I never thought I’d be able to buy a house.

Between the cost of living in the Washington, D.C. area, where I grew up, and California, my home for the past seven years or so, surging home prices and a salary that just couldn’t keep up, I’d rent forever.

But then COVID happened, my circumstances changed, and I was able to buy a modest home in the ‘burbs.

Homeownership is a never-ending list of things to do and pay for, but it’s worth it — the only hiccup has been a neighbor raising a rooster in the backyard (roosters apparently make noise all day long… who knew?)

Overall, I love my house and neighborhood and am fine being married to this mortgage for the next 30 years, but recently-passed legislation has me concerned that I might have bought too soon.

Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed SB 9, which could ultimately make life harder for some homeowners while doing little to alleviate the housing crisis.

The law gives property owners the right to subdivide their properties and build up to as many as four units on a property.

The libertarian in me loves the idea of expanding property rights and allowing owners to do what they want on their property. But the homeowner in me recognizes that in a community, there is often tension between my rights and the rights of others as the two intersect.

For example: I don’t know what kind of person thinks it’s fine to have a rooster cock-a-doodle-doing all day and throughout the night in a suburban neighborhood, but apparently at least one such person exists with whom I share a back fence.

While my neighbor should have the right to have a pet of his or her choosing, the reason the county prohibits rooster ownership in neighborhoods like mine (I checked county code) is because they make noise constantly.

In other words, the way my neighbor was exercising his or her property rights by owning a rooster greatly affected the quality of life for me and my other neighbors.

As such, it would affect me if the my neighbors on the left and right of my house were to both all of a sudden add three units to their properties, taking all the street parking, making the street more congested and likely making it louder, which would affect the resale value of my home.

SB 9 has no requirements for parking, and it bypasses local approval so that cities and counties are relatively powerless. Decisions about my neighborhood (or any neighborhood, for that matter) are better left to local governments, not out-of-touch lawmakers in Sacramento.



While this bill could create millions of new housing units, it won’t because making subdividing lots and adding units doesn’t make sense for most people. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that a study of SB 9 found that only around 700,000 properties statewide were found to be “market-feasible.”

Again, most people probably won’t do this, but some will and I pray none on my street. Is that selfish? Maybe, but I also just made a 30-year commitment to my home, I think I’m allowed to be a little concerned that my street could be upended by lawmakers making abstract decisions from the Capitol.

NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard) is a bad word until it’s your backyard.

The effect SB 9 will have on the housing crisis will be nominal, which means it’s basically a waste of time. Estimates vary, but the state is around 2.5 million or so housing units short of the current demand and needs to build at least 180,000 each year just to keep up with population growth. And the state is nowhere near that level of production.

How SB 9 will affect the Bay Area is a good case study. The Chronicle reported that San Francisco, a place that desires density and is already designed for it, would have the least amount of SB-9 opportunities in the Bay Area, while Marin, Napa and Sonoma Counties would have the most.

Driving the development further away from job centers into places where fourplex properties are less desirable will make traffic worse, increase sprawl and have little effect on the housing crisis.

Why are we doing this again?

Lawmakers are scared to reform the California Environmental Quality Act, because it’s beloved by special interests who use it to block development.

CEQA defenders will argue it does not stand in the way of development, but experts (and results) argue otherwise. Former Gov. Jerry Brown said it best when he said reforming CEQA was “the Lord’s work.”

But the good news is that you don’t have to take my word or Brown’s word for it; take the word of the lawmakers who routinely waive CEQA, or “streamline” it, in order to ensure development happens.

SB 9 has a CEQA loophole. Affordable housing projects do too. And so did the development of the arenas where the Sacramento Kings play, the Golden State Warriors, and so on.  By consistently waiving or streamlining CEQA provisions on must-pass projects, lawmakers admit that CEQA stands in the way.

But CEQA remains unreformed, the housing crisis is as bad as ever, and we’re left with this measly SB 9 that will undoubtedly erode the quality of life for a few unsuspecting homeowners and all so that Sacramento lawmakers can pretend they are doing something.

Advocates have said SB 9 is the “end of single-family zoning” as a good thing. But single-family zoning is not the problem. My street is not the problem.

The only problem is lawmakers’ unwillingness to tackle the issue everyone knows is the issue. Reform CEQA and leave my street alone.

Matt Fleming is a member of the Southern California News Group’s editorial board. You can follow him on Twitter @FlemingWords.

Join the Conversation

