELY CURBING THE CAPABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DENY, REDUCE THE DENSITY FOR, OR RENDER INFEASIBLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND EMERGENCY SHELTERS. That intent has not been fulfilled.

(L) It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.

(3) It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently.

(b) IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT NOT REJECT OR MAKE INFEASIBLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, INCLUDING EMERGENCY SHELTERS, THAT CONTRIBUTE TO MEETING THE NEED DETERMINED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ACTION AND WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH SUBDIVISION (D).”

That appears to be directly requiring that local governments cannot interfere with the impact of either current price controls or inclusionary requirements so that as much as 50% of all new units will be required to be affordable based on incomes. If you look further you can see this as well:

“(d) A LOCAL AGENCY SHALL NOT DISAPPROVE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INCLUDING FARMWORKER HOUSING AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION (H) OF SECTION 50199.7 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, FOR VERY LOW, LOW-, OR MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, OR AN EMERGENCY SHELTER, OR CONDITION APPROVAL IN A MANNER THAT RENDERS THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INFEASIBLE FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE USE OF VERY LOW, LOW-, OR MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, OR AN EMERGENCY SHELTER, INCLUDING THROUGH THE USE OF DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS, UNLESS IT MAKES WRITTEN FINDINGS, BASED UPON A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, AS TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

(1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, PROVIDED THAT ANY DISAPPROVAL OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL SHALL NOT BE BASED ON ANY OF THE REASONS PROHIBITED BY SECTION 65008. IF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INCLUDES A MIX OF INCOME CATEGORIES, AND THE JURISDICTION HAS NOT MET OR EXCEEDED ITS SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED FOR ONE OR MORE OF THOSE CATEGORIES, THEN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT BE USED TO DISAPPROVE OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.

(2) THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OR EMERGENCY SHELTER AS PROPOSED WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC, ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY, AND THERE IS NO FEASIBLE METHOD TO SATISFACTORILY MITIGATE OR AVOID THE SPECIFIC, ADVERSE IMPACT WITHOUT RENDERING THE DEVELOPMENT UNAFFORDABLE TO LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS OR RENDERING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EMERGENCY SHELTER FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE. AS USED IN THIS PARAGRAPH, A “SPECIFIC, ADVERSE IMPACT” MEANS A SIGNIFICANT, QUANTIFIABLE, DIRECT, AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT, BASED ON OBJECTIVE, IDENTIFIED WRITTEN PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY STANDARDS, POLICIES, OR CONDITIONS AS THEY EXISTED ON THE DATE THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE. INCONSISTENCY WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIFIC, ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.

(3) THE DENIAL OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OR IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH SPECIFIC STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, AND THERE IS NO FEASIBLE METHOD TO COMPLY WITHOUT RENDERING THE DEVELOPMENT UNAFFORDABLE TO LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS OR RENDERING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EMERGENCY SHELTER FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE.

(B) If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. IN ANY ACTION IN COURT, THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL BE ON THE LOCAL AGENCY TO SHOW THAT ITS HOUSING ELEMENT DOES IDENTIFY ADEQUATE SITES WITH APPROPRIATE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND WITH SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE LOCAL AGENCY’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME CATEGORIES.”

Thus there are provisions that will tie the affordability of housing to the responsibility of the City. In effect if the City does not provide enough units as established by the RHNA. If a citizen goes to court under these circumstances, and the City approval does not establish the inclusionary units described in the other laws, the City will be significantly liable for that failure. The City surely will not allow the developments without the inclusionary housing requirements. You said that SB50 allows for ignoring CEQA standards, but this provision seems to reverse that statement:

“(e) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RELIEVE THE LOCAL AGENCY FROM COMPLYING WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 2.6 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 65088) OF DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 OR THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT OF 1976 (DIVISION 20 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 30000) OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE). NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RELIEVE THE LOCAL AGENCY FROM MAKING ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 21081 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE OR OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (DIVISION 13 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 21000) OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE).’

Also this part clearly states that SB50 dismisses the affordable housing requirements under the state laws are required to be complied with as demonstrated here:

“(f) (1) Nothing in this section SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT A LOCAL AGENCY FROM REQUIRING THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO COMPLY WITH OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE, WRITTEN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CONDITIONS, AND POLICIES APPROPRIATE TO, AND CONSISTENT WITH, MEETING THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development.

Also this law will be explicitly applicable to Charter Cities as demonstrated here:

“(G) THIS SECTION SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO CHARTER CITIES BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE FINDS THAT THE LACK OF HOUSING, INCLUDING EMERGENCY SHELTER, IS A CRITICAL STATEWIDE PROBLEM.”

Price controls are described in this section of SB50:

“(3) “HOUSING FOR VERY LOW, LOW-, OR MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS” MEANS THAT EITHER (A) AT LEAST 20 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS SHALL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 50079.5 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, OR (B) 100 PERCENT OF THE UNITS SHALL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 50093 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, OR PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MIDDLE INCOME, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 65008 OF THIS CODE. HOUSING UNITS TARGETED FOR LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT A MONTHLY HOUSING COST THAT DOES NOT EXCEED 30 PERCENT OF 60 PERCENT OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME WITH ADJUSTMENTS FOR HOUSEHOLD SIZE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ON WHICH THE LOWER INCOME ELIGIBILITY LIMITS ARE BASED. HOUSING UNITS TARGETED FOR PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT A MONTHLY HOUSING COST THAT DOES NOT EXCEED 30 PERCENT OF 100 PERCENT OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME WITH ADJUSTMENTS FOR HOUSEHOLD SIZE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ON WHICH THE MODERATE-INCOME ELIGIBILITY LIMITS ARE BASED.

(4) “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.”

In addition there is this section of SB50:

“(i) If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, THAT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE VIABILITY OR AFFORDABILITY OF A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR VERY LOW, LOW-, OR MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND THE DENIAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT IS THE SUBJECT OF A COURT ACTION WHICH CHALLENGES THE DENIAL OR THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS, THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL BE ON THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY TO SHOW THAT ITS DECISION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS AS DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION (D) AND THAT THE FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “LOWER DENSITY” INCLUDES ANY CONDITIONS THAT HAVE THE SAME EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE ABILITY OF THE PROJECT TO PROVIDE HOUSING.”

Thus the City will find itself with significant liability if the inclusionary units are not required regarding any project. This liability is defined as:

(B) (i) Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 2017–18 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. THE FINE SHALL BE IN A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000) PER HOUSING UNIT IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON THE DATE THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE PURSUANT TO SECTION 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. FINES SHALL NOT BE PAID OUT OF FUNDS ALREADY DEDICATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING ASSET FUNDS, FUNDS DEDICATED TO HOUSING FOR VERY LOW, LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND FEDERAL HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS. THE LOCAL AGENCY SHALL COMMIT AND EXPEND THE MONEY IN THE LOCAL HOUSING TRUST FUND WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF FINANCING NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE TO EXTREMELY LOW, VERY LOW, OR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 2017–18 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.”

If it is found that the City did this in bad faith the following will be applied:

(l) IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY (1) ACTED IN BAD FAITH WHEN IT DISAPPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OR EMERGENCY SHELTER IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION AND (2) FAILED TO CARRY OUT THE COURT’S ORDER OR JUDGMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS AS DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION (K), THE COURT, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDIES PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION, SHALL MULTIPLY THE FINE DETERMINED PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (B) OF PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (K) BY A FACTOR OF FIVE. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “BAD FAITH” INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, AN ACTION THAT IS FRIVOLOUS OR OTHERWISE ENTIRELY WITHOUT MERIT.

So your statement that SB50 does not contain any requirements of affordability appears to be not accurate.

My point was that SB 50 as last amended would authorize higher-density market-rate housing with no requirement of subsidized or "affordable" units. Below-market units might be added to obtain a further density-bonus - but need not.

Gary,

From the webpage I have provided, that claim seems to be in error.

Please provide your resource and text?

You cite nothing that contradicts my statement about SB 50 - which is a corporate-sponsored conjob.

Google: HOW SB 50 WORKS TO DESTROY THRIVING NEIGHBORHOODS. Before Google eliminates it!

In response to Gary you said:

“You cite nothing that contradicts my statement about SB 50 - which is a corporate-sponsored conjob.”

I don’t see any evidence that proves your claim yet, you went on to say:

“Google: HOW SB 50 WORKS TO DESTROY THRIVING NEIGHBORHOODS. Before Google eliminates it!”

I did, and that resource is not a news article. It is a political organization called LivableCalifornia that claims to be non-partisan and independent. It is called “Web Link

That is not a journalist’s research report. It simply an organization that opposes the bill and many others like it. You simply are repeating a political argument without doing actual research. Granted it claims to be a non-partisan group, and is active in promoting affordable housing. But it does not provide any solutions that will accomplish affordable housing at all.

It also makes the claim that the 3.5 million unit deficit is a lie. That is found on their website found here (Web Link But if you look at that report specifically, the actual report produced by the Embarcadero Institute founds here (Web Link it does not claim it is a lie at all. It raises questions regarding methodology, but does not prove that the count is in fact a lie.

The attempts of the Embarcadero Institute to compare Texas to California is not good because there is far more land and lower cost in Texas to develop than California. The use of New York to compare to California is more realistic because of the proportion of free space in New York is more equivalent to that of Californian than Texas.

The people who founded the Embarcadero Institute are not ones with the kind of education that actually lends itself to public policies if you look at their website (Web Link

Finally, since they self-publish, there is no Peer Review. Peer-Review is critical in order to establish integrity and authenticity regarding any published journal article. The fact that this has not occurred makes the research very suspect. The Legislative Analyst’s Office provides complete methodology and required peer reviews before publication. This organization in effect can be hired to produce any reports to support any interests. They are not required to provide disclosures regarding conflict of interest.

Maybe you should find better information prior to coming to a conclusions.

This is a great example of how inflammatory language is used to manipulate people.

hey @B M, it may be that Gary - who usually "logs in" to his registered Voice account, didn't - and is just being 'spoofed' or 'shadowed'?

Note the lack of "registered user" on those last two - totally uncharacteristic postings!

It is getting to the point, my man, that I would say your postings are now getting tooooooooooooooooooo long, and hence they are 'failing to communicate' quite as well as usual.

The former is a "great example of how inflammatory (TROLL) language is used to manipulate people"?