Ask the Governor to Veto AB 2011 and AB 2097 today. You can email the Governor's staff at [email protected]. That will go to the Governor's Legislative Unit, and then to the deputy legislative secretary assigned to the bill in question. Some points on each bill are below. Please use your own words, points and format so the staff doesn’t disregard as “duplicate requests”. We suggest sending a separate emails for each bill. If you have an organization, it would be good to include your logo.
Livable California will not meet this Saturday. Instead, we encourage members attend the United Neighbors teleconference Sat. Sept 24th at 10 AM. Here is the link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88963817589?pwd=SXpybWV4RTVxR3dHc2FMK2RTMmIzZz09
Their guest will be Hydee Feldstein Soto who is running for LA City Attorney. This should be of interest to people across the state to better understand the role of a City Attorney and how those offices can help on our issues of concern.
Here are some arguments against AB 2011 and AB 2097:
We support converting underutilized commercial areas into residential, but SB 6 is a much better bill for these conversions.
AB 2011 will contribute significantly to gentrification and displacement by focusing new market-rate development in low-income urban communities while at the same time silencing these communities from having any input at all into these developments.
Because the definition of “commercial corridors” used in the bill simply means any wide street (over 70 ft) where commercial activity is allowed, the bill heavily targets low-income communities of color in urban cores around the state where most streets qualify for this definition, while excluding most parts of affluent suburbs where few areas will meet this definition
This bill will physically and culturally displace low-income communities and communities of color. Communities and cultures are dependent on their small commercial zones. These communities and businesses will be the targets of speculators using AB 2011 to maximize their profits. The bill will likely result in significant displacement of small businesses across the state,
The bill will override local protections put in place in vulnerable communities such as provisions from the San Francisco city and community partnership Mission Action Plan 2020 and the Calle 24 Latino Cultural District Guidelines.
CEQA is an important source of information to the community and developers. It helps protect the environment and should not be circumvented on such a massive scale.
The bill’s labor requirements make the cost of housing higher than necessary when what we need is more affordability.
Ministerial approval of construction across such a broad category of zones is inappropriate – including office, retail, and parking.
AB 2011 is a massive state taking of flexibility needed by local jurisdictions to place housing where it best meets the needs of the community.
Links to more information including a comparison of AB 2011 and SB 6:
Updates on two major bills, including AB 2011
AB 2011 could be the worst bill of 2022 for taking away local control!
We urge the veto of AB 2097 (Friedman).
The bill is a hasty one-size-fits-all mandate that will have negative externalities on most Californians.
Without substantial subsidies California cities are currently reliant on density bonus and other value capture programs to fulfill their large unfunded low-income housing goals. This bill would substantially weaken these programs, setting cities up for failure and the accompanying penalties to local control.
We believe academics that refute this claim are categorically biased. Cities which are vocal proponents of blanketly eliminating parking requirements can or have done so, e.g. San Diego, San Francisco.
Secondly, in many places transit is not sufficient transportation to complete all of life’s tasks. This is why car ownership is still high in California’s urban core.
Eliminating parking minimums in dense places will lower the quality of life for incumbent residents who need their vehicles to take their kids to school, go to the grocery store, and carry tools to work. Outside of the urban core transit can seem nonexistent. Many families need automobiles to visit family within other parts of the same region.
Lastly, AB 2097 will make it much more difficult to expand transit into a viable transportation system as communities will become more hesitant to fund and facilitate transit if the effects include a loss of local control and an accelerated mobility crisis.
AB 2097 is the wrong solution at the wrong time. COVID 19 has decimated transit ridership, which was already decrease prior to the pandemic. Californians need real investment in transit safety, reliability, and cleanliness before blanket parking deregulation is acted upon.
Please contribute to help us continue to lobby for good bills and fight bad ones for you, while keeping you informed and involved. Become a sustaining member with a modest monthly donation. If you can't become a monthly contributor, please send a spot contribution to help the cause here.
