Sudents Debate Paper (for NoorFatima)

Student 1 Debate Paper

The Case Against SB 50

In California, 21 affordable housing units exist per 100 poor households. SB 50 would further decrease the supply of affordable housing by removing power from county and community leaders and giving more control to luxury real estate developers. SB 50 disrupts existing and thriving low income-income communities. The most pressing need for low income families is affordable housing; SB 50 is a part of the problem and not the solution.

Not for Everybody

California desperately needs more housing and in particular more affordable housing. The federal government considers housing affordable when a resident can pay for it using less than 30% of his or her gross income. The state of California has a deficit of over 1.3 million affordable houses. While SB 50 aims to address housing, it does not do enough to address “affordable” housing within the state. SB 50 would require housing projects larger than 10 units to contribute funding or space for low-income housing. Developers could potentially create market rate apartments and condominiums near “transit rich” and “jobs-rich” areas with up to 8 units and thus create zero affordable housing units.

“Sensitive Communities” This list of still-unidentified communities, deemed to have a high percent of working-class, minority, or poor residents, would be granted 5 years to find a way to upzone their areas to let SB 50 take effect (New Livable California, n.d.). SB 50 will issue a countdown timer to the residents within sensitive communities. After the 5-year moratorium is up, residents must either comply with SB 50 and have a plan to be included in the upzone or by way of the law, be displaced by new developments. With the supply of affordable housing are already at critical mass, it does not bode well for potentially displaced residents to find affordable housing.

Increase in Gentrification

About a third of capacity added by SB 50 would be in neighborhoods at risk of or experiencing gentrification and/or displacement (Cash, Zuk, Carlton, 2019). The displacement of the most vulnerable would continue with SB 50. The most vulnerable are certain to face longer commutes, and lessened access to known resources, which further exacerbate the stress created by displacement.

In addition, new developments are certain to push rents even higher. Without stronger tenant protections, land lords can increase rents for tenants which accompany the luxury developments. Also, the identity and culture created by these vulnerable groups will be disrupted and gone forever as a result of the new SB 50 zoning requirements.

Recommendation

Allow developers to earn incentives if a higher percentage of the development benefits extremely low- and low-income residents. Allow cities to have final say on proposed real estate developments. Get rid of the 5-year countdown on upzoning and allow residents to have more input in the development process.

Conclusion

California has a housing crisis at hand. SB 50 is a good start but does not fully encompass the scope of the housing crisis in California. The housing crisis is more than creating profitable ventures for real estate developers. SB 50 would marginalize the voice of the most vulnerable, remove authority from local decision makers and benefit real estate developers. SB 50 does not do enough to increase the housing supply for vulnerable populations and in particular the extremely low income and low-income citizens.

References

Misra, T. (2016). Mapping America's Appalling Affordable Housing Deficit . Retrieved from https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/03/mapping-americas-appalling-affordable-housing-deficit/475584/

 New Livable California. (n.d. ). How SB 50 Works to Destroy Thriving Neighborhoods. Retrieved from https://www.livablecalifornia.org/sb-50-impact-analysis/

Cash, A., Zuk, M., & Carlton, Ian. (2019). Upzoning California. Urban Displacement Project.