HousingWiki

SB827: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

SB827 (view source)

Revision as of 19:28, 22 January 2018

98 bytes added ,  6 years ago
m
Redacted name of Nextdoor resident who made comment upon their request
VisualWikitext
imported>Tmccormick
No edit summary
imported>Rihallix
m (Redacted name of Nextdoor resident who made comment upon their request)
Line 51:
Elements of the bill are quite similar to previous California bills for transit-oriented development, such as the 2016 Los Angeles Measure JJJ.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
== Concerns  ==
Line 67:
@Hyper_lexic<br/> "I think it might go too far in the reach - minimum 45’ zoning on current residential side streets would be a real shock."
 
&nbsp;
 
=== Could lead to demolition and displacement in low-income areas ===
Line 103 ⟶ 104:
 
​​​Tim McCormick @yimbywiki [https://twitter.com/YIMBYwiki/status/951200278664986624 10 Jan 2018]:&nbsp;<br/> "as a displacement mitigation policy for #SB827 housing bill, we could take as one model [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=7.&title=1.&part=&chapter=16.&article= California's Relocation Assistance code], applied in eminent-domain type situations:<br/> [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=7.&title=1.&part=&chapter=16.&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=7.&title=1.&part=&chapter=16.&article=].
<blockquote>''"(3) Assure that, within a reasonable time period prior to displacement, to the extent that it can be reasonably accomplished, there will be available in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities, and at rents or prices within the financial means of displaced families and individuals, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings, sufficient in number to meet the needs of, and available to, those displaced persons requiring those dwellings and reasonably accessible to their places of employment, except that, in the case of a federally funded project, a waiver may be obtained from the federal government.<br/> (4) Assure that a person shall not be required to move from a dwelling unless the person has had a reasonable opportunity to relocate to a comparable replacement dwelling.."''</blockquote> ▼
<blockquote>
▲''"(3) Assure that, within a reasonable time period prior to displacement, to the extent that it can be reasonably accomplished, there will be available in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities, and at rents or prices within the financial means of displaced families and individuals, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings, sufficient in number to meet the needs of, and available to, those displaced persons requiring those dwellings and reasonably accessible to their places of employment, except that, in the case of a federally funded project, a waiver may be obtained from the federal government.<br/> (4) Assure that a person shall not be required to move from a dwelling unless the person has had a reasonable opportunity to relocate to a comparable replacement dwelling.."''
</blockquote>
==== &nbsp; ====
 
Line 123 ⟶ 122:
#The rental unit is in a Residential Hotel and the landlord is going to convert or demolish the unit(s); and
#The Landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit to convert the property to an affordable housing accommodation. Landlords must file a Declaration of Intent to Evict to Convert to Affordable Housing Accommodation.
''- from&nbsp;''HCIDLA:&nbsp;[http://hcidla.lacity.org/Relocation-Assistance. http://hcidla.lacity.org/Relocation-Assistance.&nbsp;&nbsp;]</blockquote>
 
=== Upzoing could create pressure for less well-off homeowners to sell and relocate.&nbsp; ===
 
Line 191 ⟶ 189:
Adina Levin @alevin<br/> “the challenge several years ago with some of the walkability conditions is that banks wouldn't finance mixed-use or less parking; presumably legal requirements helped loosen bank financing (?). &nbsp;dunno if still needed for that reason."
 
&nbsp;
 
=== Intended or Assumed Reduction in Traffic & Increased Transit Adoption are Fallacies ===
Line 196 ⟶ 195:
[from Richard Hall @rhallix]<br/> Senate Bill 827 is predicated on assumptions that concentrating development&nbsp;near transit hubs and stops will lead to large scale adoption of transit, and measurable reduction in impact on traffic. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that these assumptions have not proven out in the real world.
 
*DeniseResident Larsen,(name redacted for privacy on request),&nbsp;Nextdoor.com, San Rafael, Jan 20th 2017<br/> "The idea that if housing is built near public transportation, people will get out of their cars is a pipe dream.&nbsp; All studies show that people still drive and they still have cars driving to them, whether they have a car or not (i.e. visitors, such as: deliveries, family, friends, support/medical people, boyfriend or girlfriend visits, overnights guests, Uber, etc.).&nbsp; This has only increased traffic and parking problems.<br/> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;People like and often need their cars and do not give them up.&nbsp; The sheer amount of things that people use their cars for, such as work, errands, grocery-shopping, hauling things around, school/college, transporting kids, interests, a class, activities, taking a pet to the vet, doctor visits, etc often do not work well with public transportation time-wise, the need to still have to walk to where one is going, carrying items, having kids and/or pets along, and at all times of day and night and in all types of weather.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br/> &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;For example, in a southern Calif city where affordable housing was built without adequate parking, the residential neighborhoods within a 1-2 mi radius have been overrun with people parking their cars and then walking to the developments.&nbsp; In SF, some folks have chosen to rarely use their cars or not own one but end up taking Uber everywhere, which means 4 trips for a car vs 2 if the person had driven themselves, which has resulted in more traffic and congestion.&nbsp; Another major issue involved in these laws and bills is that a town or city can no longer use things like not enough water or infrastructure to support more housing/residents as a way to prevent or reduce development.&nbsp; Too bad for you, just cram more people in."<br/> &nbsp;
*"Portland's Transit Experiment has Failed," by Randall&nbsp;O Toole.&nbsp;[http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=13719 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=13719]<br/> "Back in 1980, Portland transit carried 10 percent of the region’s commuters to work. Since then, the region has increased its population density by 20 percent, spent $5 billion building nearly 80 miles of rail transit lines, and subsidized scores of high-density, mixed-use housing projects in light-rail and other transit corridors. The result is that, in 2016, just 8.0 percent of commuters took transit to work.<br/> &nbsp;
 
=== Would or could this support&nbsp;good&nbsp;mixed-use development and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) ===
Line 225 ⟶ 224:
See [https://twitter.com/YIMBYwiki/status/950265064937873408 full thread] with Alex Visotzky, Shane Phillips, and Tim McCormick / YIMBYwiki.&nbsp;<br/> &nbsp;
 
&nbsp;
 
 
=== <br/> This would concentrate new housing next to health hazards from traffic ===
Line 233 ⟶ 232:
Other articles citing health issues that would be exacerbated by SB827:
 
*&nbsp;
*▼
 
World Health Organization: Health Effects of Transport Related Air Pollution, 2005 states:<br/> "There is evidence that implicates ambient air pollution in adverse effects on pregnancy, birth outcomes and male fertility. Modelled studies on exposure to traffic-related air pollutants suggest that they are a risk factor for adverse birth outcomes.&nbsp;<br/> [http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/74715/E86650.pdf http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/74715/E86650.pdf]
 
*&nbsp;
*
 
<span style="font-size:larger;">Articles & Studies Documenting Adverse Health Impact of Building Adjacent to Freeways & Major Roads </span><br/> SB827 would result in concentrating development around transit corridors and hubs. Typically these locations are immediately adjacent to freeways and major roads. SB827 goes so far as to increase height limits for more major roads - raising the height limit to 85 feet where development is adjacent to roads 45 feet or wider.
 
▲*
**'''University of Southern California, Living Near Busy Roads or Traffic Pollution''' [http://envhealthcenters.usc.edu/infographics/infographic-living-near-busy-roads-or-traffic-pollution/references-living-near-busy-roads-or-traffic-pollution http://envhealthcenters.usc.edu/infographics/infographic-living-near-busy-roads-or-traffic-pollution/references-living-near-busy-roads-or-traffic-pollution] Contains links to multiple documented studies from respected organizations identifying health risks relating to:
***'''Children:''' Asthma, ear nose and throat infections, smaller lungs, obesity
Line 244 ⟶ 246:
 
 
 
&nbsp;
 
*
Line 249 ⟶ 253:
**'''World Health Organization: Health Effects of Transport Related Air Pollution, 2005''' [http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/74715/E86650.pdf http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/74715/E86650.pdf]]<br/> &nbsp;
**'''CNN:&nbsp;locating housing near transit corridors increase dementia risk, study says,&nbsp;January 4, 2017''' [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/health/dementia-risk-living-near-major-road/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/health/dementia-risk-living-near-major-road/index.html]<br/> &nbsp;
**'''American Heart Association''':&nbsp;Homes near highways may up heart disease risks, Oct 2014<br/> [https://news.heart.org/homes-near-highways-may-up-heart-disease-risks/ https://news.heart.org/homes-near-highways-may-up-heart-disease-risks/]
 
 
=== Liquefaction and earthquake risk since the transit areas tend to be closer to the Bay ===
Anonymous user
Retrieved from "https://housing.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/3805"