We Support SB 50—But We Think It Could Be Better
SB 50, the bill that works to boost housing density near transit hubs and job centers, passed its first committee yesterday, overcoming the first major hurdle in the legislative process.
While we’re excited with the progress made on the bill thus far, we believe there are some key ways that it can be strengthened in order to more fully achieve its goal. Read our letter of support and our recommendations below:
April 1, 2019
The Honorable Scott Wiener
Chair, Senate Housing Committee
California State CapitolSenator Wiener and members of the Housing Committee:
I am writing to register the TechEquity Collaborative’s members’ support for the spirit of SB 50 and its goal of bringing denser and more affordable housing to transit and jobs centers. However we do think it can be strengthened in ways I outline below.
As tech workers, we are acutely aware of the impact we are having on housing costs in the Bay Area and beyond. We feel the crisis too, as many of us pay well more than a third of our income for housing. We know that this is unsustainable, particularly for our neighbors who are nurses, teachers, bus drivers, janitors and others who do the critical work our communities need to thrive, and for our neighbors who have been made homeless because of the lack of affordable housing.
We think SB 50 is an important piece of the puzzle in solving the state’s housing crisis. It will result in an unwinding of racist exclusionary zoning in some affluent communities, an increase in the number of below-market affordable housing units, improved commutes for many workers, and a cleaner environment for everyone.
There are three areas where we specifically would like to see the bill strengthened:
Tie affordability mandates to existing Density Bonus law. While most of the additional value created by upzoning currently exclusionary parcels will accrue to the landowner, not the developer, we do recognize that developers will reap a greater return where they are able to build denser projects. We generally support inclusionary zoning policies, to the extent that they maximize the number of affordable units that are produced. Whatever inclusionary rates are set by SB 50 should be based off of the existing state Density Bonus Law.
Do not allow in-lieu fees or offsite development for affordable housing. The benefits of including affordable units within an otherwise market-rate development are many and we feel strongly that any inclusionary mandates should be just that — inclusionary. Allowing developers to pay a fee that, in theory, will result in affordable housing somewhere down the line or segregating all the affordable units offsite goes against this spirit of inclusiveness.
Empower vulnerable communities to determine their own destiny. The power of SB 50 lies in the obligation it puts on high-resource, exclusionary (mostly white) neighborhoods to do their fair share to solve the housing crisis. The best of SB 50 is its attempt to begin unraveling the ugly legacy of racism that exists in our housing system. This legacy of racism also manifests in vulnerable communities of color that have been excluded from high-opportunity areas and we don’t think it makes sense to treat these two types of communities the same. We know the bill authors understand this and are making strides to carve out and delay implementation in vulnerable communities, but we also need those vulnerable communities to be given a voice and a seat at the table as implementation in those communities is worked out.
It is important to note that our support for SB 50 comes in the context of our support for several tenant protection bills (AB 36, AB 724, AB 1481, and AB 1482) that have also been introduced in the state legislature this year. In our view these bills, which seek to stabilize the cost of housing for California’s renters, are critical elements of the comprehensive solution set we need to solve our housing crisis. We think SB 50 needs to be looked at as part of this bigger picture. Its potential negative impacts are heightened in a world where strong tenant protections don’t exist.
We have worked closely with Senator Wiener’s office and the bill’s sponsors over the last year. We did not take a position on the first version of this bill, SB 827 in 2018, because we had concerns about the level of input equity and anti-displacement advocates had in shaping the bill. The process around drafting SB 50 has been much more inclusive and productive. We think many of the remaining differences are reconcilable and look forward to working together with groups across the pro-housing spectrum to get an improved version of SB 50 to the Governor’s desk.
We look forward to continuing to support legislation that makes housing more affordable for all Californians.
Sincerely,
Catherine Bracy
Executive Director
The next step for the bill is to go to the Finance and Governance committee on April 24.
We’re uniting tech workers to create a more equitable economy. Join us!
We believe the tech industry, built on the internet — the most democratizing communications platform in human history — can and should contribute to broad-based economic growth that benefits everyone.
