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.
the media creates headlines that create clicks. and to do so with a limited number of characters. In the 2nd line of the article ....
Quote:
essentially abolished single-family zoning in California
like it or not, even adding "essentially" changes the value of the term. And it should have included "only" after SF. No law would require an owner to increase their own density, nor would it require someone building a personal residence to add more than the 1 unit they desire.
Quote:
Just to be balanced here is what opposition claims the bill will do:
Seems both sides agree this is a real change. Suppose a current single family zone has 30% of properties adding one or more dwellings, what can we anticipate about the property value?
first, you have to assume all lots are equal size to the extent they ALL qualify to be split/up-developed with additional units.
Now, the determination is relatively easy - if your lot can handle additional splitting creating additional purchaseable units, then yes, the value increases.
Example (because I don't know the CA specifics):
If a "lot" in Silicon Valley is worth $1MM ... does it matter if the lot is 8,000 sqft or 12,000 sqft? But if that 12K square foot lot can be divided, and the 8K cannot, the 12K isn't quite worth double the 8K, but it's probably worth 150-180% of the 8K.
First, it's extremely rare that you could get ALL the property owners in a block to agree on anything. Second, even if you could, the proposed change will change the whole neighborhood, not just one block. Changes seldom happen in isolation without repercussions on nearby properties or neighborhoods.
Even if "Granny's" house is outdated, that doesn't necessarily mean that the residents want to replace it with an apartment building. What's wrong with tearing down Granny's place and building a new/modern SFH in its place?
there's nothing wrong, nor disallowed, in tearing down Granny's house and building 1 home back.
The law does not abolish single family residential zoning. It creates a mechanism for communities where single family zoning prevents the splitting of parcels that otherwise are suitable for increase development. Since they can't tear down what already exist on the property, the property has to be of sufficient size (and a bunch of other requirements) in order to qualify for increase density. So this is not some tear down grandma's home and build apartments as some are spewing it will do.
Sounds like political doublespeak for getting rid of single family zoning. This really should be in the P&C forum.
Who looks at apartments or duplexes and think 'oh yeah, I want to live next to that'? Renters always devalue sfh areas.
To the contrary, the neighborhoods in which I rented were and are more expensive to buy than the neighborhood I ultimately bought in. Property values are much higher in the neighborhood 10 minutes away where I lived in a duplex next to a single family home a block from a bigger apartment building.
Now, my neighborhood is all SFH and I know no renters in the neighborhood. It's far cheaper, not as upscale, though the housing stock is equally good if not better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grlzrl
Sounds like political doublespeak for getting rid of single family zoning. This really should be in the P&C forum.
It really isn't. This is what the law says in a nutshell: "If your lot is sufficiently large, you may split it and build a house on the halfling lot."
You can, at most, build a duplex...not a four story 16 unit building.
To the contrary, the neighborhoods in which I rented were and are more expensive to buy than the neighborhood I ultimately bought in. Property values are much higher in the neighborhood 10 minutes away where I lived in a duplex next to a single family home a block from a bigger apartment building.
Now, my neighborhood is all SFH and I know no renters in the neighborhood. It's far cheaper, not as upscale, though the housing stock is equally good if not better.
It really isn't. This is what the law says in a nutshell: "If your lot is sufficiently large, you may split it and build a house on the halfling lot."
You can, at most, build a duplex...not a four story 16 unit building.
Until after the first few lots are subdivided. Then a developer can come in and argue a "change in the neighborhood" and receive a Special Exception for a multi-unit building.
We had an issue several years ago with an investor buying old beach cottages on 25X100 lots and putting in duplexes. We ended up really clamping down on them.
During our comprehensive rezoning a few years ago there was a proposal, which was backed by the P&Z commission to push multi-family deep into the SFH area. Just coincidentally the properties this would have impacted were all owned by the same investor. Just a coincidence.
I killed it by pointing out that 38% of our housing stock was already multi-family of one sort or another so were already over the state's mandate for that type.
As an FYI, the Berkley study showed that at most only 700,000 new potential units can be created from this legislation statewide. And, this is only if those properties decide to do so, not that they all will!
Until after the first few lots are subdivided. Then a developer can come in and argue a "change in the neighborhood" and receive a Special Exception for a multi-unit building.
We had an issue several years ago with an investor buying old beach cottages on 25X100 lots and putting in duplexes. We ended up really clamping down on them.
During our comprehensive rezoning a few years ago there was a proposal, which was backed by the P&Z commission to push multi-family deep into the SFH area. Just coincidentally the properties this would have impacted were all owned by the same investor. Just a coincidence.
I killed it by pointing out that 38% of our housing stock was already multi-family of one sort or another so were already over the state's mandate for that type.
As you pointed out...they can ask for it, but they aren't guaranteed or owed it. The (elected) officials of the local government can allow or disallow as they see fit. And that isn't new. AFAIK, nothing in CA's laws before or after this bill stopped a local zoning board from changing the zoning of a neighborhood or street.
Personally, My biggest concern would be parking concerns and stormwater systems. An nice neighborhood is nice because of factors outside the lots and housing stock. I've lived in "nice" neighborhoods with frankly crummy physical houses, and less desirable neighborhoods with better structures.
I predict parking problems and it most certainly will not increase the supply of affordable housing.
It costs a lot of money to build a house. Whatever the building costs are, the house can't be built and sold to lower income folks for less than the cost of building it. Nor can it be rented for low rent to lower income folks because the mortgage will have to be paid.
Big apartment buildings in residential neighborhoods will make the remaining houses less desirable.
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.
