In my post from a couple of days ago where I quoted The Economist column saying that relaxing planning laws can be politically poisonous, let me expand on that with a recent piece in the Los Angeles Times.  The story shows the various ways that local governments in California are finding to essentially circumvent the recently enacted legislation that mandates that all residential zones throughout the state must allow for housing of up to fourplexes on any property (essentially ending exclusive single-family zoning).

We human beings are an inventive lot, as this story shows.  Here’s a few quotes from the story:

“Under a proposed regulation in the city of Pasadena, for instance, those building under SB 9 may have to plant a “minimum of two mature trees on-site” from the city’s list of native and protected species, a provision that is likely to add costs to the project.”

“…local plans are aiming to limit the size and height of new development, mandate parking spots and require that such housing be rented only to those making moderate or low incomes.”

“…those wanting to split their lot to build more housing must intend to live on the property for at least three years afterward.”

“(Redondo Beach Mayor Bill) Brand, who is promoting a proposed 2022 state constitutional amendment restraining the state’s ability to override local development rules, believes that many cities may pass regulations… testing the limit of what’s allowed.”

In reaction, the primary sponsor of SB9 and of a number of other similar measures said:

“It’s unfortunate that some of these cities are trying to obstruct state law instead of embracing new housing, but that’s the world we’re living in,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).

Politcally poisonous indeed!

You can read the full story here