Hacker News Reader

Comment by prottog | Hacker News Reader

There still seems to be quite a few strings attached:

> ... As long as developments are 20% low-income or 100% middle-income and are environmentally sound ...

What's the difference between "environmentally sound" and the onerous environmental review that Bay Area construction projects had to go through?

View on HN

You're probably referring to the California Environmental Quality Act. It is very unclear how these two things intersect. My guess is some court will decide sometime in the future. By default, as far as I know, CEQA still applies.

My understanding of the wording there comes from https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/Bu...

which says

> The five findings which would allow denial of an eligible project can be summarized as follows:

> <snip>

> 4. The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation or there are not adequate water or sewage facilities to the serve the project.

but I am not an expert on these details whatsoever.

> You're probably referring to the California Environmental Quality Act. It is very unclear how these two things intersect. My guess is some court will decide sometime in the future.

A trial court already has already ruled that it does and that environmental review has to be completed before a project enters the Buklder’s Remedy process.

Appeals and further legislation are likely.

Thank you! I hadn't heard that yet.

Build housing with 20% low-income set asides or take your chances with environmental review. I think the intention is you can't shortcut all the bureaucratic bullshit with this neat trick.

I see this in Seattle and it makes no sense and just annoys the shit of me when I'm looking for housing. They'll list their income restricted units as their entry level price online, then you look at their actual listings and they're all $1000 more expensive per month. The real problem that makes no sense, however, is that these income restricted units are sometimes like $2000-2500 a month. And to qualify you have to make less than like 60k a year or something. They can't afford to the rent. I don't get it.

From what I understand those are for the Section 8 tenants.

Right. But for section 8 it's still only for low income people right? And they can't afford the listed (already discounted) rent.

Section 8 pays their entire rent less 25% or 30% of their income (AGI) so they can afford anything, provided it fits Section 8 requirements.

That makes these make a lot more sense, thanks for clarifying this!

I don't think the 20% low-income gets you out of CEQA.

> What's the difference between "environmentally sound" and the onerous environmental review that Bay Area construction projects had to go through?

Its all (with narrow exemptions) California construction projects, not most Bay Area prohects, and there is no difference; this sentence is referring to the fact that Builder’s Remedy projects are not exempt from CEQA.

I don't think there is much difference that's why all the projects plan for 20% low income units.

You are misparsing the sentence: it is:

  ( 
    20% low-income or 
    100% middle-income
  ) and environmentally sound

Not:

  20% low-income or
  (
    100% middle-income and
    environmentally sound
  )

One of those options gets the inspector front row seats at a Lakers game.

There is no inspector level override to allow projects.

CEQA overrides all this. Here's a person that spent five years in courts, because a neighbor didn't want a single family home to expand due to aesthetic concerns, that suddenly shifted to fake "environmental" concerns as soon as the city level obstruction failed.

https://twitter.com/tribtowerviews/status/162851785910113075...

The threat of years of lawsuit is enough to kill most projects, as that amount of uncertainty and risk will eliminate all financial backing for any but the very most motivated, such as those living in their own homes with tons of money to burn.

Discretionary approval of projects is definitely a corruption machine, as exposed recently in LA, and any politician that endorsed discretionary community review is almost certainly corrupt. However it's also the norm in California.

Even with that discretionary review, CEQA is still a powerful tool for stopping projects that improve the environment, due to the long decision timelines.

It’s not too hard for developers to build 20% low income.

Especially since "low income" is defined relative to area income. One of the first builder's remedy projects is announced in Los Altos Hills, where median family income is $250K a year. "Low income housing" means it has to be affordable to somebody making 80% of that, i.e. $200K a year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com