State Legislature on Housing: Getting the Demos out of Democracy & with it, Accountability | A Pragmatist's Take | Douglas Moran | Palo Alto Online |

Local Blogs

A Pragmatist's Take

By Douglas Moran

E-mail Douglas Moran

About this blog: Real power doesn't reside with those who make the final decision, but with those who decide what qualifies as the viable choices. I stumbled across this insight as a teenager (in the 1960s). As a grad student, I belonged to an org...  (More)

View all posts from Douglas Moran

State Legislature on Housing: Getting the Demos out of Democracy & with it, Accountability

Uploaded: Mar 15, 2019
The State Legislature is in the middle of its annual exercise of stripping political power from the citizenry (Demos in Greek = people) and putting it in the hands of remote bureaucrats and favored private interests. Last year it was SB35; this year it is the proposed SB50 and its siblings.
Apologies: The "e" in "Demos" should have a bar (macron) above it, but this platform supports only a very limited set of characters.

There is already extensive discussion of the details of the proposed bills, including a town hall meeting this Sunday (4-6:30 pm, Lucie Stern).(foot#1)(foot#2) Consequently, I am going to focus here on the politics behind these bills.

The housing crisis is continuing to be used as an excuse for stripping local control over zoning, at the expense of most citizens and to the benefit of developers and large property owners. Why shouldn't we believe the proponents of these bills that their intention is to increase affordable housing, and that their proposals will do just that? Because decades of expert economic analysis and real-world experience have shown that the advocated "solutions" lead to less affordable housing. Chicago implemented measures very similar to the ones proposed for California. A doctoral candidate in Urban Studies and Planning at MIT and former Project Manager in Chicago's Planning Council recently published a research paper on the current results. Unfortunately, that paper is behind a paywall. However, it has been discussed in the open literature. The most interesting was an article by Richard Florida who is (in)famous for arguing that economic health of cities required them to become substantially more dense to attract the "Creative Class". He has since acknowledged he was mistaken in this. Of this study, he wrote "A new study of zoning changes in Chicago finds that they led to higher, not lower, local home prices, while having no discernible impact on local housing supply."(foot#3)(foot#4)

The supporters of this legislation argue that increasing the supply of housing units will decrease the price. For decades, they have assiduously ignored that it is the limited supply of land that has been the determining factor: Changing the zoning to allow larger buildings makes the land more valuable. That, with the higher construction costs for taller buildings, has more effect on pricing than small increase in housing units.(foot#5)
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.
And for the experts and theoreticians shilling for this:
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." - George Orwell.

Then there are the state and regional policies that are facilitating demand increasing faster than supply. The state government has a long-established philosophy of encouraging developers to provide relatively small amounts of housing by giving them building "bonuses" that allow them to add space for far, far more new jobs. Mayor Filseth mentioned one such example in his State of the City speech: SB35--the precursor to SB50--allowed the redevelopment of Cupertino's Vallco Mall

----Policy choices: What's best for the bureaucracy, not us----

After his 1831 extended visit to the US, ^Alexis de Tocqueville^ famously praised the grassroots involvement in government and civic affairs, and attributed the strength of democracy in the US to its bottom-up nature in contrast to its fragility in France, where it was predominantly top-down and centralized. It's hard to get people to support a process and its decisions when they have little input, little understanding of why a particular decision was adopted and consequently little faith in the correctness of that decision.

Increased centralization requires a larger bureaucracy and larger set of rules to be administered. But those rules cannot keep up with the increasing complexity of reality, and the remoteness of the bureaucracy results in them having neither the knowledge nor flexibility to deal with the exceptions and difficult cases. But never mind -- one of the big advantages of such arrangements is to eliminate accountability. "When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible."

The more complex the rules, the easier it is for your elected representative to distance himself from responsibility. And he can excuse his vote for the enabling legislation by claiming that it had more good than bad.

An example of rules-are-rules from ^Wheatland^ in Yuba County. It is a built-out city -- as is Palo Alto -- with a population of 3700. The state says that they need to provide 343 new affordable housing units, which would require roughly 17 acres. The city's current median house value is $307K. Is there a need for these housing units? Would a developer be interesting in building them? Where would the construction workers come from -- there is a shortage that is already impeding rebuilding homes destroy by the recent wildfires.(foot#6)
Answer: Unknown and probably irrelevant.



I participated in one (two?) Citizens Advisory Committees for previous revisions of Palo Alto's Housing Element. There were no good choices for where to rezone for the amount of housing that the state (via ABAG) was requiring (search term: RHNA = Regional Housing Need Allocation). There were bad choices and worse choices. I came to view my role as differentiating the two by raising questions and concerns. It was too depressing, and I didn't apply for subsequent iterations.

Over the years, Palo Alto has been whipped around by the fickleness of the regional bureaucrats (ABAG/MTC). Because of Palo Alto's three Caltrain stations (The Crossings station in Mountain View is counted as being in Palo Alto):
- Palo Alto should be a job center for commuters from elsewhere, and rezone to allow more office space near the stations (Cal Ave is a "Priority Development Area").
- No wait. Palo Alto should have high-density housing for commuters to other cities.
- No wait. Palo Alto should have high density housing within walking distance of people work (disregard how such a pairing would be accomplished).
Also ignore Caltrain capacity issues: It is effectively operating at full capacity, and the projected additional capacity from electrification will not meet the needs of current and near-term developments. (Aside: BART has a similar problem). For the bureaucrats assigning housing quotas, transportation and other infrastructure is someone else's department, none of their concern.

----Quantity, not quality----

There has been extensive research into what makes for "livable" cities and attractive cities. And research about how these attributes affect human health and sense of community. SB50 would encourage development contrary to this research.(foot#7)

----Equity; Dragging down our schools----

I routinely hear the argument for unbridled building of more housing -- with the concomitant building of even more office space -- as "We need to build housing for everyone who wants to live here, and at a price they can afford.", but they reject that this involves various subsidies from those already living here, without being able to explain how that might happen.

SB50 calls focusing the requirements for new housing on cities that have good school. Of course, this is without regard to whether those school districts could handle the influx of that many new students. Not their department ...

There is a classic cartoon illustrating the difference between the terms "Equality" and "Equity":


Attribution ^Interaction Institute for Social Change^, Artist: ^Angus Maguire^

But the too common reality of what transpires has produced an alternative cartoon (attribution unknown to me):



Note: The fact that the three people looking over the ballpark fence hadn't purchased tickets apparently escaped the original cartoonist. Or possibly, he saw it as another illustration of "equity".

----Footnotes----
1. Info on SB50 and siblings:
Town Hall meeting on SB50: ^Announcement and RSVP^. Sponsored by Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning (PASZ) and Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN).
^Palo Alto Matters Newsletter of March 3^: "^State Senate Bill 50 could end single-family zoning citywide^" and "^The CASA Compact underlying SB-50^".
Please add links to additional resources in the comment section.

2. Opinion and Reporting:
"^Guest Opinion: SB 50 undermines single-family neighborhoods and diversity^", Palo Alto Weekly, 2019-03-15. By Greer Stone and Pat Burt. Pat Burt is a former mayor (and 9 years on City Council). Greer Stone is current Vice Chair of the Santa Clara County Human Rights Commission and former leader on other Human Rights/Relations groups (see ^LinkedIn profile^) and an (unsuccessful) candidate for Palo Alto City Council. Note: The pictures of Stone and Greer are reversed in the original version.
"Mayor pushes back on SB50": ^Webcast^.
"^Editorial: Using his bully pulpit^", Palo Alto Weekly, 2019-03-08 : On Mayor Filseth's State of the City address, which included SB50.

3. Chicago Results:
Research Paper (behind paywall): ==I "^Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction^"== by Yonah Freemark, Urban Affairs Reviews (journal).
General audience article: "^Does Upzoning Boost the Housing Supply and Lower Prices? Maybe Not^" by Richard Florida, 2019-01-31.

4. Richard Florida and the Creative Class:
His (former) theory has had a large influence on Urban Design for two decades.
My blog: "^The 'Creative Class' and 'superstar' cities^", 2017-07-08.

5. Increase supply, ignore demand:
I have discussed this in earlier blogs:
"^Stupid Growth: So-called 'Smart Growth' is a cancer on the community^", 2014-06-07.
"^The Law of Supply and XXXXXX^", 2014-06-10.
"^Shills and Charlatans of 'Smart Growth' ^", 2014-06-16.
Section "Focus here: State policy on development" in my blog "^California Democrats seek to revive the Republican Party: Republicans expected to resist^", 2017-07-16.
Section "The Market" in my blog "^Development policy: 'The Market' and regulation^", 2017-06-20.
Section "If you misunderstand the Law of Supply and Demand, it has to be deliberate. Right??" in my blog "^Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition^", 2018-09-23.

6. "^California puts Wheatland on notice for lack of affordable housing^", The Sacramento Bee.(^archived copy, if needed^).

7. My blog: "^Environmental Design and Healthy Cities^", 2016-06-01.


----
An ^abbreviated index by topic and chronologically^ is available.


----Boilerplate on Commenting----
The ^Guidelines^ for comments on this blog are different from those on Town Square Forums. I am attempting to foster more civility and substantive comments by deleting violations of the guidelines.

I am particularly strict about misrepresenting what others have said (me or other commenters). If I judge your comment as likely to provoke a response of "That is not what was said", do not be surprised to have it deleted. My primary goal is to avoid unnecessary and undesirable back-and-forth, but such misrepresentations also indicate that the author is unwilling/unable to participate in a meaningful, respectful conversation on the topic.
A slur is not an argument. Neither are other forms of vilification of other participants.

If you behave like a ^Troll^, do not waste your time protesting when you get treated like one.
What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

 +   3 people like this
Posted by Nice density?, a resident of Fairmeadow,
on Mar 16, 2019 at 7:28 am

Nice density? is a registered user.

Sometimes I wonder if "nice density" is an oxymoron, at least for me. The Wheatland folks in the article you cite say they enjoy the small-town feel, and appreciate that they are land-constrained. I like the leafiness of our city, the view of the sky, the open parks. Vox talks about "doing density right": Web Link, which I think is a good starting point. But I wonder how "right" it can get, and whether it's affordable to do "right". He mentions Vancouver as being dense and nice -- I am not familiar with it. Any takes?

BTW, I don't see what is wrong with looking over the fence at a ballgame, as long as there are not fights for spots. It is good imo that they are cheaper or even free options for people who can't afford a seat.


 +   8 people like this
Posted by george drysdale, a resident of Professorville,
on Mar 16, 2019 at 1:40 pm

Give em hell Doug. I'm doing my best to educate the capitol of Silicon Valley (San Jose). All this stuff is being taught at your local high schools in econ classes to say nothing of 101 in college. People tend to have limited working memories. The San Jose city council is now running from me. The San Jose Property Rights Initiative and the San Jose Declaration. I believe it will become the number one lesson plan in economics, all the color with Mountain View right in front of us. Anything coming out of San Francisco concerning housing is foul. When a 1906 level of earthquake hits San Francisco again thousands will die. Virtually all because of rent control. Buildings rot too (rebar in concrete).

George Drysdale land economist


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon, a resident of Downtown North,
on Mar 16, 2019 at 10:22 pm

"The housing crisis is continuing to be used as an excuse for stripping local control over zoning, at the expense of most citizens and to the benefit of developers and large property owners."

I don't get it. The line at the DevCen counter to get permits for large housing projects is quite short, while the queues for office developments and conversions from housing to luxury hotels are rather lengthy. So no matter how much our politicos rage and storm, until they decide to throw real money at housing we are safe.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by Garry, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Mar 17, 2019 at 2:11 pm

Our number one concern should be the preservation of local control, you can't dial that clock back once it's lost. What is it with techies and wanting to destroy democratic institutions? First it was Reed Hastings calling for the elimination of school boards, now the YIMBYs are after local control land decisions. I guess they just want the world to burn if they don't get there way.

Save local control; defeat SB50!


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Muneerah, a resident of Menlo Park,
on Mar 18, 2019 at 12:44 am

The rich get richer! The out of control landlords need to be reigned in. Building more housing is ridiculous because there is no more room folks. They took out nice quaint neighborhoods in LA and crammed large tall apartment buildings in, and it looks disgusting. If you want to solve housing, then start taxing the horrendous profit of landlords and make it mandatory that they set aside a percentage of their units for Seniors and Disabled. You cannot build buildings and claim its affordable housing in Palo Alto, Menlo Park or most of the Peninsula. It takes years of city council redtape and those residents who need it will never get in. The rent will be based on the median income of the area and we all know that low income seniors cannot afford that unrealistic rent. Check out the Skree and Spree Program in New York City, it works! Landlords give units to program participants with decent rent they can afford according to their income and the landlords get tax credits for improving their property. Its mandatory. No one voted that one in. Again reign in these out of control landlords.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by jh, a resident of Evergreen Park,
on Mar 18, 2019 at 1:33 pm

jh is a registered user.

We need a business tax, as do most of the other peninsula cities.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by Mace2, a resident of another community,
on Mar 21, 2019 at 1:01 pm

$100,000 per person to 'save' Buena Vista's worn out mobilehomes?
I manage a similar mobilehome park with over 500 residents in similar mobile homes. These units were cheaply built and cheap to buy. The interiors are paper, the exteriors are cardboard, the plumbing is plastic (Qwest tubing - banned years ago) and 93 of the 100 mobilehomes I have had inspected were improperly wired (fire hazard). These units have NO MARKET VALUE. The buyer was supposed to be intelligent enough to understand the unit would last about 15 years ... not 30, 40 or 50. The State of California recognizes this in its Mobilehome Law and allows for forced removal of aging units.
The infrastructure for a mobilehome park does not last forever either. Water, gas and sewer lines fail regularly. After 50 years underground iron pipe is like swiss cheese. It costs me $7-10,000 PER SPACE every time a pipe fails. Who is going to pay for this at Buena Vista? You and I of course. Replacing the entire infrastructure would require displacing the homes ($4,000 to move off the site, $7,000 to move back and set up again) and would cost millions which, obviously, is not recoverable.
When something is worn out and realistically past the end of its useful life it should realistically be allowed to go away.
Prior to the settlement the people who love to spend other people's money wanted to give the tenants MORE MONEY THAN THEY HAD PAID IN RENT IN THE WHOLE TIME THEY LIVED THERE! Gee, no one is paying me to live in my house ... what am I doing wrong?
It was unfortunate the tenants were in a difficult situation. But they chose cheap living for a long time. Where is the personal responsibility for personal decisions? Why should the rest of us pay for those decisions? I can live in my house as long as I continue to work (I'm 77). When I can no longer work, I will lose my home. No one is going to bail me out.
When you go back to the beginning, an awful lot of time and money was wasted. The Jisser's made a reasonable offer and the park should have been allowed to close. But mindless liberalism took over. Too bad.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by george drysdale, a resident of Professorville,
on Mar 29, 2019 at 11:34 am

People who understand real estate numbers were virtually screaming at the city council and Pancho Villa Simitian (head of county board of supervisors) about the utter stupidity of the Buena Vista. Politics triumphs over common sense. Welcome to California politics. Palo Alto now has an immortal F in economics stamped on it's forehead. You can't fool all the people all the time.

George Drysdale social studies teacher and intiator


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Michael O., a resident of Stanford,
on Apr 9, 2019 at 11:41 pm

Hi Doug, when you complain that people say, "'We need to build housing for everyone who wants to live here, and at a price they can afford.', but they reject that this involves various subsidies from those already living here, without being able to explain how that might happen," are you forgetting about Prop 13 and how those who recently moved here are subsidizing those who are living here already, such as you? Just wondering.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Su Hong 2.0? Former waiter reopens Chinese standby under new name in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 12 comments | 5,350 views

What gives you hope?
By Sherry Listgarten | 6 comments | 2,150 views

Living as Roommates? Not Having Much Sex?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,130 views

Expert witnesses are more than experts. Plus my 7 fundamental impeachment questions
By Douglas Moran | 25 comments | 2,029 views

Holiday Traditions
By Cheryl Bac | 2 comments | 639 views

 

Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund

For the last 26 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away more than $7 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. When you make a donation, every dollar is automatically doubled, and 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.

DONATE HERE