A renewed battle over housing development in California has taken center stage as Californians for Homeownership, a nonprofit backed by the California Association of Realtors (C.A.R.), hits the legal pavement. They've filed lawsuits against San Diego, San Francisco, and Montebello, accusing them of sidestepping a state law intended to promote housing near transit.
State Legislation Under Scrutiny
The crux of the brawl is Senate Bill 79, enacted in 2025. This law is supposed to push localities toward developing housing near major transit hubs. You’ve got criteria mixing residential, mixed, or commercial usages within a hop, skip, and jump from stations—meaning within one-half or one-quarter mile. But cities can throw a wrench in the gears with their own ordinances if they stick to the rulebook.
Local Control or Local Resistance?
Matthew Gelfand, the nonprofit's litigator, has pointed out that the law leaves room for local adjustments. However, he stresses that noncompliance isn’t on the menu. Yet, cities seem to dance on thin ice, tweaking policies in ways that raise eyebrows.
San Diego, in particular, drew Californians for Homeownership's ire with what they call a misuse of 'walking path' exemptions, thereby sidestepping development plans by pointing to tiny sidewalk gaps or alleyway strolls for access. It's a bit of a cat-and-mouse situation that doesn’t sit well legally.
"State law doesn’t let cities dodge development because they slacked on sidewalks," says Gelfand, clearly not amused by such maneuvers.
The Legal Grind in Major Hubs
San Francisco's lawsuit paints a different picture. The city is accused of carving out 'industrial employment hubs'—a label that seems tailor-made to sidestep building up housing stock, allegedly in breach of state standards.
Additionally, San Francisco isn't playing fair with the State Density Bonus Law, a tool meant to boost housing supply. For a city as dense as SF, that's a big deal and a curious move.
Over in Montebello, the situation spiraled with a blanket moratorium on new transit-oriented developments, which goes against earlier state laws. This new lawsuit against them cries foul.
More Legal Moves Ahead?
Despite the lawsuits, there’s a flicker of possibility that all this won’t end in more litigious skirmishes. Pre-litigation talks are ongoing with several cities. Some have even agreed to state reviews of their housing policies, indicating a shift, albeit small, towards cooperation.
Burlingame has come up with a tolling agreement to give time for regulatory review before anything hits the courts, a beacon of reason amid the chaos.
Impact on Housing Crisis
The big question that hangs over all this legal hoopla is whether it’ll do the job—getting housing built where it’s needed most. The nonprofit believes it's about keeping cities’ feet to the fire, ensuring they don’t brush off housing laws as optional suggestions.
With backing from private donors and the C.A.R., this nonprofit is on a mission. Whether their strategy will convert to more roofs over heads remains to be seen. But the message is clear: If you’re a city, play by the rules or prepare for legal fireworks.
