Neighborhoods Saved from Homeless Zombies
SB 10 has been relegated to the dustbin of a future study group.
San Diego advocates for increasing the local housing stock lost big yesterday as the planning commission thwarted an effort by Mayor Todd Gloria to include Senate Bill 10 as part of the city's sweeping Housing Action Package 2.0.
Contrary to what you may have heard, having the city of San Diego opt-in to this legislation would not have opened the floodgates for unmentionables to destroy the property values and ruin the community character of area neighborhoods. Nor would have evil developers rushed to erect buildings in high-risk fire areas.
By and large, advocates for the kinds of changes that could possibly result from the inclusion of SB 10, have been gracious about getting out-organized. There’s plenty of talk praising what remains in the Housing Action Package.
From the Union -Tribune:
While it’s possible the City Council could potentially ignore the commission’s recommendations, the mayor’s office confirmed Thursday that it will not be pushing for Senate Bill 10 to be part of the housing package going forward.
Other elements of the overall plan approved by the commissioners include converting unused land for housing, extending building permit times, eliminating parking requirements in many projects and making it easier to build off-campus housing. However, Senate Bill 10 was the main focus of the law and had been championed by the mayor and other local officials for much of this year.
At the core of SB 10 was a roll back of single family zoning as the standard in transit-rich areas or urban infill sites. Property owners in such areas could have had the option of redeveloping individual parcels to structures capable of accommodating up to 10 dwellings.
The number 10 was the focus of opponents who painted a vision of towering buildings dwarfing homesteads, and overlooked the probability that townhouse type construction would make the most economic sense on individual lots.
Something radical is called for by our current housing reality, and it appears as though that’s not in the cards, although it might be studied to death.
Via Axios San Diego:
San Diego's state-mandated Housing Element, which outlines its housing needs and plans to satisfy them, says the metro area needs about 108,000 new homes by 2029.
That's more than 13,000 new homes built per year. For now, the city averages closer to 5,000 new homes annually, according to the city staff presentation Thursday.
Opposition to lifting single family housing zoning regulations as the default was organized by Neighbors for a Better San Diego, “...a local non-profit group of San Diego neighbors, community leaders, and advocates formed to protect & preserve single-family neighborhoods from overdevelopment.”
Key to their stance on additional development is the premise that the city already has room for an additional two million housing units, and therefore changes to single family zoning are unnecessary.
Reading remarks against inclusion of SB 10 reveals a staggering amount of fear of change, iced with the usual tropes about higher crime and an influx of undesirables.
The group’s public arguments sound reasonable until you start digging into the subtext of their arguments. Further study is their mantra… Ignoring the racist origins of single family zoning laws… Commodification of housing is a default… A world without the dominance of automobiles isn’t possible… Infill is undesirable unless infrastructure is added first… What this city really needs is housing for low income families (as long as it’s built elsewhere and financed by pink-winged unicorns)… And densification of neighborhoods is the product of plotting by “Mayor Gloria and his backers in Sacramento.”
***
It matters not what I or anybody else says at this point, the NIMBYs of this city have won. SB 10 has been relegated to the dustbin of a future study group.
Maybe it was never a good idea. Maybe there’s another path to be taken. Except that the majority of proposals for larger scale development of inclusive housing are either being sued to death or unattractive to the people who would consider financing them.
If you were to draw Venn diagrams of these defenders of the status quo on their home fronts, I can guarantee you’d find overlap with the opponents of Midway redevelopment (because a slumland of storefronts and parking lots is desirable?), scammers in the historic preservation game (see: the former Mission Hills library), and the hand wringers blaming the 101 Ash Street debacle on Todd Gloria (Faulconer set him up).
I’m afraid that a robust public discussion on housing in San Diego isn’t possible because our current socio-economic reality offers rewards (short-term and often illusionary) to a too-large swath of the population.
Everything is connected. Our housing landscape is a contributor to climate change. Our transportation priorities are adding fuel to that fire. Our economic conditions are the real drivers of homelessness. And, if we really want change, there’s the reality of our country being directed by politicians who are motivated by interests other than serving their constituents. Etc., etc.
This post is not meant to discourage progressive activism. I’m making the argument that understanding the totality of challenges will lead to tactics and strategies that will prevail over the long term.
We have to be smarter. While I’ve said some things that should make the NIMBY-types unhappy, the path to victory in this instance runs through convincing people that their self-interest lies with the benefits of changing single family zoning as the default. Building “Missing Middle Housing” was a milquetoast argument.
Safer neighborhoods with families and children using bike lanes, sidewalks or paths could be an effective argument. Less homelessness without incarceration is a selling point. North Park, which encouraged new development (but enabled mostly higher end projects), hasn’t turned into a ghetto. Higher density makes for a better market for small businesses.
And don’t forget, we’re saving the planet by updating our housing stock.
****
Tales to Tsk Tsk About
Which is he? When Colin Parent (Vice Mayor of La Mesa & bossman at Circulate San Diego) announced his candidacy for the 79th Assembly district, the rabble readers of the announcement story jumped on the opportunity to heap scorn of him as lefty.
This guy is the CEO of Circulate San Diego, a far-left organization that wants density everywhere and bike facilities everywhere without cost constraints. This group is pushing for SB10, which would allow 10 units on a single-family lot.
In other words - he's a leftist Democrat working to unravel San Diego as we have known it for decades.
The OB Rag has a different opinion of Parent, who’s been lumped in with the evil developer class seeking to destroy the people’s paradise otherwise known as the Midway District.
And then this item popped out at me as I was perusing the latest campaign financial reports from city clerk’s office—$5500 from the SD Police Officers Association PAC to Colin Parent for Assembly 2024.
***
Klingons do N-Sync? I am a life-long fan of everything Star Trek related. Consider my mind blown after Klingon baddies made an appearance on Strange New Worlds this week. The bros of Trek fandom weren't happy about this episode. I laughed my ass off.
***
Stay Tuned: More Courtroom Drama for Trump via Letters from an American:
Meanwhile, this afternoon the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office announced a series of road closures beginning on August 7 in downtown Atlanta near the Superior Court of Fulton County and the Fulton County Government Center. At the end of July, the sheriff’s office put up security barricades around the courthouse.
The extra security measures might indicate that Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis is about to announce the results of the grand jury’s investigation into Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia: "I took an oath, and…the oath requires that I follow the law,” Willis said today. “And…if someone broke the law in Fulton County, Georgia,...I have a duty to prosecute, and that's exactly what I plan to do.”
The problem is that the US will not guarantee housing as a universal right. Article 25 of the UN Declaration of human rights states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." Notice the word: "housing." Until housing is recognized as a human right, not much affordable housing will be built. Market based housing will never be affordable.
I believe I read yesterday, or maybe the day before, that the SDPD are to arrest any homeless people who refuse shelter and/or treatment. Here is a link for Michael Leonard: https://invisiblepeople.tv/san-diego-to-arrest-homeless-people-who-refuse-services-or-shelter/
While I strongly believe that both shelter and treatment are vital to all of humankind, I am appalled that the City has decided to remove free will from some of our citizens. I also find it difficult to believe that incarceration will be of any benefit.
While this article is from 2019, I presume the basic info is the same. Please note it states that. only 16% of our unhoused population are chronically homeless. This tells me that the majority of those without homes do not want to be without them. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2019/september/HomelessQandA.html
Then this morning I read this article. I see there is no motive stated. I wonder if it is a case of the 2 young men taking the law into their own hands and ridding the City of this woman who needed compassion and empathy. "As you do to the least of these, you do to Me." https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-teens-shot-homeless-woman-to-death-with-pellet-gun-in-serra-mesa-police/3278350/