The Bill SB 50

Posted: January 4th, 2023

Student’s Name:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

The Bill SB 50

Urbanization and increased participation in the labor market is exerting much pressure on the built environment. The workforce and its productivity drive a country’s economy, yet as the labor force is attracted to work, it presents a myriad of demands, including their residences. Cities and other urban areas sprout up around productive centers, and soon, desolate places thrive, to become large urban centers that are increasingly becoming congested. While the urbanization trend cannot be reversed, concerns about the effectiveness and efficiency of public services these spaces becomes contestable (Bliss 1). Specifically, while the policymakers and the government champion the economic agenda, they often encounter resistance, especially because of disrupting the serene and otherwise tranquil neighborhoods with scattered homesteads in the suburban areas.

The state of California has large cities, like San Francisco and Los Angeles, which have experienced tremendous growth over the years. These cities sprouted as small urban centers in the 1840s when Americans in the east flooded the western edge of the United States during the famous Gold Rush (Duffin 2). Later, with the establishment of large commercial farms, single dwelling occupying large tracts of land came up. However, other commercial activities, and especially the entertainment industry, and later, the services and high technology industry, saw the population of California grow exponentially. Currently, California is home to 39.51 million residents, making it the most populous state in the United States (Duffin 1). This high population has inspired the building of public infrastructure, like roads, rail and airports, to support the labor force, while residential dwellings have also increased to accommodate the huge number of Californians. However, some of these infrastructures are surrounded by sparsely arranged single residential dwellings and therefore, are not used optimally (Nichols para 4). This discussion delves into the proposal that cities in California be required to allow high density housing blocks to be setup near transit and employment hubs the bring Californians close to their workplaces and public transportation services, as contained in the Senate Bill 50. The discussion commences by pointing out the merits and demerits of the proposal. After that, the proposal is analyzed to unearth the logic and rationalization behind its conceptualization. Finally, a policy recommendation is made regarding the creation of a modern and functional urban ecosystem.

Pros and Cons of SB 50

The proposal to build high density residential dwelling near employment and transportation hubs to replace the single dwellings in cities in California has benefits and detriments to the California residents and urban environment. the benefits of this urban restructuring is that, firstly, it would bring people near public infrastructure, like roads and rail, thus encouraging them to use public rather than private transportation. This is beneficial to the environment because it would reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, which would reduce atmospheric pollution from burning fuel. Secondly, it would promote the use of space in cities more efficiently to accommodate the high and growing population, which is otherwise underutilized when in the hands of few single-dwelling homeowners. Third, supporting services and infrastructure would be established to accommodate the high population. For instance, the demand for food, entertainment and healthcare services would encourage the setting up of grocery stores and shopping malls, recreational centers and healthcare facilities, thus creating a thriving ecosystem.

Contrastingly, this proposal also has detriments. First, it would turn quiet neighborhoods into noisy areas bustling with people. This would upset the serenity of the neighborhood and displace its residents, pushing them further into the suburban and periurban areas of the cities and far from public amenities. Second, the dense population could lead to higher crime rates, considering that the proximity to transportation would help criminals to move in and out of the residential areas. For instance, the bay area rapid transport (BART) attracts criminals and is considered one of the most unsafe transportation systems in the United States (Kukura para 1). Third, it would increase the cost of housing, particularly when high rise residential blocks are converted into luxury apartments, whose rental and sale prices are much higher that those of regular apartments. This would risk turning Californian cities into New York where there is an oversupply of luxury apartments that cannot be sold or rented out due to their high cost. This would reverse the original intention of the proposal, which is the efficient use of urban spaces.

However, the success of this proposal is dependent in the support of the diverse and numerous stakeholders. These include the residents that would be affected by the rezoning exercise, the housing development companies along with the team of different professionals, like architects, quantity surveyors, constructors and builders, and the state and local authorities, including policymakers and city planners. Entrepreneurs that would erect the supporting infrastructure like grocery stores and healthcare facilities and environmentalists that would ensure that the project is environmentally safe would also be involved as critical stakeholders. The opinions of these stakeholders are valuable because they would enrich the planning and implementation of the proposal.

Analysis of the Bill

The proposal in SB 50 is rational and logical and was informed by modern thinking of emerging urban ecosystems. For instance, the human ecology theory and the concentric zone model explain the structure of cities. According to the theory, urban populations distribute themselves and use land in predictable patterns (Banai 2). However, city planners in the United States are challenged by the lack of public transport and have to accommodate private vehicles plying the road network in the country. In this regard, public rail transportation systems, such as the Bay Area Rapid Transport is are new phenomenon that is not optimized by the design of American cities. Although the city has a predictable design, the rail network could disrupt this consistency by deemphasizing zoning in cities and therefore, negate the concentric zone model because diverse areas can be interconnected cheaply and speedily. American cities are also structured around the grid and sectoral models. In the grid model, urban land is divided into blocks that are interconnected by streets that intersect at right angles (Lumencandela). This structure is popular in the United States because it encourages land development and maximizes land use while discouraging boundary disputes. In addition, some cities in the United States are structured around the sectoral model, which is an enhancement of the concentric zone model that was advanced by Homer Hoyt in 1939. According to the model, urban land is subdivided into the rings radiating from the central business district (CBD) at the center and sectors with unique characteristics that are based on land use.

Using these theories, the proposal seeks to remedy the problems generated by modeling cities in California along the sector model, which has led to the perpetual problem of housing shortage in California. California has a very large population of over 39.51 million people and a high rate of homelessness. The high rents in many residential dwellings exacerbate this problem because it places the single dwellings and luxury apartment beyond the reach of regular Californians. Moreover, the spaces occupied by the high-end residential areas are large compared to that on which low-class residential neighborhoods are located.

The proposal would also address the failure by the market to regulate the development of the urban infrastructure and control the prices of the built structures. Rent and purchase prices of houses in California are higher that the average in the United States. Therefore, although the demand for housing is high in Californian cities, it is not met by the right supply and it targets a small and exclusive segment of the population. With this proposal, it is likely that the market will respond by having homeowners sell their parcels at high prices to give way for the high-density residential apartments, in a bid to discourage the proposal. Moreover, others will purchase the built high-density apartments to be closer to their working area, thus reducing the commute time and cost. However, market dynamics present diverse positive and negative externalities. The proposal is likely to lead to reduced commuting time by workers living close to their workplaces. In addition, the energy demand by buildings would be lower because of the sharing aspect. For instance, the energy required for central heating of a high-density apartment block is much lower that that needed by the same number of residents strewn across single dwelling of detached housing units. Moreover, the reduced commuting distances and the use of mass transport rather than personal vehicles would reduce air pollution from the greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of petroleum fuels. Contrastingly, the negative externalities occasioned by the proposal include the traffic congestion due to the lack of mass transport connectivity in the last mile. People going to or leaving the mass transport hubs would congregate on roads to their homes causing traffic snarl-ups that have a huge energy and time cost.

The proposal also addresses the efficiency of city functionality and equity implications. The positive aspects on efficiency include the efficient use of land space by allowing a small area of land to hold many homes and host huge populations. Moreover, transportation management would be more efficient because of the use of mass transportation, which uses fewer vehicles. Besides, school districts would function more efficiently by administering schools in close proximity rather than those that are spatially dispersed. In turn, student activities between schools would increase, and become better managed by school administrators because schools would be close to each other. Equity would also be enhanced when affordable houses are available to employees of all calibers. These high-density residential areas would exist alongside the detached high-class housing units, thus improving land use and enabling residents of all social classes to access their workplaces cheaply and efficiently. Moreover, the housing developers would boost their profits by building high-density houses for the huge Californian population to address the housing shortfall in the cities therein.

Empirical Evidence

The Bay Area in San Francisco is a practical example of how the proposal contained in SB 50 would work, thus emboldening its proponents. Specifically, The Bay Area population is high (over 7.7 million) and demanded affordable housing near their workplaces to cater for the annual shortfall of 699,000 homes, which has accumulated over the last two decades to reach between 2 to 3.5 million housing units (Carlifornia Yimby para 2; Lowrey para 3). Therefore, in the development of this area, the transportation system was build first and the housing structures were built around the transit corridor.  Consequently, the Bay Area, which is rich in employment opportunities, has a rapid mass transport system know as BART that is surrounded by affordable high-rise residential apartment blocks. This creates a built space that meets the jobs-housing fit criteria of the San Francisco residents.

In applying the sectoral model of urban development, the residential planning has allocated at least two-thirds of the land area to residential housing development. in addition, the metropolitan transport commission designated some sections of Bay Area as intersections of vulnerable and disadvantaged communities deserving of affordable and disability-friendly residential blocks. These sections are to be reviewed every five years to accommodate the shifts in demography. Besides, the residential development initiative has been termed as the “transport rich housing project” with apartments blocks being located within a quarter mile to a bus-stop on the high-quality bus corridor and at leas half-a-mile to a major transit stop.

However, the opponents of the SB 50 proposal cite the problems that Bay Area would encounter following a transportation breakdown. If the mass transportation system were to be interrupted or temporarily discontinued for an extended period, the traffic congestion would reach astronomical proportions and the huge masses of people would be unable to reach their workplaces or return to their homes in good time. This would frustrate residents and possibly lead to social unrest, which would destabilize the Bay Area community. In the same vein, the longstanding comfort of families that have capitalized in the single-family zoning would be displaced as developers procure entire blocks to set up the more lucrative apartment blocks (Lowrey para 9). This is because the proposal would nullify some extant zoning provisions, such as the transport rich areas, curve-out counties, 10-unit exemption, job-rich areas, and neighborhood multi-family areas. Because the proposal would attract profit-driven housing developers, the open spaces for public utility and the trees that serve as a carbon sink would disappear to become built areas. Sites of historical significance would be demolished for economic expediency and apartment complexes would be set up without commensurate parking spaces. Moreover, sensitive communities are likely to be ignored in the apartment design and pricing, exacerbating the problem of homelessness, which the proposal intends to resolve in the first place.

In fact, the opponents of SB 50 used the argument on the harmful effects of the proposal to shoot down the bill in the Senate. The profit and economic question were central in their argument against the proposal, which convinced many to vote against and defeat the bill. Moreover, in acknowledging that there was diverse evidence supporting and opposing the proposal, the profit question overshadowed other positive arguments. the envisages problems include an oversupply of overpriced houses, displacement of vulnerable populations, and destroying of the natural environment in Bay Area, erasing years of the rich legacy and history left by the pioneers of San Francisco. However, the senate has voted on several aspects of the bill since 2019. The last 6 votes, which culminated in the rejection of the bill according to the vote taken on April 2, 2020 are summarized in figure 1. Ultimately, the bill was suspended as Adjourned Sine Die, because it did not receive the 21 yea votes needed to pass it.

Figure 1. Voting history between April 2, 2019 and January 30, 2020

Source: LegiScan (2020)

Policy Recommendations

However, to have more benefits than detriments, it is recommended that focus should be directed towards a transit-oriented development (TOD) policy, which has been evidenced to work effectively in urban other jurisdictions in the United States and foreign countries like the Netherlands (Thomas, et al. 1202). This policy delivers more benefits that detriments and addresses the challenges of a modern urban society. The policy has a job-home-environment convergence that creates a livable, energy and time efficient, environmental-friendly urban setting. The benefits include increased livability, enhanced job creation and access, increased housing, reduced congestion and atmospheric pollution, and enhance commuting convenience. Pear District in Portland has adopted the TOD policy very effectively and serves as one of the best examples in the country. The neighborhoods in Pearl District have parks within 20 minutes of walking and transport to parks, stores, and schools has been prioritized.

Conclusion

The proposal encapsulated in SB 50 is controversial even when it seeks to address perpetual problems of urban dwellings in California, such as the high levels of homelessness, elevated air pollution, and loss of valuable time and energy in traffic congestion. Although the bill promises to deliver a job/home-appropriate urban environment in a state that has the highest population in the country. however, it raises concerns about the detriments it would presents to the communities in case the mass-transportation system breaks down and open spaces are replaced with apartment blocks, to the environment when the trees are cut to give way to high-density residences, and to the zoning code tradition. Many are worried that housing developers would capitalize on the opportunity to make huge profits and flout zoning codes, while disenfranchising vulnerable communities who cannot afford the overpriced apartments. However, a transit-oriented development policy would refine the proposal and still deliver the intended outcomes.   

Works Cited

Banai, Reza. “Concentric Zone Theory.” The Wiley Blackwell Encylopedia of Urban and Regional Studies, 2019, pp. 1-6.

Bliss, Laura. “The last days of SB 50, California’s doomed upzoning bill.” Bloomberg, 30 January 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-30/california-sb50-upzoning-bill-has-one-last-chance. Accessed 28 November 2020

Carlifornia Yimby. The Bay Area’s housing deficit –past and future. 26 May 2020, https://cayimby.org/the-bay-areas-housing-deficit-past-and-future/. Accessed 28 November 2020

Duffin, Erin. Population on the states of the U.S. 2018. 7 January 2020, https://www.statista.com/statistics/183497/population-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/. Accessed 28 November 2020

García, Ivis. “Human Ecology and its Influence in Urban Theory and Housing Policy in the United States.” Urban Science, vol. 3, no. 2, 2019, pp. 1-11.

Kukura, Joe. Lengthy expose shows how crime in BART has gone off the rails. 18 November 2019, https://sfist.com/2019/11/18/lengthy-expose-shows-how-crime-on-bart-has-gone-off-the-rails/. Accessed 28 November 2020

LegiScan. “Votes: CA SB50-2019-2020; regular session. 2020, https://legiscan.com/CA/votes/SB50/2019. accessed 2 December 2020.

Lowrey, Annie. “The bill that could make California livable again.” The Atlantic, 13 January 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/sb50-california/604786/. Accessed 28 November 2020

Lumencandela. Boundless sociology. Lumen Learning, N.D. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-sociology/ Accessed 28 November 2020

Nichols, Chris. PolitiFact California: Fact or fiction? A look at the claims about SB 50, one of California’s most controversial housing bill. 21 January 2020, https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/01/21/fact-or-fiction-a-look-at-claims-about-sb-50-one-of-californias-most-controversial-housing-bills/. Accessed 28 November 2020

Thomas, Ren, Dorina Pojani, Sander Lenferink, Luca Bertolini, Dominic Stead, and Erwin van der Krabben. “Is transit-oriented development (TOD) an internationally transferable policy concept?” Regional Studies, vol. 52, no. 9, 2018, pp. 1201-1213.