A group that encourages housing says laws for the benefit of California housing does not work

Read this story in English

California’s law had to turn abandoned shopping centers throughout the country into runners full of apartments.

Another law is intended to convert insufficiently used parking into churches into sources of new homes at affordable prices.

Third, according to supporters and opponents equally, “would put an end to the one -family area as we know it.”

By progressing quickly by 2025, this series of recent laws in California and the like, designed to strengthen the construction of homes that are desperately needed, have a “limited or zero impact on the proposal for state housing”.

This judgment comes from a surprising source: a New Yimby Act ReportA non -profit organization in favor of development, which would very much like to see that these laws are working.

The analysis, published today, has studied five state laws approved by 2021, which remove regulatory barriers for the construction of apartments and other dense residential developments in places where these homes are historically prohibited.

The laws under consideration include:

• Law sb 9 since 2021 it allows people Divide one -off homes in DuplexDiscontinating exclusive zoning for single -family homes throughout California. In practice, according to the report, in 2023, construction permits were issued only for 140 units under the law.
• AB AB 2011, The fact that it has entered into force in 2022 is intended to facilitate the developers of the transformation of office parks, shopping centers and parking lots into residential buildings. In 2023, the developers of only two projects received local regulatory approval to start working according to the law. In 2024, the total number was eight. The report did not find a project that used the SB 6 law, a A similar bill approved the same year But with more work requirements for work.
• SB 4 law of 2024 called Yes in the backyard of GodAllows churches, other places of worship and some schools to use their land again to build homes at affordable prices. The report also did not find supporters of this bill.

“It’s discouraging,” said Sonia Traus, CEO of Yimby Law. Although he acknowledged that some of the laws were new, he attributes his initial ineffectiveness to the legislative process, which loaded these bills with impossible requirements and obvious omissions.

“Everyone wants a piece,” he said. “The pieces that are removed during the process ultimately violate the original concept.”

What are these requirements and lagoons that prevent the success of these laws? It may not be surprising that they are a frequent object of criticism by Yimby Law and yes in my backyard movement as a whole.

One of them is the inclusion of the requirements according to which developers should hire only workers related to trade unions or Pay them higher salariesS

Others are the affordable mandates that force developers to sell or hire the units that are built at lower prices for those on the market.

Third, there is a persistent opposition to local authorities and the fact that these state laws have failed to cancel it. In the two years after the approval of SB 9, for example, the Yimby Act monitors 140 local regulations, which, according to the report, are “designed to reduce or prevent” that the bill will work in practice. These include strict restrictions on the size of buildings, accessibility requirements, or restrictions on what types of owners the law can use.

“The rise of ADU is unique. No other form of residential production took off in California during this period. “

The Law of Law written by UC Davis Chris Elmendorf and Professor of UC Santa Bárbara Clayton Nall

Last year, the State Legislative Authority approved a Bill for “cleaning” Determined to cancel some of these local accessories.

There are many other possible obstacles to construction in California, which can explain why these accounts have had such a warm acceptance. High interest rates, chronic shortage of construction workers and high costs of materials (all of which could be exacerbated by current or planned changes to Federal Tariff policies, immigration and fiscal) contribute to the development of residential homes Less attractive financial proposalS The absence of public funds and the planned abbreviations in Federal housing programs They can also affect the home sector at affordable prices.

But the report is not the first to indicate the previous conditions and gaps included in many of the state’s legislative efforts to strengthen the development of housing, the reason for the lack of impact.

In A recent legal articleProfessor of UC Davis Chris Elmendorf and UC Santa Bárbara Clayton Nall’s policy writes that California’s relative success to strengthen the construction of additional housing units is the exception confirmed by the rule. Over the last decade, a series of state laws have taken away local authorities for their ability to present fields of field houses for environmental reviews, significant rates, accessibility mandates, union rental rules, size or aesthetic restrictions or additional parking requirements.

“The rise of ADU is unique. During this period, no other form of residential production has taken off, “the authors wrote. The probable reason is that ADU projects do not come with as many conditions as other forms of dense development, resolved by several laws in California.

In 2023, the state allowed more than 28,000 ADUs, according to state data.

The history of ADU legislation in California is illustrative, Traio said. “About five years of revisions were needed before they really started.”

The YIMBY LAW report is based on permissions presented by the cities and cities of the Ministry of Housing and the development of the California Community. The non -profit organization complements this messy database with its own internal compilation, derived from its own litigation and activism. This means that the data on what is really built (and therefore, how effective these laws are actually imperfect.

This fact does not go unnoticed for many legislators.

The first hearing of the Committee on the Housing Accommodation of the Assembly was not dedicated to new legislation, but to evaluate the laws of “pro -production” existing in the state.

“We should not continue to approve more and more bills just because we can do it,” said President Matt Hani, a Democrat from San Francisco. “We need to analyze what worksWhy it works, how we can do more than it works, and if it does not work, we need to do more to solve or change it. “

This article was originally published by CalmattersS