California finally cracks the affordable housing code? Maybe . . .

Photo above - will former California flower children like Jorma and Creach consider moving to new affordable transit hub apartments, even if there aren't enough parking spots for everyone?

The link below is to “SB79”, California’s newly drafted law which makes it LEGAL to build apartments near transit hubs. Yes . . . you read that right. It was apparently mostly NOT LEGAL before now.

Various citizen groups and home builders have been struggling to get this bill passed since 2017. Senate Bill 79 is the survivor of previous legislative incarnations including SB50, SB287, and AB2097. A variety of special interest groups mobilized to lobby California politicians and prevent transit hub housing over those past 8 years. At one point a pro-EV car group tried to kill the idea by complaining about a “lack of parking”. These newly built apartments will be adjacent to rail stations, let’s recall. This is what happens when opposing special interest groups have different visions of paradise. At least nobody started ranting “Bring me a pistol and 3 round balls - I’m gonna shoot everybody I don’t like at all . . .”

This isn’t a done deal yet. Just because the legislature finally signs off doesn’t mean Governor Newsom will. He hasn’t inked it yet, and his “I’m running for president, bwaaah . . .” podcasts don’t seem to have addressed this topic. Who has showered him the with most contributions – the EV crowd or the homebuilding industry?

This does look like a pretty decent solution. So what if the apartment buildings DO possible reach as high as 7 stories? Nobody’s backyard avocado tree is going to get shaded out. Hobbyists with beehives aren’t going to bemoan the loss of wildflowers. The transit hubs are already an asphalt wasteland. In fact, the LACK of a parking spot rule (“one off-street spot for every bedroom”) is actually going to make these units LESS expensive to build.

What could possibly go wrong? Well, this IS California . . . Someone could decide to see if swimming pools, indoor pickleball courts, and a DNA based pet-waste monitoring system are amenities which could command higher monthly rents in the transit hub apartment market. And don’t forget the HOA (homeowner association) fees, on top of the monthly rent. Wildfires will probably not be a top concern.

The real decision point for a lot of people (including me, if I lived there) would be questions like: Is there a supermarket within walking distance, or is this a food wasteland due to unstoppable shoplifting? What dining options will there be, other than grab and go fast food for commuters? How many miles to the nearest hospital, which probably is NOT one of the stops on the commuter train route?

This is where The People’s Republic of China screwed up, big time. They built entire new apartment cities, high rise units for tens of thousands of worker bees. But forgot to include markets and other after-work amenities. People refused to live there, even though futuristic bullet trains to real cities were available just steps from their front doors.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

Historic Housing Legislation Passes in California - California YIMBY

Avectoijesuismoi · 36-40

The "Reality' is what actually is being defined as " Affordable Housing" because I haven't heard one person who bands that term around actually being able to explain exactly what they are talking about or quantify the amount of either what an affordable rent or an affordable monthly repayment of a loan.
Secondly just because the land is available there at a price that means it is viable there are other factors that make it viable or non viable as you mentioned hospital, shopping facilities, schools etc. people are not going to want to live in a place where it starts to cost to go get the groceries, get the children to school etc or have no medical services around it.
Thirdly the trains what is the noise factors going to be like and the pollution levels are we talking electric or diesel powered trains passing by.
Fourthly what are the crime levels going to be like in the area.
Lastly where do the people work in relation to the location of the housing. Can they even get there by train? Is it going to be affordable housing that is nice to have but with added costs of getting to work, going shopping, getting children to school etc etc, that turn it into a hidden expenses exercise.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@Avectoijesuismoi affordable housing is an apartment that someone with minimum wage can make the monthly rent on. affordable homes (owned) are ones where the home value is only 2.5 times your annual household income.

you are correct about transit hubs - they are magnets for crime. look at what goes on in the NYC subway system.

Avectoijesuismoi · 36-40

The affordable sector around where I live in California the household income needs to be $ 798 000 for the 2.5 theory to work then to buy the cheapest house.
But that theory is actually not a good one either as the only factor they take into account for that calculation is your ability to pay for the house whatever level it is at be it affordable of top end. It does not factor in any of life's other expenses in a logical way, you are not going to have all of your earnings as disposable income to pay the bills and live life. There are going to be other factors that creep up on you. Rise of cost of living for a start, food, fuel, electricity, clothes and then interest rate increases the equation only stretches so far. So your $ 250 000 dollar home starts out as affordable but soon it can become unaffordable.