Recently, a reporter from The Atlantic Magazine asked me about our organization’s position on Senate Bill 79, which has been by California Senator Scott Wiener. The bill’s goal is to streamline the approval process and automatically increase zoning density within a quarter mile of major transit stops to encourage more housing development near transit. The answer is a bit complicated, and it all depends on multiple factors.

In general, our organization is in favor of any legislation that increases the supply of housing, particularly rental housing, which California is badly behind in producing. Our members who are rental housing providers are often blamed for not only the high cost of housing in California, but they are also blamed for the homelessness crisis we have, which is the largest in the United States today. I and others believe that because “landlords” are being singled-out and made a scapegoat in the California housing affordability crisis, there is no reason to solve the problem when blame can be placed on a small segment of the population. Kudos are given to local and state legislators who continue to ratchet down on housing regulations to the detriment to those of us who have made these investments.

Many of the housing affordability issues here in California are due to both an allocation issue and a supply issue. There are still plenty of affordable housing options in rural and not so rural areas, but those areas either lack or are far from major employment centers. Areas such as parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties are examples of these areas, and even parts of Los Angeles County such as Lancaster and Palmdale areas. However, the primary driver of the affordability crisis is the lagging supply of housing in areas where people want to live and that is an issue created by the layers upon layer of regulation that not only makes it too costly in California to build, but also creates undue risk and regulatory costs for those of us who have or are willing to invest in rental housing.

Senate Bill 79, in my view, is just another band aid approach to attempt to counteract the unintended consequences caused by decades, now 5 and counting, of housing regulations that are unbalanced in their attempt to reduce housing costs through extreme rent stabilization (control) measures, protect renters at all costs where it takes up to $50,000 and 6 to 8 months today to remove a tenant for non-payment of any other breach of their lease, and overzealous environmental protections often forcing developers to grind their way through the court system in order to obtain approvals.

While I applaud Senator Weiner’s efforts to gin up more rental housing units in California, if successful, his approach might easily destroy the character of single-family or low-density neighborhoods by massively increasing density, people and resulting traffic. For those of us living in California, particularly Southern California, in my view it is a pipe dream to think we will be willing to give up our cars and hop onto public transportation next to our residences where we will surely encounter homeless persons, and subject ourselves to possible robbery or injury while in route to our jobs. It’s just not going to happen.

To meet Senator Weiner’s objectives of encouraging housing development, we need to start with an overhaul of the regulations that put us here. That will take inserting some fairness to the process to encourage those few willing to take the risk of investing in housing and ensuring that they can sustain themselves by making a reasonable return. It will take radical streamlining of the California Environmental Quality Act, the major roadblock of all development. And it will take tax incentives and density bonuses to provide reasonable returns. Lastly, California needs to address the insurance crisis and address tort reform, because nothing will be built without affordable and adequate property and liability coverage, and the risks taken on by California’s housing providers due to habitability, ADA and discrimination claims.

Again, while I applaud Senator Weiner’s efforts, in my view, ultimately very little will be built and we will end up destroying a few owners’ investment in their primary residence that may soon sit next to and be dwarfed by a multi-story building. I fear that If Senator Weiner’s plan works, single-family neighborhoods will be the fall guy here. Density will be added to these single-family neighborhoods – where else can we build in fully built out metropolitan areas. The only way is to replace low density with greater density, and some poor families will end up with large multistory buildings just feet from their property line.

Back to where I began, I agree that we need to encourage development of rental housing in all areas and of all types, not just spot zoning nearby transit that can have adverse impacts on low-to-moderate density areas. We need to encourage housing of all types like micro units, cooperative housing, mixed use and increased density in multifamily zones where appropriate. We also should be redeveloping underutilized industrial areas.

But our regulations here in California are often the culprit preventing us from building badly needed housing supply. Regulations very often stifle development and there’s little incentive to deal with red tape and unfairness of being called an “evil landlord” for the mere act of risking capital and placing roofs over the heads of people in our community.

To overcome the housing affordability and lack of supply dilemma, we need a rebalancing of our regulatory environment. We need to make sweeping changes in California housing regulations, and not just little tweaks like Senate Bill 79 provide that will do very little but cause possible poor urban planning decisions in impacted areas and make a very small dent in our housing problems.