The Legislature has gone into summer recess leaving a lot of unfinished business.

When they return, among the most controversial proposals left unresolved are bills addressing the state housing crisis.

While no one disputes the need for more housing, the broader policy issue is whether state micromanaging of local land use decisions is in the public interest.

There are several bills circulating in the capitol, but the two that have drawn the most public wrath are Senate Bills 9 and 10. Taxpayer advocates and neighbor associations oppose both SB9 and SB10 because of the potential loss of local control and higher taxes.

Senate Bill 9 permits “by right the development of two units on single-family lots” and allows “[subdivision of] a parcel that is zoned for single-family residential use;” that “in conjunction with the two-unit provision” could “result in a total of four units on the lot.” This is a reintroduction of last session’s SB 1120.

Senate Bill 10 would “authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site.” It would override HOA agreements and voter initiatives that prohibited or limited such development in those areas. Last year’s version of this bill was SB 902.

Although not obvious, there are property tax implications with these proposals.

While owner-occupied single-family residences in single-family residential zoning will likely not see any reassessment from SB 9 and SB 10 thanks to Proposition 13, there’s a possibility that a tenant-occupied home would not have this protection. It’s also possible that an owner-occupied single-family residence that is not located in single-family residential zoning could similarly face a challenge to the valuation when it is sold.

To read the entire column, please click here.