Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's exactly what it should do if that's what the market demands. Grandma's house built 70 years ago won't necessarily meet the needs of today's buyers. Market supply needs to be able to flex and adapt to market demand. If all the homeowners on a block want to get together and put up a bunch of townhouses or a large condo building, who the hell is the government to say they can't do that? It's a consenting arrangement among willing participants.
This change has nothing to do with existing zoning regulations that allows rezoning from SFR to multi family or subdividing parcels under existing regulations. This change addresses the SFR zoning where written into the regulation is some form of prohibition on splitting suitable SFR parcels.
That's crazy. Imagine suddenly 4 or 8 times as much water usage, or waste processing, or garbage collection. Doesn't California have a terrible issue with water usage as it is? What about energy consumption? How will those needs be met?
There's a reason why some land is only used for sfh - because that's all the infrastructure can support.
That's on the overpaid, bloated city bureaucracy to figure out. That's why property owners pay property taxes and water bills and power bills etc. The capex to ensure sufficient capacity to meet demand is included in those bills. Had they built up the infrastructure to support a natural increase in population instead of pissing that money away on god knows what, they wouldn't be in that situation.
This change has nothing to do with existing zoning regulations that allows rezoning from SFR to multi family or subdividing parcels under existing regulations. This change addresses the SFR zoning where written into the regulation is some form of prohibition on splitting suitable SFR parcels.
My point is that it didn't go far enough - zoning should be limited to 'residential' (ANY residential), 'commercial' (ANY commercial), 'industrial (ANY industrial) etc.
Why people are so opposed to the idea of deregulating zoning I have no idea. If the market wants SFRs in that location, SFRs get built in that location, regulation be damned.
My point is that it didn't go far enough - zoning should be limited to 'residential' (ANY residential), 'commercial' (ANY commercial), 'industrial (ANY industrial) etc.
Why people are so opposed to the idea of deregulating zoning I have no idea. If the market wants SFRs in that location, SFRs get built in that location, regulation be damned.
Not really. Developers will build on every square inch they're allowed to and then ask for variances or Special Exceptions to build more.
In a lot of cases "the market" doesn't dictate what gets built but what the developer wants to do to maximize his profits.
Going back to something else, planning for roads/water/sewer/schools is done and does take into account normal growth.
What isn't taken into account is a mid-stream doubling or tripling of density, which is what this does.
My point is that it didn't go far enough - zoning should be limited to 'residential' (ANY residential), 'commercial' (ANY commercial), 'industrial (ANY industrial) etc.
Why people are so opposed to the idea of deregulating zoning I have no idea. If the market wants SFRs in that location, SFRs get built in that location, regulation be damned.
I would estimate that well over 90% of the people in the US favor SOME zoning regulations, particularly in urban and suburban areas. No one wants to invest a large amount of their money in a home and then have someone open up a dirty factory or hog slaughter house next door.
It makes sense to MOST people to have separate areas for factories, commercial, and residential usage. And some of these categories are further subdivided such as Single Family Housing and Multi Family Housing because again, MOST people don't want to invest a lot of their money in a single family house and then have someone build an apartment building on the lot next door with all the noise, commotion, and parking issues that accompany that.
If you want to buy a house next door to a noisy apartment building or factory, then be my guest, but don't expect to bring a factory or business into my quiet residential SFH neighborhood without one hell of a fight.
Downstream it will impact everything from traffic load to parking to water and sewer to the electric grid to schools. Any presumed tax revenue received will be more than sucked up by the costs for the above.
I use to live in a small town.
It is now a metro area having grown significantly over the past 20 years. Due to terrain and the fact 90% of the county is public land the city has shifted to building more and more apartment buildings. The city had none when it was a small town.
Now the traffic is totally unmanaged. And it is impossible to build new roads to the terrain. Routine Doctors appointments have to be made six months out. The decline in quality of life has been awful.
Population growth is the problem. We need to stop immigration into the country, before we totally destroy our environment.
I would say unhesitatingly that, overall, upzoning in residential areas will increase property values simply because it increases the “highest and best use” opportunities for a lot development. In existing, formerly SFH-only zoned areas it will lessen the desirability for some people but will be offset by more people, including developers, having a higher desirability for a particular property.
Anecdotally - because you have to start somewhere - I live in a fairly dense 125 y.o. streetcar suburb adjacent downtown that has gone through a variety of restricted zoning (including blatantly illegal today) to less so back and forth over the century plus. On my compact block, about 300’ x 225’ and across the street a couple of directions there are roughly 25 lots. Early on in the development there were both duplexes as well as large estates on several lots built that were split up over the years. When we moved in the area was downzoned from the ‘70s to SFH only (multi-family grandfathered in) and over the past few years, especially the past couple, ADU zoning became much less restrictive and today we have SB9 and potentially, SB10 (municipalities can adopt but are not mandated to do so) as the law of the land.
Today the 25 lots consists of about eight duplexes and five ADUs amongst the remaining SFH’s and our little cottage on its 5500 sf lot is worth about $1.5M. Most of that value is crazy coastal California RE but definitely some of it is directly related to the recent sales of ADU equipped homes going for around that number and the potentiality of development opportunities on these lots. The duplexes with mostly renters have been here for decades and now with ADUs starting to ease in it obviously hasn’t tampered down much less decreased property values around here.
Full disclosure, I am an architectural designer and am very busy as part of the ADU boom in our area and as such have my finger on the local RE market because of that. Properties that because of how they are configured and located which have easier potential to expand/reconfigure the building footprint to more units are definitely worth more.
But the “Sky is Falling SFH’s are being summarily bulldozed over for mass density apartments state-wide!!!” hasn’t happened with the five plus years of less restrictive ADU zoning nor will it likely happen with this less restrictive multi-unit zoning. First of all it is prohibitively expensive construction, we are talking $4-500/sf to build these small units and most compact lots don’t lend themselves to easy development with a house already on it. Secondly, no one seems to acknowledge that FAR remains in place so a maximum developed square footage is absolutely limited by that. There are also limits by Historic Districts (I live and develop in one) HOAs among other established zoning. The market also is not eliminated, sure parking is often not required but much of the market will yet demand it, also the existing built character of a neighborhood attracts like-minded people who appreciate and will mostly like to maintain it.
I am pretty sure it will mostly be an organic, here and there piecemeal type of development changes that most communities will experience. I also find the infrastructure arguments a bit specious. Infrastructure spread out in the suburbs is absolutely the most expensive and inefficient to build and maintain while packing it compactly together serving many more people is and has been shown to be far more efficient. When roads and parking reach capacity then transit and other options become increasingly more viable and the market and government responds.
The types of housing that people demand will still be there and developed to meet it. If you want that suburban, spread-out lifestyle those neighborhoods will always be there but now individual property owners in other neighborhoods have the freedom to choose more options that work best for them and their family. It is sometimes hard to imagine people having desires different than our own as being viable much less popular but you only have to just have a peek for a moment at the rest of the world to see that many people actually desire density.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
