Under AB 68, homeowners who apply to build accessory dwelling units, or “granny flats,” can also apply to build a second, “junior” ADU on their property — the functional equivalent of statewide triplex zoning. While the new rules don’t allow the subdivision of properties for sale, they could unleash a “golden age” of ADU construction across the state, leading to a significant increase in housing supply. — California YIMBY
“The passage of AB 68 [...] fundamentally shifts the landscape for building new homes in our state,” Brian Hanlon, co-founder and president of zoning reform advocacy group California YIMBY said via press release, adding, “When the Governor signs these bills into law, almost every residential property in the state will be allowed to build three units of housing—including in areas zoned for single family homes.”
This is a pretty good argument for buses.
All 3 Comments
until the dems stop taxing and permitting us to death who can afford to build
wine-r.
until the repubs start acting like responsible members of society who can trust them without regulations
Zoning exists for a reason ... and it isn't to limit the number of units and disenfranchise people. It is part of planning that every city does with regards to it's infrastructure. The number of dwelling units in an area directly impacts not only traffic, but the utilities. Suddenly adding units in an area without proper planning will stress the systems beyond what they were built for.
No it won't.
Thank you for your detailed analysis ... yes it will....
Yeah, tduds. You need a detailed analysis to compete with robertabbott's opinion.
There's no need for a detailed analysis, because this is a tired old argument that has been debunked to death throughout the internet. If I find some time later I'll do your homework for you but in the meantime maybe do your own homework.
Yeah ... i get it ... i like to make bs comments sometimes too. Then say I don't have to support them because ... well... the internet. Or maybe you are a city planner? More like a dud with a keyboard...
Good one Bob.
It's absurd to assume that cities will grow without also updating infrastructure. This will happen regardless of whether the growth is infill or greenfield. We already have mechanisms to deal with increased demand on public infrastructure (SDC's/TSDCs in Oregon. I'm sure other jurisdictions have these also). One way or another, you're paying for infrastructure. To suggest that added strain by a handful of ADU's in a medium-density neighborhood is somehow going to be more expensive than building out an entirely new street grid for more suburban sprawl is absurd.
And that's before you get into the secondary externalities of increased vehicle miles, induced demand, destruction of habitat, etc. caused by sprawl. Nothing is zero-impact, and you're using the fact that infill has an impact to distract from the fact that greenfield development has a *larger* impact. Doing nothing is not an option.
People are going to need places to live and either they're going to live more densely or they're going to take up more space.
Rick: I'm going to just ignore your weird rant on the homeless because it's irrelevant in addition to being wildly offensive.
bob broke my irony meter
On my street there are eight homes on my block, each with a two-car garage so 16 cars can be housed off the street. If we all turn those garages into apartments we will have to park at least eight and possibly 16 cars on the street as the garages are now apartments. The people who rent the apartments will also have transportation needs, so that is an additional eight to sixteen cars seeking a place to park. If we all build a small cabin in our back yards and rent those out that is another eight to sixteen cars from the cabin-dwellers looking for a place to park. So we have gone from no cars on the street to between 24 and 48 cars looking for a place to park on the street on one block. The neighborhood has turned into something that looks like a quasi-trailer park that is being used for overflow parking on a college football game day.
This is a pretty good argument for buses.
I travel to all different parts of San Diego ... from the rich coastal communities to East San Diego or Otay Mesa where property values are much lower. There is an EXTREME difference with regards to the number of cars on the streets and in front yards in those communities ... for exactly reason reason you've mentioned. More people = more cars.
It seems like you don't like cars so why not ban cars?
It's not about cars... it about gross mismanagement like you are seeing in northern CA with the power grid being shutdown because of lack of planning. Newsome's next step (and they are already implementing it) is to implement rent control and regulate tenant occupancy... so you won't be able to say who or how much they pay to live in your property. And you've probably heard we have a "people experiencing homelessness" problem (aka bums and junkies). What do you think the state is going to do with them? But you think it is about cars ...
Your previous comment was entirely about cars. Don't change the subject.
I bet bob loves scooters and thinks they take cars off the roads of san diego.
I also love how bob tries to make a point about mismanagement by the Governor by referring to the gross mismanagement of PG&E (a company) .
Nevermind that high voltage powerlines running through wildland areas (which are at risk of causing fires & the reasons for weather-related blackouts) are a result of sprawl. If anything, increased density in established neighborhoods would *reduce* this problem.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.