Divisive state housing bill wins Santa Clara County support | Town Square | Palo Alto Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Divisive state housing bill wins Santa Clara County support

Original post made on Dec 19, 2019

The controversial housing legislation SB 50 has won the tentative support of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, albeit with conditions.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, December 19, 2019, 4:37 PM

Comments (9)

32 people like this
Posted by Paul
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 19, 2019 at 11:13 pm

Looks like 4 of 5 county supervisors are trying to get campaign money - if not employment - from the big corporations pushing SB 50. And we thought TRUMP was bad!


2 people like this
Posted by 4 out of 5 Supervisors Agree
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 20, 2019 at 8:44 pm

Great news! Too bad Simitian was brave enough to vote yes, opting to abstain instead. If "top-down" solutions aren't the answer, what is Supervisor? Does it look like solutions are coming out of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cupertino, and Saratoga?


19 people like this
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 20, 2019 at 8:51 pm

Not the answer to housing shortages. Instead, it’s a complicated oddball bill that damages single family homeowners. It gives excessive control to state lawmakers. They have poorly described, shifting descriptive terms such as “transit rich” and “jobs rich” areas/cities that must be penalized! I get it, penalize success. It’s too complex to even summarize here, but Imfecommend reading up on it and letting your state assemblymember and state senator know how you feel.
Oh, except....if you’re Marin County, wherein you get a sweetheart exception.
How about no local zoning control or ability to make objections to dense building proposals and underparked scenes that benefit wealthy builders?!? This is outrageous.


25 people like this
Posted by SB 50 is a Sham
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 21, 2019 at 1:59 pm

SB 50 is aimed at building luxury condominium complexes in wealthy communities. Developers can buy up single family lots, tear down existing houses, build dozens of expensive units, and pocket huge profits.

It will make investors even richer. It will keep all construction workers busy on high-end projects. It will suck up labor, materials, land, and capital that could have been used for below-market rate housing. It will help no one of modest or low-income seeking affordable places to live.

Developers are all behind it. True advocates for those with lower incomes are against it.

It is a vile hoax.


13 people like this
Posted by SB 50 Is Authoritarianism at Home
a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2019 at 8:35 am

>”While local cities are required to plan ahead for residential growth, they have no obligation to actually grant the building permits allowing it to happen.”

This statement misleads by omission.

Cities approve projects but have no authority to force property owners to request permits to build.

How many “ungranted” building permits are permits that were never submitted by the property owner?

If SB 50 were about building the affordable housing that communities need, it would be a funding measure to acquire land and build non-profit housing. SB 50 would NOT be the land grab we have here that further separates middle and working classes from single family home ownership and will come roaring back to bite communities in January 2020.

Too bad Joe Simitian won’t stand firm against SB 50. He’s certainly seen enough in his career to understand the intent of SB 50 is to add value to modest residential parcels that can only be accessed by the wealthiest of investors who can afford to build up and up.

Now that AB 68 has passed and nearly every single family home parcel becomes a triplex, SB 50 intends to accelerates the transfer of wealth from the middle and working classes to the investor class through forced upzoning.


18 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 24, 2019 at 7:11 pm

SB 50 was generated by a SF legislative member. However the SF Board of Supervisors is not on board with compliance. If Mr. Weiner cannot get his own congressional district to comply then quit running down the peninsula to get everyone else stirred up. I think this means that Mr. Weiner will not progress further up the ladder of political success if his programs have no support from his own city.


20 people like this
Posted by MS Karan
a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2019 at 10:04 am

I am very disappointed to see these lobby controlled politicians giving free run to destroy communities without solving the real problem. We need bills that strike balance between housing & jobs and address transit to facilitate transport between home and office. Unfortunately politicians like Scott Wiener dole out half-baked solutions that further aggravate jobs to housing balance. These so called housing bills by Wiener don't restrict the office component; a good example is his disastrous SB35 bill that went into effect last year. Allowing uncontrolled growth of jobs for lobbyist campaign money without addressing housing and transit is the root of housing crisis and homelessness we are experiencing. This is the failure of current politicians in power. I hope California voters take note of this and vote for change. We need to send shock waves through California political system so that they don't take us for granted anymore.


12 people like this
Posted by Common sense
a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2019 at 10:53 am

Common sense is a registered user.

MS Karan wrote: "I hope California voters take note of this and vote for change. We need to send shock waves through California political system so that they don't take us for granted anymore."

As we California voters did in 1978 with the Jarvis-Gann-initiative "tax revolt," addressing many outrages then occurring (not only what get mentioned after-the-fact -- the cruel effect of runaway property taxes on retirees -- but other outrages: the ways those same taxes were used for the traditional crony payoffs of California state government's permanent, corrupt political class).

Of course today, people who weren't voting or born then (or hadn't yet moved to California as millions do), who now see only a little part of that picture and do not bother to learn more of its background, merely envy those who pay "lower property taxes" today. They don't understand what the rest of the alternative was, and they are easy marks for demagogues whipping up envy today for cynical agendas of their own. Then again, the special features of commercial property (less owner turnover) gave commercial owners an unadvertised windfall, as gradually the total burden of property tax shifted toward residences; similarly, passing of residential property to later generations without sale creates unearned windfalls for children who never bought the property and were never the intended beneficiaries of Prop 13.

Upshots of that historical example, MS Karan, are that voter revolts can have side effects little perceived at the time of passage; also, later generations, far from learning about the motivation and thoroughly needed reform, will contrive a simpler, more emotional response such as envy, and reduce a complex real-world situation to bumper-sticker superficialities.


13 people like this
Posted by Another Giveaway
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 26, 2019 at 1:06 pm

SB 50 is just a thinly disguised giveaway to greedy real-estate developers who don't give a damn about the communities in which they operate.

Unfortunately this corrupt relationship between real-estate developers and local politicians seems to have become standard operating procedure for any ambitious politician seeking advancement in the Party.

Silicon Valley's Largest Landowners: Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


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

Stay up to date on local coronavirus coverage with our daily news digest email.

'A devastating impact:' The coronavirus claims Clarke's Charcoal Broiler, Mountain View's oldest operating restaurant
By Elena Kadvany | 29 comments | 10,857 views

Coronavirus Food Safety Update + New! Insider Tips
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 3,717 views

Can you stay healthy without making more trash?
By Sherry Listgarten | 7 comments | 3,365 views

Think about helping others in our coronavirus-affected area
By Diana Diamond | 7 comments | 3,054 views

The University of California’s flexible policies during COVID-19
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 6 comments | 1,738 views

 

DEADLINE EXTENDED

The 34th Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult and Teen categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by April 10, 2020. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category. Sponsored by Kepler's Books, Linden Tree Books and Bell's Books.

Contest Details