MY ANALYSIS - California told us we had a housing crisis.
But before government overrides local planning, eliminates hearings, limits environmental review and increases density across the state, perhaps somebody should have asked the most basic question first:
What Exactly Is the Crisis We Are Trying to Solve?
Because California doesn’t simply have a housing shortage.
California has an affordable housing shortage.
Very-low- and low-income Californians, working families, seniors and young people are increasingly being priced out of the communities where they grew up.
That’s the crisis.
After spending months examining California’s housing streamlining laws, I keep coming back to the same stubborn question:
If affordability was the crisis, where is the affordability in the cure?
AB 130. SB 9. SB 684. SB 1123. SB 79.
Different laws and different authors, but the same philosophy: add density, accelerate approvals, reduce discretionary review, curtail hearings and, in some cases, bypass CEQA.
Sacramento has become very good at streamlining.
But as currently drafted, California’s streamlining legislation is not producing very-low-income affordable housing at a scale significant enough to address the very crisis it was enacted to solve.
Put the Public Back in the Room
After examining these laws and watching how they affect communities, I have come to one conclusion that I state categorically:
No land-use decision affecting a community should ever eliminate the public’s right to a meaningful hearing.
Not residential. Not commercial. Not industrial. Not even a project that appears on paper to comply perfectly with every applicable zoning requirement.
We don’t cancel an election because government officials believe they already know what the outcome will be — though, admittedly, some have recently suggested it.
We hold the election anyway.
Why?
Because participation is not an inconvenience to democracy.
It is democracy.
And we shouldn’t cancel the public’s opportunity to be heard simply because planners believe they already know what the decision must be.
A land-use hearing is obviously not a presidential election. And the public does not necessarily get a veto over a project simply because people oppose it.
But the democratic principle is the same:
Your voice doesn’t become unnecessary merely because it may not change the outcome.
The residents and stakeholders surrounding a project aren’t abstractions on a planning map. They live, work, invest and pay taxes there.
They know where traffic backs up, where children cross streets and which roads become impossible when everybody tries to leave at once.
If objections reveal something the paperwork missed — an evacuation problem, a dangerous intersection or inadequate infrastructure — government should know about it before approval.
Streamline the hearing if you must.
Require it within 30 days. Set deadlines and reasonable limits on testimony.
But don’t streamline the public out of the public discourse.
When state law makes approval ministerial and removes discretionary review, planners can be reduced to checking Sacramento’s boxes.
That isn’t planning. That’s processing.
SB 9: What Happened to Single-Family Residential?
SB 9 fundamentally changed what single-family zoning can mean in California.
On a qualifying single-family parcel, state law can allow two primary residences. Combine that with an eligible lot split, and land that previously constituted one single-family parcel can potentially accommodate as many as four primary residences.
The zoning map may still say R1, and government may still call the neighborhood “single-family residential.”
But the historic exclusivity and protections that gave those words their meaning — including the expectation of one primary home on one residential lot — are no longer guaranteed where SB 9 applies.
Sacramento overrode the local restriction that made qualifying properties exclusively one-primary-home-per-lot.
It made qualifying SB 9 approvals ministerial — meaning there is no hearing at which the surrounding community can raise project-specific problems before approval.
The surrounding community therefore has no seat at the decision-making table over whether a qualifying SB 9 project should be approved.
And SB 9 does not require the additional residences it authorizes to be affordable.
The R1 designation may survive on paper. But the exclusivity and protections that historically gave single-family residential zoning its meaning do not.
CEQA Is Not Red Tape
CEQA is not red tape. It is not an obstacle. It is a protection. And in California, it is a necessity.
Come to the Valley during a wildfire on a windy day.
Stand in Granada Hills when the power goes out, smoke is moving toward you and you wonder which road will still be open.
Last year, the blue dot on the fire map was me.
I was surrounded by fire, with no power for four and a half days.
That changes how you hear environmental review described as an impediment to housing.
We also need to address neglected infrastructure before approving projects as though they exist in isolation.
Can the roads and water systems handle the additional density? Can fire engines get in while residents get out? What happens when the power fails?
What happens when we have a major water-main break like the one in West Hollywood a few weeks ago?
Reform CEQA where it is genuinely being abused. Put reasonable timelines on review.
But don’t confuse reforming environmental review with eliminating environmental protection.
Let’s Just Agree: Some Projects Just Don’t Belong
The most basic planning question is simple: Does this project belong here?
Consider MorningStar Assisted Living, a proposed high-density assisted-living and memory-care project in the San Fernando Valley.
In my view, this project doesn’t belong there — nor do the numerous others that could follow if it is approved.
A high-density project housing people who may need help evacuating — including residents in a locked memory-care unit — does not belong in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone on an already constrained evacuation route.
MorningStar is also in an equestrian preservation area.
When fire comes, our horses have to get out too: trucks, trailers, frightened animals and residents all trying to use the same constrained roads.
Those horse trailers could be backed up to Timbuktu.
This is not a planning failure. It’s a legislative failure.
How do legislators justify one-size-fits-all laws for dense cities, equestrian communities, earthquake country and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones?
California isn’t one neighborhood.
Why are we legislating as though it were?
Lest We Forget — The Math Still Doesn’t Math
Deeply affordable housing doesn’t become financially feasible simply because Sacramento allows more units.
Land, construction, labor, financing and insurance all cost money.
If very-low-income rents don’t generate enough revenue to finance construction and operation, density alone doesn’t close the gap.
Public subsidies, tax credits and favorable financing often make deeply affordable housing possible — density alone does not.
So consider the equation: taxpayers ultimately help foot the bill for deeply affordable housing while communities may lose the right to a hearing over projects that can seriously alter what gets built next door.
And Who Is in Charge of Compliance?
Another question is what happens after the first low-income tenants move out.
Sacramento has spent enormous energy getting housing approved faster. It should put equal energy into what happens after the ribbon cutting.
Where affordability restrictions apply, Californians deserve transparent systems showing whether units remain affordable, whether restrictions are enforced and who is responsible when they are not.
Before we streamline anything else, show us the results: What did we get for everything we gave up?
Then show us how affordability requirements are being monitored and enforced over time.
The Lobbyists Weren’t Streamlined Out
The organized interests advocating for housing legislation weren’t streamlined out of Sacramento.
Take SB 79. California YIMBY identifies itself and several advocacy organizations as sponsors, held a 2025 Capitol “Lobby Day” with SB 79 among its priorities, and publicly described negotiating amendments with organized labor.
Here in the Valley, a Colorado developer sought approval for the MorningStar high-density assisted-living and memory-care project despite overwhelming opposition. Our Neighborhood Council voted it down not once, but twice.
Somewhere in that process, the developer joined VICA — the Valley Industry & Commerce Association — and became involved with its land-use committee.
At the quasi-judicial land-use hearing, something remarkable happened.
Almost everyone appearing on the pro-project side seemed connected to VICA — supporters, consultants, lobbyists, attorneys and ultimately the developer. Average citizens had a minute and a half to speak while facing land-use attorneys, consultants and professional advocates far more accustomed to navigating City Hall.
The lobbyists weren’t streamlined out.
The public was.
History Will Remember Who Owned This Legislation
A governor doesn’t sit alone drafting legislation.
Governors depend on legislators, staff and agencies and hear from advocates, business interests and labor.
But leadership ultimately requires someone to take responsibility when public policy is not accomplishing what Californians were told it would accomplish.
That responsibility now belongs to Governor Gavin Newsom and the Legislature.
Governor Newsom, Don’t Leave Us This Way
Governor Newsom, you have invoked the words: “Facts are stubborn things.”
You were right.
And the stubborn fact here is that California set out to address an affordable-housing crisis, yet its streamlining laws are not producing very-low-income affordable housing at a scale significant enough to solve it.
So don’t leave California with streamlining laws that miss the mark.
Pause further streamlining. Look at what these laws have actually produced. Put the public back in the room. Protect environmental review where life and safety demand it. Make infrastructure and evacuation capacity part of the equation. And require transparent tracking so Californians can see how much affordable housing is actually being produced and preserved.
Then bring the Legislature back to the table — and, if necessary, call a special session to fix what isn’t working.
There is no shame in government trying something and discovering that it needs correction. The failure would be seeing the evidence and refusing to act on it.
That brings me to Harry Truman and the four words on the desk sign sent to him on October 2, 1945:
“The Buck Stops Here.”
Communities opposing these laws have done what they can from this side of the desk.
Governor Newsom, the facts are now on yours.
It takes leadership to face them, courage to acknowledge when government got something wrong and character to fix it.
The buck stops with you.
(Eva Amar is a West San Fernando Valley community organizer. She is also a National Sexual Assault Victim Advocate.)
