ARTICLE
For the first decade of this century (2001-2011) I resided in Southern California, leaving northern California after the Dotcom implosion that slowed the tech economy (and California’s economy as well). I moved to Los Angeles County for a job and a new beginning. The irony of the move to the costal beach towns of LA County is that the value of my San Jose (Almaden Valley) home allowed for a lateral financial move to a nice home less than a mile from the beach. I came to LA with an idea that the playing field in policy and politics was a balanced one between northern and southern California. While I experienced the back and forth policy debates in Sacramento and Washington DC, I had not yet seen the inner workings of how dominate the voice of Southern California politics — specifically LA County — could be to hold up any legislative item and any policy strategy they wanted. As a long time public policy person working in northern California, northern Nevada and in Washington DC for most of my career, I believed that a steady policy hand and solid argument could persuade the other side and turn the issue in your favor or at least find common ground. The discussion of water and housing policy, like today, dominated the discussion. A short time passed and I learned a valuable lesson. I would complain that most of the natural resources in California came from the northern part of our state, but the decision on who gets the resources and funding was determined by one thin line on the state map. I implored my new southern California colleagues to look north and see where the economic power of the state had moved in the late 1980s and 1990s (despite the Dotcom bust). My colleagues laughed out loud (LOL) as if I had taken some sort of pain medication to numb my reality. My southern California colleague took me aside and showed me the map of California - drawing a line from west to east just where “Southern California” begins in southern Santa Barbara County. My colleague said — all you need to know and understand is that everything below this imaginary line was power. More than 2/3 of all Californians live south of that line and the majority of the state Legislators represent those citizens. To further his point, he said now see this county — pointing to Los Angeles County — this is where the buck starts and stops. Combining 88 Cities and the largest county in the United States, Los Angeles can control the policy debate as if northern California and all the tech jobs in the world make no difference. When LA wants something or opposes something (anything for that matter) LA usually gets what it wants — whether it is federal dollars for highway projects or getting relief from environmental regulations — to build a new sports stadium — or stop housing legislation. Last week, we saw the power of Los Angeles County put in high gear with the defeat of SB 50 Senator Scott Weiner (D—San Francisco). The Los Angeles Times describes the situation appropriately, “It’s fitting that major legislation to fight urban sprawl by forcing denser housing was killed by lawmakers from Los Angeles County, the nation’s sprawl capital.” Another local article in the San Jose Spotlight was very critical of the state Senate’s vote: https://sanjosespotlight.com/staedler-sb-50-is-defeated-leadership-needed-now-more-than-ever/ Quoting directly from the LA Times article places the blame squarely on southern California and Los Angeles senators: OK, perhaps SB 50 was a bit heavy-handed, utopian and unrealistic, asking too much of Californians who love their ranch-house culture. There were reasonable arguments against the bill: loss of local control to the state and the prospect of cramming apartment buildings into single-family neighborhoods. LA lawmakers also complained the bill didn’t do enough for affordable housing. Yet, for every county in coastal California, the status quo is unsustainable. We should be building at least 250,000 housing units a year and we’re producing fewer than 100,000. As we have reported in the past, SB 50 would have required cities and counties to allow denser housing — such as mid-rise apartments — near major transit stops and job centers, overriding local zoning ordinances. Any project over 10 units would have carried developer fees to help fund affordable housing or required up to 25% of the units to be reserved for low-income residents. Local governments would have had two years to devise their own development plans before the state process took hold. It was not clear that Santa Cruz County would benefit or be subject to the revamped SB 50 standards. Once again, California is at the starting line after three attempts to create a legislative fix that creates more housing production. Ever the optimist, Senator Wiener hasn’t given up: “In the Legislature, seven months is an eternity,” Wiener says. “But we need to pass something that is actually a housing production bill — not just called that.” Now, we will see where the power play will come from as it will be a test of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s leadership against the might of Los Angeles County legislators.
For the first decade of this century (2001-2011) I resided in Southern California, leaving northern California after the Dotcom implosion that slowed the tech economy (and California’s economy as well). I moved to Los Angeles County for a job and a new beginning. The irony of the move to the costal beach towns of LA County is that the value of my San Jose (Almaden Valley) home allowed for a lateral financial move to a nice home less than a mile from the beach.
I came to LA with an idea that the playing field in policy and politics was a balanced one between northern and southern California. While I experienced the back and forth policy debates in Sacramento and Washington DC, I had not yet seen the inner workings of how dominate the voice of Southern California politics — specifically LA County — could be to hold up any legislative item and any policy strategy they wanted. As a long time public policy person working in northern California, northern Nevada and in Washington DC for most of my career, I believed that a steady policy hand and solid argument could persuade the other side and turn the issue in your favor or at least find common ground. The discussion of water and housing policy, like today, dominated the discussion. A short time passed and I learned a valuable lesson. I would complain that most of the natural resources in California came from the northern part of our state, but the decision on who gets the resources and funding was determined by one thin line on the state map. I implored my new southern California colleagues to look north and see where the economic power of the state had moved in the late 1980s and 1990s (despite the Dotcom bust). My colleagues laughed out loud (LOL) as if I had taken some sort of pain medication to numb my reality.
My southern California colleague took me aside and showed me the map of California - drawing a line from west to east just where “Southern California” begins in southern Santa Barbara County. My colleague said — all you need to know and understand is that everything below this imaginary line was power. More than 2/3 of all Californians live south of that line and the majority of the state Legislators represent those citizens. To further his point, he said now see this county — pointing to Los Angeles County — this is where the buck starts and stops. Combining 88 Cities and the largest county in the United States, Los Angeles can control the policy debate as if northern California and all the tech jobs in the world make no difference. When LA wants something or opposes something (anything for that matter) LA usually gets what it wants — whether it is federal dollars for highway projects or getting relief from environmental regulations — to build a new sports stadium — or stop housing legislation.
Last week, we saw the power of Los Angeles County put in high gear with the defeat of SB 50 Senator Scott Weiner (D—San Francisco). The Los Angeles Times describes the situation appropriately, “It’s fitting that major legislation to fight urban sprawl by forcing denser housing was killed by lawmakers from Los Angeles County, the nation’s sprawl capital.”
Another local article in the San Jose Spotlight was very critical of the state Senate’s vote: https://sanjosespotlight.com/staedler-sb-50-is-defeated-leadership-needed-now-more-than-ever/
Quoting directly from the LA Times article places the blame squarely on southern California and Los Angeles senators: OK, perhaps SB 50 was a bit heavy-handed, utopian and unrealistic, asking too much of Californians who love their ranch-house culture. There were reasonable arguments against the bill: loss of local control to the state and the prospect of cramming apartment buildings into single-family neighborhoods. LA lawmakers also complained the bill didn’t do enough for affordable housing.
Yet, for every county in coastal California, the status quo is unsustainable. We should be building at least 250,000 housing units a year and we’re producing fewer than 100,000.
As we have reported in the past, SB 50 would have required cities and counties to allow denser housing — such as mid-rise apartments — near major transit stops and job centers, overriding local zoning ordinances. Any project over 10 units would have carried developer fees to help fund affordable housing or required up to 25% of the units to be reserved for low-income residents. Local governments would have had two years to devise their own development plans before the state process took hold.
It was not clear that Santa Cruz County would benefit or be subject to the revamped SB 50 standards. Once again, California is at the starting line after three attempts to create a legislative fix that creates more housing production. Ever the optimist, Senator Wiener hasn’t given up: “In the Legislature, seven months is an eternity,” Wiener says. “But we need to pass something that is actually a housing production bill — not just called that.” Now, we will see where the power play will come from as it will be a test of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s leadership against the might of Los Angeles County legislators.