Newsom relaxed his pro-housing stance for certain Democratic locales
When Gavin Newsom was running for governor he made many promises, one of which was to ramp up housing production, which had been in the doldrums for a decade. Describing housing as “a fundamental human need,” Newsom said the shortage “breaks my heart” and promised that as governor he would lead the effort to develop “the 3.5 million new housing units we need by 2025, because our solutions must be as bold as the problem is big.” The goal was impossible on its face, and he later backed away from it, terming it “aspirational” rather than achievable. Nevertheless, Newsom has championed policies to remove artificial barriers to new housing, particularly local rules that make development more difficult, or in some cases virtually impossible. His administration has cracked down on cities that ignore housing quotas when planning land use and supported legislation to encourage “accessory dwelling units” and multiple-family projects on land zoned for single-family homes. If a city resists higher-density projects, developers can invoke a “builder’s remedy” allowing them to proceed without local approval. Caught between the state and voters All of these pro-housing moves are highly controversial, as local officials often are squeezed between pressure from the state and the desires of their constituents to maintain the status quo. The interactions have shown a curious tendency. The state, dominated by Newsom and other Democrats, is tougher on Republican-leaning communities that resist pressure from Sacramento than on those full of Democratic voters, particularly affluent ones. For instance, Newsom has made an example of heavily Republican Huntington Beach, recently hailing the state Supreme Court’s rejection of that city’s contention that as a charter city it was partially exempt from pro-housing laws. “Huntington Beach needs to end this pathetic NIMBY behavior,” Newsom said in a statement. “They are failing their own citizens by wasting time and money that could be used to create much-needed housing. No more excuses, you lost once again — it’s time to get building.” Contrast that with how the state has dealt with Marin County, a bastion of affluent Democrats just as resistant to high-density housing as Huntington Beach. Legislation to give Marin a partial exemption from state housing quotas by altering its status from urban to suburban was enacted during Jerry Brown’s governorship and extended by Newsom. Newsom was a Marin resident prior to being elected governor and has recently relocated his family from Sacramento to a $9 million home in Kentfield, one of Marin’s most affluent communities. And a few months ago, Newsom signed legislation that broadly exempts multi-family projects from the California Environmental Quality Act, but it contains a brief passage that subjects a 270-unit, eight-story project near Santa Barbara’s historic mission to CEQA compliance. The project in picturesque, wealthy and heavily Democratic Santa Barbara faces sharp local opposition, and the language will help opponents prevail. It was inserted at the behest of state Sen. Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat who is the newly designated Senate president pro tem. Finally, Newsom issued an executive order allowing affluent Los Angeles County communities stricken by wildfires early this year, such as Pacific Palisades, to ignore a pro-housing law that Newsom signed in 2001 as they rebuild. The law allows homeowners to split their single-family lots into as many as four properties, thus making more land available for duplexes. Newsom’s order essentially limits rebuilding in those communities to single-family homes. It drew an immediate lawsuit from YIMBY Law, a pro-housing organization that has been a Newsom ally on previous housing issues. The suit alleges this order is illegal. The tenor of these incidents could be coincidental. But taken as a whole, they imply that on housing policy some Californians are more equal than others, depending on their politics and economic status.
Gov. Gavin Newsom is tougher on Republican-leaning communities that resist building housing than on similar regions run by affluent Democrats.
When Gavin Newsom was running for governor he made many promises, one of which was to ramp up housing production, which had been in the doldrums for a decade.
Describing housing as “a fundamental human need,” Newsom said the shortage “breaks my heart” and promised that as governor he would lead the effort to develop “the 3.5 million new housing units we need by 2025, because our solutions must be as bold as the problem is big.”
The goal was impossible on its face, and he later backed away from it, terming it “aspirational” rather than achievable.
Nevertheless, Newsom has championed policies to remove artificial barriers to new housing, particularly local rules that make development more difficult, or in some cases virtually impossible.
His administration has cracked down on cities that ignore housing quotas when planning land use and supported legislation to encourage “accessory dwelling units” and multiple-family projects on land zoned for single-family homes.
If a city resists higher-density projects, developers can invoke a “builder’s remedy” allowing them to proceed without local approval.
Caught between the state and voters
All of these pro-housing moves are highly controversial, as local officials often are squeezed between pressure from the state and the desires of their constituents to maintain the status quo.
The interactions have shown a curious tendency. The state, dominated by Newsom and other Democrats, is tougher on Republican-leaning communities that resist pressure from Sacramento than on those full of Democratic voters, particularly affluent ones.
For instance, Newsom has made an example of heavily Republican Huntington Beach, recently hailing the state Supreme Court’s rejection of that city’s contention that as a charter city it was partially exempt from pro-housing laws.
“Huntington Beach needs to end this pathetic NIMBY behavior,” Newsom said in a statement. “They are failing their own citizens by wasting time and money that could be used to create much-needed housing. No more excuses, you lost once again — it’s time to get building.”
Contrast that with how the state has dealt with Marin County, a bastion of affluent Democrats just as resistant to high-density housing as Huntington Beach.
Legislation to give Marin a partial exemption from state housing quotas by altering its status from urban to suburban was enacted during Jerry Brown’s governorship and extended by Newsom.
Newsom was a Marin resident prior to being elected governor and has recently relocated his family from Sacramento to a $9 million home in Kentfield, one of Marin’s most affluent communities.
And a few months ago, Newsom signed legislation that broadly exempts multi-family projects from the California Environmental Quality Act, but it contains a brief passage that subjects a 270-unit, eight-story project near Santa Barbara’s historic mission to CEQA compliance.
The project in picturesque, wealthy and heavily Democratic Santa Barbara faces sharp local opposition, and the language will help opponents prevail. It was inserted at the behest of state Sen. Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat who is the newly designated Senate president pro tem.
Finally, Newsom issued an executive order allowing affluent Los Angeles County communities stricken by wildfires early this year, such as Pacific Palisades, to ignore a pro-housing law that Newsom signed in 2001 as they rebuild. The law allows homeowners to split their single-family lots into as many as four properties, thus making more land available for duplexes.
Newsom’s order essentially limits rebuilding in those communities to single-family homes. It drew an immediate lawsuit from YIMBY Law, a pro-housing organization that has been a Newsom ally on previous housing issues. The suit alleges this order is illegal.
The tenor of these incidents could be coincidental. But taken as a whole, they imply that on housing policy some Californians are more equal than others, depending on their politics and economic status.