Does Senate Bill 79 go too far by overriding local zoning to build housing near transit hubs?

California lawmakers approved a bill in mid-September that would override local zoning to build housing near transit hubs.

Senate Bill 79 allows for taller, denser housing near transit corridors such as bus stops and train stations: up to nine stories for buildings adjacent to certain transit stops, seven stories for buildings within a quarter-mile, and six stories for buildings within a half-mile.

Single-family neighborhoods within a half-mile of transit stops would be subject to the new zoning rules.

Critics say the bill is an overreach and would destroy single-family neighborhoods. Housing advocates have praised its passage, saying the state needs more housing, and building near transit hubs makes sense for the state’s workforce.

The bill still needs to be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to become law. Several politicians, such as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, have asked Newsom to veto it.

Question: Does Senate Bill 79 go too far?

Economists

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO: There is too little housing, it costs too much, and too many people are homeless. States that do better than California in these three areas adopt land-use policies that make it easy for developers to build. Allowing apartment buildings near public transport makes sense. People can live more affordably and get places easily, while congestion and air pollution from private vehicles will be reduced.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: Housing located near highways and rail lines has traditionally been less desirable and therefore less expensive. The bill allows building along transit corridors to improve living conditions in such areas, making newly built housing that accommodates noise and other factors much more appealing. Aging housing needs to be renewed and upgraded for modern living standards. Renewal efforts should not be constantly hindered from profitability by forever being delayed from actions preventing urban improvement.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

NO: The state needs more housing, especially in the coastal areas. Given the lack of land in coastal areas, higher-density housing is needed, which has the potential for creating congestion and environmental issues. That makes locations near transit hubs particularly desirable, as they would help mitigate some of those negative impacts. The issue of local control is important, but that control sometimes leads to communities not doing their share to provide housing, especially lower cost housing, and becoming exclusive enclaves instead.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

YES: I prefer to leave decisions up to local communities rather than try to develop statewide formulas and insist they be applied everywhere. The premise of this bill is that the high cost of housing in California is caused by bad planning by each individual community rather than statewide measures that pile on costs. Leaders in Sacramento should start by correcting the problems they themselves caused, such as land-use and environmental regulations, prevailing wage laws, over-stringent building codes and litigation costs.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: A major flaw in transit planning is the lack of walkable density near transit nodes, which leads to low ridership. Successful mass transit systems need density to sustain frequent service. Density is not optional — it is foundational to transit success, otherwise naïve politicians will question the low ridership as a symptom of a failed system when it is merely the initial planning that failed.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: There are no easy solutions to the housing crisis in California. Critics of Senate Bill 79, including local governments and impacted communities, are pointing out important downsides to the bill. However, given the shortage of affordable housing in California, constructing additional units and increasing density should be a primary goal of state lawmakers. Building units close to existing transit systems creates new housing for workers commuting to a job in attractive locations.

Ray Major, economist

YES: One-size-fits-all solutions dictated from Sacramento that override local laws are the definition of overreach. Local jurisdiction should have land use authority to determine what is best for the residents of their unique communities. Senate Bill 79 is another destructive Scott Weiner-introduced bill that may be right for San Francisco but is wrong for San Diego. Our local elected officials are tasked with solving the housing problem for our region and they should strongly speak out against this bill.

Executives

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: It is a good concept but overkill. Local communities need to make difficult decisions without being forced to by a frustrated state Legislature and governor. In their frustrations they removed far too much local control over zoning and floor area ratio. But now they have given communities cover that will hopefully force them to take action where it is desperately needed.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: It’s not that this legislation goes too far, but it is navigating us in the wrong direction. A broader housing delivery approach is required, one that is not singularly transit-dependent, an illusion to most people who will never use transit. The eventual use of autonomous vehicles will profoundly redefine neighborhoods. The legislative focus should be to encourage all types of higher-density housing, including homes that can accommodate families, not just apartments, which cannot.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

YES: Senate Bill 79 is a one-size-fits-all approach to a nuanced set of cities in California. While the passage of this bill is a promising step for increasing housing construction in our state, it requires two guardrails. Empowering local planning processes rather than overriding them, especially when they’ve met state housing goals, is one change. Allowing denser housing near transit, but with mandatory community input and environmental review, would be another.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

YES: While Senate Bill 79 is well-intended to address the housing shortage in California urban centers, a one-size-fits-all override is reckless. It allows six- to nine-story buildings within a half-mile of any “transit,” including infrequent bus stops, without appreciating real constraints of geography, school capacity, water and sewer limits, street congestion and coastal hazards. Upzoning should be tied to proven urban plans and funded infrastructure upgrades. Good policy needs appropriate sequencing and nuance. Senate Bill 79 is a statewide sledgehammer.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

YES: I still believe that land-use decisions should be under local and not state control, and this bill does not consider the negative impacts to local communities. We’ve already seen the problems with free-for-all ADU construction and the impact on property values when density, traffic and high-rise construction are forced on communities. We have to find a balance between the need for housing and the rights of owners who have invested their life savings into their homes.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

YES: Senate Bill 79 overreaches by undermining local control and stripping communities of their ability to plan responsibly. Mandating excessive density can strain infrastructure, increase wildfire evacuation risks, decrease property values, and harm the unique character and needs of our communities. One-size-fits-all reform will create unintended consequences. Instead, policy should focus on targeted zoning changes, infrastructure funding that matches growth, and a commitment to partnering with communities for planning and development.

Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020