OK! We’re about to start #SB827 hearing with Sen. @Scott_Wiener. The bill would allow for 4-to-5 story buildings near transit. You can watch live here: senate.ca.gov
.@Scott_Wiener: "The status quo isn’t working and we need to do things different. We need an enormous amount of housing at all income levels … In California we have made a conscious decision that housing simply doesn’t matter."
.@Scott_Wiener: "Local control over housing is important but it is not biblical."
Editorial comment as @Scott_Wiener wraps up his introduction. It feels super tense in the committee room. Remember the bill would have to get through many other similar hearings before it could become law. So the hill is very high for this to pass
Those lining up to testify in opposition to #SB827 are the @Western_Center and @CA_Bldg_Trades. Western Center is one of the most prominent low-income housing groups here. The construction workers’ union is probably the most powerful group in the state’s housing debate.
Vice Mayor of Beverly Hills @JohnMirisch says that #SB827 is a real estate bill not a housing bill and gets a huge applause from the crowd.
Dude just introduced himself as John Galt from the Rebel Alliance. He’s opposed to #SB827
OK public comment is over. We’re getting toward brass tacks time.
One Senator speaking, one Senator opposed. Democratic Sen. Richard Roth of Riverside says he’s opposed. Again, #SB827 is unlikely to proceed today without Republicans supporting it.
Two Democrats now opposed to #SB827. @BillDoddCA says that cities in his district are against it so he is, too.
It’s worth noting that Sen. @Jimbealljr, the chairman of the committee, has indicated he’s opposed to #SB827. It is not common for senators, particularly those who are of the same party, to buck committee chairs.
Sen. @ilike_mike from Marin County says the low-income housing provisions in the bill aren’t strong enough. He’s going to be opposed, too. So that’s three Democrats against. @Scott_Wiener is likely going to need all or almost all Republicans to get it through
If you had “Manhattan” on your #SB827 drinking game, your time is now.
As GOP Sen. @TedGaines speaks in support, it’s also remarkable that there appears there could be more Republican support for #SB827 than Democrats.
This is going to be an early and resounding defeat for #SB827, which quickly became one of the biggest housing bills in the country.
To be precise, Sen. @Scott_Wiener was granted reconsideration meaning it’s possible for it to be revived. But legislative deadlines — not to mention intense Democratic opposition — make that very difficult for the foreseeable future.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In researching my rent control explainer, the divergence between economists who don’t like the policy and other researchers who do was striking. Non-economists would consistently point to the benefits gained from having stable housing and the need to help tenants immediately
I asked Christopher Palmer, an MIT economist, what the right response should be to California’s recent huge rise in property values that has had little to do with landlord investment with tenants bearing the brunt in rising rents. His response? Tax land to fund housing subsides
My colleague @bposton and I spent a while investigating one of the deepest inequalities in California housing and tax policy — so deep that U.S. Supreme Court justices and others say it's like medieval feudalism (1/13) latimes.com/politics/la-po…
California lets homeowners pass their low property tax bills to their children. And it can go on forever. So future generations of Californians whose ancestors purchased houses decades ago will continue to pay property taxes based on values established in the 1970s. (2/13)
The financial benefits of this practice for families who owned California homes in the 1970s are stunning. A heir of the billionaire Annenberg family has saved more than $500,000 due to the tax break for her $10m Beverly Hills home. And her kids can get the tax break, too. (3/13)
Perhaps you, like me, were surprised to learn LAPD shredded 4 tons of citizen complaints against officers. And that it led to California becoming the nation’s most secretive state on police misconduct. How did it happen? 🎵A trip to the archives🎵 (1/12) latimes.com/politics/la-me…
In 1974, the California Supreme Court decided that criminal defendants had a right to examine the history of the officers that arrested them to question their credibility on the witness stand. This, of course, led to defense attorneys asking for these files all the time. (2/12)
LAPD officers became upset — especially because the requests covered complaints that the department had deemed invalid. Morale was down, per this LAT article from the time. (3/12)