Removing local control to this extent, means the State takes over the management of housing in every city in California. Just because you want to live in Hillsborough or Woodside, doesn't mean you can. The reality is you live where you can afford. This might mean working very hard, limiting your family to what works within your budget, and moving to a city for work where your salary supports a house or apartment. Of course we'd all like to see everyone living where they would like, but how is that reality?

Somewhere I thought I read that polling, within State Senator Hill's peninsula district, found that a clear majority of people supported SB50. Yyet Senator Hill voted against it yesterday, siding with anti-housing advocates like the $$ed interests controlling the Los Altos City Council.

So be it! Hill will be gone next year.

Previous comment talks about money interest but doesn’t highlight the money interests behind SB50...developers and high tech companies who want more luxury condos and rentals for their high paid workers. The bill went down again because it doesn’t help build more affordable housing.

SB50 was a sell out. The labor union and the developer real estate interests lobbied the governor and Weiner to do this monstrous give away to them. It's not clear if it would really add to the housing supply much at all. It takes so much money to build luxury housing that the investments would not go very far. Maybe 10% overall would
go to affordable housing of some sort, counting units only not costs. But it could also be as little as 5% going to affordable housing. Projects 10 and under had no affordable requirements but can still go 45 feet tall. They could be quite gross.
Nothing to help affordability in a 10 unit project 45-55 feet talk with luxury features.

The overall estimate of 3 million homes needed is a joke. We really just need more affordable units. 300,000 to 800,000 affordable units would really help things. No way was that big of a number going to be built under SB50.

The state should put money toward funding affordable units. It can't expect to have the private sector solve this. With a $20 Billion budget surplus the state should use half of that to FUND affordable housing. Buy into private projects and up the affordable units from 10-15% at present to be more like 50%. Keep ownership and take the earned money back into the state affordable housing program, especially if it makes state land available to the private developments. Issue bonds to fund still more construction. Keep this up in future years, even if less than $10 Billion in those years. The state could really address the affordability issue if it spends funds and uses its credit and surplus land. But right now the developers just take a huge cut out of any state incentives, and the state has no ongoing ownership rights. If this is a crisis, the state should spend money! We have 2.3 Million already approved units. The developers are having trouble getting funding for their projects. Inject tom state funds to increase the number of units being built, by adding more affordable units. 10% affordable is not enough!!! That's what was wrong with Sb50.