The League of Women Voters of California has taken a support position on SB 50, the More Homes Act, legislation to address the state’s housing deficit by incentivizing dense construction near jobs and transit. The bill author’s fact sheet lists other supporters, which range from affordable housing advocates to municipalities to business interests.

California’s statewide housing crisis requires a statewide solution. Our state has enjoyed explosive population growth. However, our approach to housing, which has favored single-family homes and restrictive zoning for decades, has not kept pace. With 40 million current residents and a projected increase to 50 million by 2050, we suffer from a deficit of 3.5 million homes. This scarcity feeds poverty, homelessness, and sprawl, and erodes the stability of the middle class. While the problem is complex and needs multiple reforms, one thing is clear: we must build more homes.

It’s important to incentivize building with a plan that minimizes displacement, maximizes affordable housing, and mitigates against commute-related pollution that causes climate change. The League of Women Voters of California believes that SB 50 is a practical solution, crafted to accomplish all of those goals while preserving local control over methods.

Recently, we have heard some concerns about our position in support of SB 50, the More Homes Act. The following provides information to address those concerns.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does SB 50 remove local control over zoning?

California’s historical commitment to low-density, exclusionary, single-family home neighborhoods has created a housing shortage of 3.5 million units, skyrocketing housing costs and homelessness, and contributed to pollution and climate change. The statewide crisis requires a state-level solution to incentivize building. SB 50 does this while preserving local flexibility through provisions that were added to the bill on 1/7/2020 (see Local Flexibility Fact Sheet).  

Instead of having a “one-size-fits-all” solution that applies to every city automatically, SB 50 will instead act like a contingency plan for cities that fail to make and implement their own plans. Local communities can tailor their own plans and zoning decisions as an alternative to SB 50, as long as they:

1. Zone for the same or greater amount of housing; 
2. reduce “miles travelled” by situating housing close to community resources or transit; and 
3. do not disproportionately concentrate housing in low-income neighborhoods.

The flexibility provisions allow cities to decide what and where to build, but not IF to build.

Are the affordable housing requirements strong enough? 

SB 50 includes a variety of elements designed to address affordable housing  and avoid the displacement of sensitive communities. While the League is advocating to expand the number of affordable homes that will be built pursuant to the bill, we are careful to avoid pushing past the limits of feasibility. An unrealistic  affordability requirement would cause cities to simply stop building altogether — and we’d get no new affordable houses. Currently,  SB 50

• Establishes a requirement that new housing developments greater than 10 units must include significant affordable housing. Each project must designate 15-25% of the total units for low-income families.
• Makes multi-family zoned land less expensive to acquire for nonprofit developers. By massively increasing the supply of land for multi-family housing, the cost of land per buildable unit will decline.
• Enables many more low-income people to live in high-opportunity neighborhoods by lifting exclusionary bans on multi-family developments that have inclusionary units.

In the end, we want to create more affordable housing units overall; SB 50 does that. A moderate percentage of a large number of new units means more housing for everyone — including those who qualify for subsidized housing. Of course, without adequate incentives to build we won’t be creating the large number of units we need. And hiking up the required percentage of affordable units too much could depress production overall and result in a low number of new affordable units. See the Equity Fact Sheet and Equity press release.

Will SB 50 create more gentrification and displacement of sensitive communities?

SB 50 would provide the strongest anti-displacement protection in California state law. Recent amendments enhance the bill’s protections against displacement and gentrification. 

• SB 50 includes a prohibition on demolishing buildings recently occupied by renters, so that new construction doesn’t displace current tenants.
• SB 50 projects may not be sited on parcels occupied by renters in the past seven years, or that have been subject to Ellis Act eviction in the past 15 years. This protection would be stronger than anything currently in state law.

Does SB 50 allow builders to pay their way out of building affordable housing?

No, SB 50 allows developers to pay a fee as an alternative to building affordable housing units in a specific development. This type of fee, paid in lieu of actually building affordable units, is not uncommon. The revenue from these fees is used for building affordable housing, and provides one of the largest sources of funds for affordable housing in California. Developers specializing in affordable housing use the revenue from these fees to increase the number of affordable homes they can build. SB 50 requires that this affordable housing be built within ½ mile of the project that generates the fees.

What is the LWVC process for taking positions on bills?

You’ll find details of the process the LWVC uses for taking positions on bills here. The League’s Speaking with One Voice policy explains the way we determine who and which level of the organization is authorized to speak on issues for the organization.