Editorials

So, it’s finally time to try to explain Pandemic Putsch 2.0. In brief, that’s the energetic effort emanating from Sacramento to upzone, de-regulate, and otherwise alter the state of California’s land use laws to enable developers to maintain and enhance their coveted 15-or-20% profit level while the voters are distracted by COVID-19.

The generalissimo at the head of the invading army, the force that’s trying to wrest control of planning and regulation from local governments, both of activist cities like Berkeley and sleepy suburbs not at all like Berkeley, is San Francisco State Senator Scott Wiener. His second in command is Berkeley’s own state senator, Nancy Skinner. In loco generalis for Berkeley is Mayor Jesse Arreguin, who has put together a majority bloc on the Berkeley City Council for his foot soldiers with Vice-Mayor Lori Droste as his subaltern.

The underlying principle of this crusade, or at least the ostensible one, is the old Neoliberal credo that a rising tide lifts all boats. A remarkable percentage of politicians, both Dems and Repugs, claim that if we build enough expensive housing the “housing crisis” will be over. Eventually those fancy digs will trickle down to the impoverished, they imply. Milton Friedman is alive and well in Sacramento,

One more time: there is no universal housing crisis in California, let alone in Berkeley. The population both here and in the state is decreasing. We are way ahead on market rate (expensive) housing.What we don’t have is enough housing located in the right places for our underpaid essential workers—and that’s an economic crisis, not a supply shortage.

We don’t pay people who work here enough to live here, and that’s a sin and a shame. But it’s not exactly hot news. 

More than two years ago, a story by Jeff Stein in the Washington Post nailed it, as regards the rental market. Here’s an excerpt: 

 

Since last summer, rents have fallen for the highest earners while increasing for the poorest in San Francisco, Atlanta, Nashville, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver, Pittsburgh, Washington and Portland, Ore., among other cities. In several other metro areas — including Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Houston and Miami — rents have risen for the poor and the rich alike. The ongoing increase in prices for low-end renters poses a challenge for city officials who have vowed to lower housing costs for working-class residents already struggling with tepid wage growth in the U.S. economy. City officials have said a boom in luxury housing construction would cause rents to fall for everyone else, arguing that creating new units for those at the top would ease competition for cheaper properties. In part based on that theory, cities have approved thousands of new luxury units over the past several years, hoping to check high rents that have led more than 20 million American renters to be classified as “cost burdened,” defined as spending more than 30 percent of one’s income on housing. 

But although some advocates say the dividends could still pay off for low-income renters, others say more direct government action is needed to prevent poor residents from being forced out of their cities or into homelessness. They have called for the federal government to help construct more affordable units, or offer greater rental assistance for poor families. 

“For-profit developers have predominantly built for the luxury and higher end of the market, leaving a glut of overpriced apartments in some cities,” said Diane Yentel, president and chief executive of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group. “Some decision-makers believed this would ‘filter down’ to the lowest income people, but it clearly will not meet their needs.” 

 

Many similar analyses, accompanied by current data, can be found in the academic literature. But the political animals who dominate the California legislature and its satellites, the people whose campaigns are funded by urban growth machine profiteers, don’t need to heed the data. Take a look at the proposals before the California legislature if you don't believe me. 

What’s happening in Sacto? A whole lot of bad bills are in the works, and they’re starting to move through the pipeline. Just last Thursday the Senate Housing Committee passed through two objectionable proposed bills: SB 10 (Wiener) and SB290 (Skinner). 

And what are these bills? In brief, Wiener's SB10 allows developers to bypass the California Environmental Quality Act to build 10-unit market rate buildings just about anywhere in existing cities, and even worse, to allow city councils to revoke citizen initiative-passed land use protection ordinances, like the Berkeley one which bans building on parklands. Skinner’s SB 290 weakens the requirement that for-profit developers provide a minimal amount of affordable housing if they use the density bonus law, which permits larger and larger projects. 

The problem with Pandemic Putsch 2.0 is that there are many bad bills coming and going in Sacramento under ever-morphing names, and it’s hard to keep track of all of them. A very useful aid for this task is supplied by Livable California, a statewide volunteer advocacy organization whose pro-bono lawyers study each new entry for undesirable hidden consequences. They produce an admittedly opinionated website which attempts to cover all the holes in the news from the state capital. Their thumbnail analyses of current legislation can be found at https://www.livablecalifornia.org/california-state-legislation-bills-2021-livable-california/. 

Meanwhile, back in Berkeley, we’re dealing with a manufactured emergency which is being invoked by the mayor to call a special city council meeting on Thursday. That’s a remarkably insensitive choice, since at least three councilmembers plan to celebrate Passover with family over the next weekend, which typically entails a good bit of preparation. 

Councilmember Harrison has already said she won’t be able to come because of a long-planned family Passover event, and she’s sponsoring one of the two items on the agenda, a call for thoughtful long term planning for Berkeley’s housing needs. Sophie Hahn, her co-sponsor on the proposal (along with Councilmember Ben Bartlett) might or might not be able to attend, since she also observes Passover with her family, as does Councilmember Susan Wengraf. 

The other item on the agenda calls for dramatic and abrupt change to the city’s single family zoning districts, upzoning to allow anywhere from four to 10 units on sites where now there’s but one. At a meeting last week the mayor was asked by a string of public commenters why he was calling a special meeting in such a rush, and his answer was approximately “because I have the power to do so.” 

So there! Très un-cool. 

Sponsors of the quadplex upzoning measure are Councilmember Droste (Author), Mayor Arreguin (Author), Councilmember Kesarwani (Author) and Councilmember Taplin (Author). Councilmember Robinson has already indicated his support, which makes it a done deal with a five-member majority, supporting former Mayor Dean's Brown Act violation charge that they've been illegally conferring out of public view about pending legislation. 

The Zoomed Berkeley City Council meeting will be open to spectators this Thursday at 6 p.m. in case you’d like to judge for yourself or even comment for exactly one minute. 

Here’s the Zoom link for computer access: 

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82133233284 

And the phone connection if you can’t join by computer: 1-699-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 Meeting ID: 821 3323 3284 

Don't forget, you will be allowed exactly one minute to make an intelligent coherent explanation of why you think the city should or shouldn’t upzone everything right now or else. If you go over, the mayor will zap you. 

Not too hard, right? Be there or be square.