Newsom Offers Details on Proposal to Spur More Housing

Includes potentially linking transportation funding to housing production

Governor Gavin Newsom in January
Governor Gavin Newsom in January
Note: GJEL Accident Attorneys regularly sponsors coverage on Streetsblog San Francisco and Streetsblog California. Unless noted in the story, GJEL Accident Attorneys is not consulted for the content or editorial direction of the sponsored content.

Today California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a package of bills and budget proposals [PDF] aimed at supporting cities to plan and zone for new housing. Hidden in its fine print is the opening to a discussion about how transportation funding could be withheld from cities that do not build enough housing.

When he first hinted at this idea in his state budget speech in January, Newsom did not offer details. There is a huge need for more housing, and cities are not building it and in some cases actively blocking it because they don’t want to add density. At the same time, the newly reliable gas tax is a source of funding cities count on, and Newsom hinted that withholding that money could be a way to force cities to build needed housing.

It’s not far-fetched to connect transportation money and housing. The location of housing dictates some of the need for transportation infrastructure, but planning and funding in California usually works the other way around. That is, regions plan transportation based on where people are trying to get to, which stems from where they live, where they work, and where services are–which is determined in a usually project-specific planning process.

Efforts to require cities to build more housing, especially where new residents would have access to transit and other alternatives to driving, have had limited success.

But legislators have balked at using the gas tax as a cudgel. Passing S.B. 1 was a hard-won victory, made even more precious by the (failed) attempt to repeal it by popular vote. They were so worried about the outcome of the S.B. 1 vote that they agreed to put a referendum on the ballot requiring gas tax money be used for transportation purposes only.

Newsom is not proposing to shift S.B. 1 money to something else, but rather to use it as a threat. “S.B. 1 Local Streets and Roads funds may be withheld from any jurisdiction that does not have a compliant housing element and has not zoned and entitled for its updated annual housing goals,” starting in 2023, says the proposal.

In a press release announcing it, Newsom wrote: “Our state’s affordability crisis is undermining the California Dream and the foundations of our economic well-being. Families should be able to live near where they work. They shouldn’t live in constant fear of eviction or spend their whole paycheck to keep a roof overhead. That’s increasingly the case throughout California.”

Newsom’s proposal is much bigger than just this one idea. He would change the way the state sets its regional housing goals, and provide money to encourage cities and counties to plan and zone for higher housing targets. Other parts of his overall housing package include tax credits and loans to help make sure the housing that is planned gets built.

Legislators and advocates have been saying for a while that the Regional Housing Needs Assessments, as currently conducted, are too low, in addition to being largely unenforceable. Newsom’s proposal would set higher short-term statewide housing goals than the current RHNA process sets, and distribute those goals among regions based in part on the distribution of jobs, number of households, and share of low-income housing.

A process would also be set up with the Office of Planning and Research, the California State Transportation Agency, and Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to find a better way to set long-term regional housing needs. And money would be made available to support planning for housing, including finding ways for local or regional policies to link transportation funds to housing outcomes.

That would give cities and regions a say in how this notion of using gas tax money works out on the ground.

Newsom proposes to distribute $250 million to cities to plan for more housing, and to offer another $500 million as incentives or rewards if they actually meet production goals. The regions, working with the HCD, would determine how to set those incentives.

A separate bill would add $500 million to the housing tax credits program and another $500 million for loans to encourage housing production.

  • Ari Isaac

    @hotwirelbh3:disqus , your realistic story about Redondo Beach cannot happen under SB 50 b/c, unlike LA developer friendly upzoning, it protects renters and requires significant amounts of affordable housing be produced.

    SB 50 is as real as it gets b/c it is the ONLY bill out there which will most likely actually produce affordable housing. So, it is a bogus NIMBY scare tactic to pretend it serves the rich and makes developers rich. SB 50 requires a high % (15-25%) of the units in a project be inclusionary (i.e., affordable housing). So, the 80% market rate (and/or luxury) units subsidize the creation of 20% lower income affordable units. This is the smart way to get subsidized housing, from the rich private sector paying for the poor, instead of more government debt to do it.

    Many NIMBYs also claim that that the up-zoning permitted by SB 50 will increases property values, and make area rents/prices go up because real estate investors expect a 15 to 20 annual return. However, this kind of argument seems like a straw-man to me, as it would mean that negligible affordable housing can be produced by private investors given construction costs in CA far exceed what ever could be profitably rented/sold as affordable, esp. not to low income people. This is exactly what has already occurred under the status quo, and why only the very little public and non-profit money available for low income housing has produced a completely negligible and inadequate amount of affordable units, and why private money must be incentivized to do the public good of low-income housing, and zoning must be relaxed to make that remotely affordable/profitable to both public and private apartment projects. When you limit height and density you are also skyrocketing costs per unit, which has also pushed most of the construction workers hours of commute time away from the main cities, thus skyrocketing the construction labor costs for those scant few left (the lack of affordable housing has done the same to most all of blue collar and services workers too, skyrocketing the cost of all labor and creating employment shortages, esp. for civil servants). So, you NIMBYs have made it impossible for the always very limited public and private housing subsidies/construction funds to produce any significant amount of low-income housing. So, what these NIMBY articles hide from readers is that SB 50, like that in SF, has an inclusionary housing requirements, and LA (like most of CA) has none. So under SB 50, like all such developments in SF , must include at 15-25% affordable BMR units or pay an equal value in-lieu fee to the City for affordable unit construction. So, who cares if the market rate units sell for $10 million, they (i.e., rich people)would just pay for more affordable housing. It is a no-brainer… build baby build and w/ SB 50, each developer that uses it much build significant affordable housing. And if they don’t use SB 50 then the NIMBYs will be VERY happy about that; hence, why they are clearly more afraid of lots of affordable housing being built than their fake news stories about their fears of too much unaffordable/luxury homes being built. Hence, why NIMBY authors, city officials, and homeowner associations are now going the way of Trump lies/disinformation to get their walls against affordable housing built, like how the Cupertino Mayor put it.

  • HotwireLBH3

    Not In My Back Yard — really — Let me tell a real story: Redondo Beach lifted building restrictions and every new single family home that went on the market was instantly converted to 2-4 bedroom condo’s, with only one parking spot per unit. Parking became a nightmare and to make things worse the city put parking meters everywhere and ridiculous street sweeping hours (No Parking between 12:01AM-6AM) and everyone at some point got one of those nasty parking tickets. And with high density housing also comes impossible driving conditions. I used to take 20 minutes to drive on PCH through Redondo … it now takes 40 minutes. CA-50 is a nightmare waiting to happen.

  • Ari Isaac

    something has to be done, and NIMBYs (and their defacto supporters) just saying “NO” is what caused this crises, and only emergency actions will get us out of this housing emergency any time soon. So, we all should applaud Newsom for actually treating this like a state of emergency and not like all others who’ve been paying lip service to it while most Californians get crushed by bone crushing rents, house prices, and commutes.

    local control = local rich NIMBY owners continue to block housing production = they make MUCH more $$$ = renters get crushed into leaving CA or into homelessness. We must stop the local control madness which is destroying lives, enriching NIMBYs, and harming our environment. To avoid sticks against NIMBYs from Newsom all together, just support the sensible SB 50, to support struggling renter’s rights over rich NIMBY homeowners to get filthy richer!

  • Kevin Withers

    Better? How about realistic.

    Oh, to be sure, the ‘media’ will want histrionics.
    It’s similar to how corporations are now more concerned with quarterly reports vs long term success.

  • Joe Linton

    To me “things will work themselves out over time” doesn’t sound like a better plan than Newsom’s.

  • Kevin Withers

    Newsom will need lots of help, in every category. Because he is chasing relevance and too invested in his personal agenda.

    Fix RHNA? Lots of carrots. Zero sticks. Even then, cross your fingers, be realistic. Government at all levels have plenty of tasks and issues, but housing production isn’t one of them.

    Peak population in California, overall, either has been reached or will very soon. Things will work themselves out over time.

    The much talked about “crisis” is more about cost, and not actual availability. Unfortunately, the DNA of California virtually guarantees that it will always be more expensive than most other areas.

  • Joe Linton

    Rome wasn’t built in a day. To address the state’s housing crises, I expect that Newsom will need plenty of interconnected strategies – from ADUs to funding to streamlining environmental review to RHNAs functioning better. If you don’t think that RHNA fixes will work, what would you, KW, suggest Newsom do to make a dent in the state’s housing crisis?

  • Georgia

    Affiliate marketing world job opportunities are increasingly becoming a emerging trend all over the over world these days. A recent research proves beyond 71% of the people are working in on-line jobs at their house with no complications. Everyone hopes to hang out with his/her family by going any specific wonderful place in the world. So online earning allows you to carry out the work at any time you want and enjoy your life. Still finding the right method and also building a proper objective is our end goal toward achieving success. Already the majority are being paid such a nice pay check of $42000 every week with the use of recommended and powerful techniques for making money online. You will start to earn from the first day when you check out our website. >>>>> https://reurl.cc/WGR95

  • Kevin Withers

    Taking transportation funds would cause a huge backlash and won’t happen. Courts would prevent it, if Newsom’s talk actually becomes action.

    Existing RHNA allotments are in the middle of an 8 year cycle. Newsom desire to increase “short term” housing goals is another example of shortsighted governance. Housing takes time, and Newsom wanting his “quick fix” before his term expires is revealing. This will not solve anything, and is primarily grandstanding. Plan all you want, significant actual construction is a ways down the road.

  • crazyvag

    Not much different than way FHWA sets drinking age, speed limits and probably other things. Drinking age shall be 21 or no highway funds for your state.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG