Southern California must plan for 1.3 million new homes in the next decade, Newsom says

[Zorro]

Cities and counties in Southern California will have to plan for the construction of 1.3 million new homes in the next decade, a figure more than three times what local governments had proposed over the same period, according to a letter released by state housing officials Thursday.

The decision is sure to intensify a clash between cities in the region and Gov. Gavin Newsom over the need for new construction to alleviate the state’s housing crisis. Newsom and allies in the Legislature have called for 3.5 million new homes to be built statewide by 2025 in an effort to end a shortage of available homes that is driving up prices. Local government officials, including many in the Los Angeles area, have been frustrated by the state’s efforts to push for greater growth in their communities and to take away some of their control over development.

“The governor has said California must use every tool in its toolbox to combat the state’s housing affordability crisis,” Newsom spokesman Nathan Click said in a statement. “This is part of that approach.”

The figure cited by Newsom was governed by a 50-year-old state law that every eight years requires cities and counties to plan for enough growth in their communities to meet projected population increases and account for other factors, such as overcrowding, that indicate a need for more development. The law doesn’t require local governments to build or approve new housing, instead mandating that they must zone sufficient land to meet the state’s housing projections.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-22/southern-california-housing-growth

[sandensea]

1. Last year CA had 117,000 housing starts (nearly half of them apartments)

At that rate it would take 30 years to meet the 2025 goal.

Still, any improvement is better than none at all.

[SpankMe]

2. This is a tough problem here in sunny Cali

The conservatives don't want the state overriding the sovereignty of their local municipalities and telling them how to plan their communities.

The liberals are NIMBY.

Then, there's the paradox of people allegedly leaving the state in droves because they can't afford to live here, vs. the fact that over 1M housing units will be needed in the next 10 years to accommodate the projected population growth.

My opinion is that areas that are densely populated shouldn't be forced to add yet more housing and density to their already stressed infrastructure (i.e., the entire S.F. bay area, the L.A. area, the inland empire (Riverside/San Bernardino) Orange county and parts or San Diego). Also, the central valley has water and weather problems (it gets freaking hot there).

The state has to identify areas that aren't as densely populated, and that don't have weather that's too hot, and mandate that new industry that comes to CA be located there. Then, the housing will follow.

New transportation and utility infrastructure would have to be built to access these areas, and this would require relaxing some environmental requirements.

I'm talking mostly about the upper third of the state outside of the central valley. It's mountainous, but doable.

Also, the southern part of the central valley and the Mojave desert get sun over 300 days a year. With some environmental relaxation, a complex of well designed solar and wind farms located there could power the whole state with minimal use of fossil fuel plants as back-up.

We need a Marshall plan for California that needs to be crammed down people's throats and implemented by brute force. We'll never find a compromise solution that makes everybody happy and that could be implemented in a timely fashion.

[Merlot]

7. "The liberals are NIMBY." Generalize much?

[wasupaloopa]

3. There is no room to build new homes in Los Angeles.

That is the reason for the Metro.

[CrispyQ]

4. And then there's this article:

We'd Better Retreat from the Coasts While We Still Can, Scientists Urge Amid Climate Crisis

snip...

Rather than dealing with these forced migrations on a reactive, disaster-by-disaster basis (as many emergency evacuations do now), the researchers propose taking a "managed and strategic" approach to the problem, setting up policies and infrastructure now to help climate refugees transition into new homes and out of harm's way as soon as possible.

We're doing basically nothing to stop climate change, why would they think we'll do anything to make it easier on the poor & the affected?

[Mr.Bill]

5. We're gonna build a wall.

And Nevada is going to pay for it.

[BigmanPigman]

6. Another aspect of the changing environment

that makes me relieved not to be here to see it happen in person.