January 15, 2020

 Dear Orindans,

 The essence of this newsletter, STOP SB 50, is to alert Orindans that SB 50 is in front of the State Appropriations Committee and will be voted on 1/20/2020. We apologize for the length of this newsletter but we cannot state in less detail how destructive this legislation will be not only to Orinda but statewide.

Orinda Watch conducted a townhall on 3/20/2019 to educate Orindans on the shortcomings of this legislation and invited every resident by mail. We again need your help to defeat this legislation. Please click on the following Livable California internet link https://www.livablecalifornia.org/email-to-stop-sb-50-today/ to fill out form letters already addressed, quantity of 5, to urge the Appropriation Committee members to vote NO on SB 50, or email/phone the following members personally. Please do this now:

Anthony Portantino (D) (916) 651-4025,  senator.portantino@senate.ca.gov

Patricia Bates (R) (916) 651-4036,  senator.bates@senate.ca.gov 

Steven Bradford (D) (916) 651-4035,  senator.bradford@senate.ca.gov 

Elena Durazo (D) (916)-651-4024, senator.durazo@senate.ca.gov 

Jerry Hill (D) (916) 651-4013,  senator.hill@senate.ca.gov 

Brian Jones (R) (916) 651-4038,  senator.jones@senate.ca.gov 

Bob Wieckowski (D) (916) 651-4010,  senator.wieckowski@senate.ca.gov 

Scott Wiener’s SB 50 is copycat legislation on steroids built upon elimination of residential single-family zoning similar to Minneapolis currently experiencing the implications of elimination of single-family zoning as a path to densification of residential neighborhoods. Note: Wiener, according to Knock LA, Jacob Woocher article of 1/13/2020, received $166,650 in direct donations from the real estate industry in his 2016 campaign. The average amount of real estate money received across the 38 State Senators for whom data was available was just $50,777.

We share the following excerpts from an article entitled ‘Minneapolis’s Residential Up-Zoning Risks Unintended Consequences’, by an AIA-honored architect and Minneapolis City Planning Commission Vice President Alissa Luepke Pier, dated 6/17/2019. She courageously provides detailed unintended consequences and remorse of allowing densification of single-family neighborhoods without built-in safeguards. The leading feature of the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan, approved by the Minneapolis City Council a year ago was elimination of single-family zoning from the city’s zoning districts. Following are the intentions, assumptions, and unintended consequences of the Plan - in her own words: 

Intent of the legislation: “The city wanted to achieve equity, or at least stop contributing to further inequity.”

False policy assumption: “The policy took as its starting point that more units automatically equals more affordability’, however, there was no basis in fact to support this assumption. In Minneapolis, going forward, a triplex can be created on any residential lot in the city by right.” 

Result 1: “as more people move into the city, we’re seeing housing prices continue to rise despite an increase in units being built, primarily in the downtown area.”

Results 2: “We’re seeing investors come in, run the housing stock into the ground, treat the tenants like garbage, and immediately take all their rental income—money that could be invested in the community—out of the neighborhood. This is an immediate capital flight from the community, leaving local residents without the expendable income to invest in local opportunities or support local businesses.” 

Results 3: “We don’t have any safeguards for this proposed policy, and once we enact these rights, they’re grandfathered in forever. There is no contingency plan, no method to test effectiveness, and no metrics for success. The consequences of a policy like this on a community like mine are far too harmful to be glossed over in the name of innovation. Let me be clear: Adoption of this policy without adequate safeguards will cause great, long-term harm to low income families and communities of color, and there is no way to undo the damage once Pandora’s box has been opened.”

Results 4: “with the new policy, a potential first-time homebuyer in my community will suddenly have to compete with an investor from another state who’s looking to buy the place sight unseen, slice it up into three units with minimal improvements, and start renting it right away. Those investors are not looking for homes, but for cash flow opportunities. How can a first-time homebuyer who currently resides in my community compete with someone who views it as a triplex income stream? The answer is: They can’t. They will be out-bid every time, further denied the opportunity for home ownership in the community they live in.”

“To summarize: In an effort to alleviate the affordable housing crisis, the city is offering my community smaller, crappier housing for no less money, with the added insult to injury of making it harder for them to buy a house and build generational wealth within their own community. It’s shocking to me that we’re patting ourselves on the back for this.” 

“As of the last few years, the largest residential real estate owner in metropolitan California is the global equity firm Blackstone. Are similar changes in residential ownership happening in Minneapolis? Yes. I’ve heard from realtors specializing in North Minneapolis that they are being contacted by firms on the West Coast, in Florida, Missouri, Texas, and elsewhere who are looking to buy up multiple parcels at a time, sight unseen. Those interests are chomping at the bit for this policy to pass. It saddens me that we would take ownership opportunities away, not only from the immediate community, but from the region as a whole, in favor of global investors.”

Contributed by: Kathleen Jenkins, OrindaWatch