There goes the neighborhood!

If there’s one things NIMBYs love, it’s claiming they’re not NIMBYs. If there’s a second thing they love, it’s spreading fears and falsehoods about SB 9.

In the following blog post, we’ll continue our SB 9 Myths series by addressing some of the alarmist and emotionally charged arguments made by SB 9’s most devoted critics: the NIMBYs.

5. “Real estate investors will buy up all the properties on my street, split the lots, demolish the houses, and replace them with tightly packed duplexes!”

True or False? FALSE

Summary: SB 9 is for individual homeowners; not investors. Small-scale development is financially infeasible for most developers, and not all properties will qualify for SB 9.

One of the most common fears about SB 9 is that it will encourage developers to tear down single family homes and build multiple duplexes on a lot. However, this is highly unlikely. According to a study by the Terner Center, almost 97% of single family homes in California will remain intact under SB 9.

First of all, there are provisions in the law to ensure that homeowners, not investors, are the ones taking advantage of SB 9. Lot split applicants must agree to live in one of the units for a minimum of three years following the subdivision. Most developers don’t intend to live in the properties they’re developing.

For more insight into this and other provisions, read our article on SB 9 Occupancy Requirements.

Secondly, large-scale SB 9 development is highly unlikely because it doesn’t pencil out for developers to build on such a small scale. Real estate developers tend to work on multi-acre properties that can support dozens—if not hundreds—of units. Knocking down a house to build two to four units in its place isn’t worth the return on investment.

Lastly, not every lot is eligible for SB 9. There are many factors that can disqualify a property or significantly complicate development. The same Terner Center study determined that SB 9 development is legally allowed and financially feasible for about 5% of single-family lots statewide. And even if all of the properties in your neighborhood happen to qualify for SB 9, it’s a safe bet that most of your neighbors will want to keep their backyards intact and duplex-free.

4. “SB 9 will cause property values to skyrocket/plummet!”

True or False? FALSE

Summary: It’s unlikely that SB 9 will have a significant longterm effect on property values. Hopefully, it will help the housing market cool down a little (which needs to happen).

Some SB 9 critics claim the bill will cause property values to soar, further worsening the housing crisis. At the same time, others insist property values will nosedive as a result of SB 9, creating major problems for homeowners.

Realistically, it probably won’t have a huge impact on property values either way.

SB 9 will likely cause a short-term spike in housing prices, particularly for properties on large lots with subdivision potential. However, the housing that SB 9 creates—thats is to say, smaller units on smaller lots—will increase and diversify the housing options in neighborhoods. Hopefully, this increased housing stock will cause the housing market to cool down.

While high home prices may be ideal for homeowners, they are devastating for the 45% of Californians who aren’t lucky enough to own their own home. SB 9 was created to help solve the housing crisis, and lowering property values is a necessary step towards achieving that goal.

3. “SB 9 will let my neighbor build a 10-unit apartment building in his backyard and there’s nothing I can do about it!”

True or False? FALSE

Summary: Most cities will limit SB 9 development to four units or fewer, and none allow backyard apartment buildings.

Claims like these are fear mongering, plain and simple. Your neighbor is not allowed to build a massive apartment complex in their backyard, with or without SB 9.

Many cities are capping lot split developments at two units per lot, for a grand total of four units where one used to be.

The absolute maximum number of units SB 9 can create is eight, and that’s only if the lot is subdivided and a duplex and two ADUs are built on each parcel. However, very few cities (if any) will allow such extensive development.

Several cities are also placing restrictions on the size, height, number of stories, and/or floor area percentage allowed to ensure that SB 9 units fit in with the look and feel of a neighborhood.

SB 10 does allow for up to ten units on a lot, but it is not a homeowner-driven process. And unlike SB 9—which is mandatory for all cities—cities can choose whether or not they want to implement SB 10. You can learn more about Senate Bill 10 and its potential impact here.

2. “SB 9 will increase gentrification and displacement!”

True or False? FALSE

Summary: There's no reason to believe SB 9 will increase gentrification. On the contrary, it has the potential to combat displacement.

Despite countless claims from local governments and concerned citizens that SB 9 will increase displacement and gentrification, there is no evidence to support these claims. On the contrary, SB 9 has the potential to fight gentrification.

SB 9 will create more homes, which means less competition for housing. It will also open up more diverse housing options in desirable neighborhoods that have been restricted to single-family homes only.

Furthermore, the law’s owner occupancy requirements necessitate that lot split applicants stay in their neighborhoods. In this way, SB 9 is in direct opposition to gentrification and displacement.

1. “SB 9 is the end of single-family housing!”

True or False? FALSE

Summary: Nope, it’s just the end (essentially) of single-family zoning. And that’s a good thing.

SB 9 won’t destroy single-family housing. Developers will keep building single family homes and people will keep buying them. SB 9 will just create more options for people who prefer or require an alternative to the traditional single-family home. If anything, housing is diversifying and becoming less restrictive under SB 9.

While SB 9 isn’t the end of single-family housing, it is essentially the end of single-family zoning. And single-family zoning should have ended a long time ago. It was created to keep people of color out of certain neighborhoods, and it continues to function that way to this day.

Single-family zoning also promotes suburban sprawl, which has devastating effects on the environment. Up-zoning, on the other hand, allows cities to meet housing needs by adding density rather than developing raw land. SB 9 will slightly densify already urbanized areas, creating more equitable housing for humans while keeping wildlife habitats intact.

Conclusion

We hope this blog post has supplied you with counter-arguments for some of the more egregious NIMBY claims against SB 9. If you have any suggestions for SB 9 myths to bust in a future blog post, drop us an email and let us know!

If you’d like to learn more about your property’s potential for SB 9 development, use our free eligibility search tool.