With Rishi Kumar. Click here!

RISHI KUMAR FOR US CONGRESS

California High Density Housing

Managed Growth and Infrastructure Concurrency

California's Senate will have a hearing on two bills on Monday, March 15th - SB9 and SB10. Both bills are geared to push housing onto cities in California, preempting local control. For example, if SB9 is approved, it would allow 2 units within each single-family lot in your city. And with ADUs, JDUs, you could effectively have 6 families living on a lot of today. Do the math on the population spike. With no plan to address the traffic challenges, this will mean a painful gridlock every rush hour.How would you feel about being stuck in traffic at an intersection near your home for 20 minutes? And then every intersection after that? Why this push for housing when we have an exodus happening from the Bay Area and California today?


Please consider taking these 3 steps below and have your say now

  1. Send your feedback to Sacramento. The deadline for submitting comments to the legislators is FRIDAY, MARCH 12th. Information on how to use the Legislative Portal can be found here: After you register with your email, a password will be sent to your email. Login —> Select a Bill: Measure SB 9. —> Select a Committee: Housing —> Select your Stance Oppose and enter your feedback —> Submit. Scroll down to the bottom of this email to copy and paste the suggested text.
  2. Send your feedback to Senator Cortese (district 15) or Senator Becker (district 13) or Senator Laird (district 13) as they will represent your district’s vote on this bill. You can also ask your city council to take a stance, send letters to your district senator, along with Senator Toni Atkins - the main sponsor of this bill. I am organizing meetings with our senators to discuss this very topic.
  3. Here is how you can stay connected with this effort:
    • Sign this petition
    • Join this Facebook group
    • Subscribe to this email group
    • Visit Livable California here

Why are these bills wrong for the future of our city?

  • Developers win: These bills will NOT require developers to invest in infrastructure improvement, only provide bare-minimum parking, avoiding costly entitlements. How will the current infrastructure - water, sewer, gas, roads - support the spike in population, if we are not going to mandate that developers or anyone make the necessary infrastructure investment?
  • Where is the urban plan? Population growth should be founded upon a pragmatic urban plan. Question - what is the plan? Who will be responsible for making this investment? Is there even anyone thinking about it? There are so many urban cities in the world that currently do not have the water resources to support the population. Guess what happens? Rationing of water - like an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening. Would you be OK with that?
  • Accelerating the climate change: These bills are an environmental disaster and a gift for developers; instead of creating trickle down equitable affordable housing, they will disrupt our protected open space. It allows developers to circumvent the Environmental Impact Review (EIR). Front yards and backyards will be lost and permeable surfaces that replenish ground water will disappear with the footprint of structures taking up the space. If we add housing, and if our commute time to jobs - just a few miles - becomes hours, how are we reducing the greenhouse gas, given that traffic is the primary reason?
  • Affordable housing? These bills do not mandate affordable housing nor will they create trickle-down, equitable affordable housing. It is a myth that if we increase housing supply, rents will drop or homes will become affordable. Are developers interested in dropping the price of housing? Aspersions are made related to racism and housing practices are often actually disadvantageous to low income communities. In reality, “solving racism” is a great excuse to add housing, but those too will be mostly for the rich.

You may copy & paste this for your feedback to Sacramento


I am writing as a resident of [city] to express my opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 9 and Senate Bill (SB) 10.

SB 9 would require ministerial consideration without any discretionary review, hearing, or environmental review for proposed housing developments with 2 residential units in zones in single-family residential zones.

SB 10 does two things: It lets a simple majority on a city council overturn voter-approved ballot initiatives that protect open space, land, and neighborhoods, on such issues as height limits. SB 10 also allows cities to approve 10-unit market-rate apartments almost anywhere, regardless of zoning. SB 10 is simply a repeat of SB 902, a bill that had no ground or backing in 2020.

There is currently a major exodus from California and Silicon Valley. Can Sacramento please fix the future of our Golden State? Can you please come up with a managed growth plan, based on the foundation of proper urban planning, that would enhance the quality of our life? Housing and Transportation are two variables that cannot be addressed in isolation? We should consider a mass transportation vision plan for California like the many other urban economies across the world are considering; fixing the traffic/transportation issue we have and expanding housing in a pragmatic, methodical manner should be our first priorities.

There has been a movement in Sacramento to address the affordable housing crisis by stripping communities of local control. This effort has been based on the underlying belief that the housing crisis can be solved by eliminating imaginary barriers to development.

SB 9 continues this effort to chip away at the ability of our communities to plan for their own futures and growth, and it will fail to spur housing construction in a manner that supports local flexibility, decision-making, and community input. If this plan moves forward, our communities’ foreseeable future will be disrupted.

Please be responsive to the feedback of the League of California Cities in their opposition of SB9. Many new citizen groups have organized throughout different regions of California to oppose this. We urge the State Legislature and the Governor to reject this bill and seek a collaborative, pragmatic and realistic solution to housing that allows local jurisdictions to be part of the solution without sacrificing the ability to shape the future of our communities.

Sincerely,
[your full name]
[address]