Jumpabola Pragmatic

California housing bills have some homeowners worried

Newsom should veto pending housing bill

Re “Dam bursts on housing legislation as key bills move forward” (Aug. 29): I was disturbed to read of the recent approval of Senate Bill 9, championed by state Sen. Toni Atkins.

SB 9 will not only sound the death knell on single-family zoning, it will also eliminate the planning tools — such as design review —many cities employ to maintain their community character and quality of life. This bill could have devastating affects on community character throughout San Diego, increasing residential density threefold. SB 9 will allow property owners to split single-family lots in two and add two residences or two duplexes to each parcel. This will be allowed without community feedback, design review or environmental regulations.

It is shocking that SB 9 has been approved by the Legislature and is sitting on the governor’s desk awaiting a signature or veto. Please join me in urging Gov. Newsom to veto this misguided bill.

Dolores Davies Jamison
Del Mar

Neighborhoods should control their own fates

Re “Accessory dwelling units an important part of San Diego’s community fabric” (Aug. 31): Nice that your opinion page pro-density commentary was written by a representative of the building industry. After 40-plus years as a Realtor, I very much appreciate the “neighborhoods” and this is where the decisions about zoning and use should rest.

The people who live near public transportation and commercial centers would benefit from growth, while the more expensive and green neighborhoods are already suffering from parking and noise and crowding, and if the politicians don’t recognize that they are hurting their own supporters, they are suffering from the same thing that is killing a lot of our COVID-19 patients — selfishness and stupidity by their neighbors and associates.

Ginny Ollis

Run the numbers and motive becomes clear

Re “Building anxiety” (Sept. 1): Your commentaries recently ought to make everyone anxious. Of note, the professor points out that the public sector seems to know precisely what the housing unit numbers and percentages are, and should be, but hasn’t bothered to calculate the carrying capacity (the infrastructure numbers) necessary to bring neighborhoods into compliance with those needs.

The building industry commentary seems to suggest that the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) approach will solve everything, but look at the numbers. No one is going to borrow money to build a unit if they can’t cover the mortgage payment. When you run the real numbers the ADU is an investor dream. The higher rents are the motivation, but that solves nothing in terms of affordability.

I’ll go with the professor, follow the numbers and listen to the people whose lifestyle you are threatening instead of sitting in Sacramento and making things up that fly in the face of common sense.

Gary Weber
Normal Heights

Not everyone should get to live in San Diego

Re “San Diego housing prices are going through the roof” (Aug. 30): I support building a single small dwelling unit on large enough lots in residential neighborhoods. However, I do not accept the theory that a wonderful city must provide housing for everyone who wants to come and live there.

That is “The Developer Principle.” The Peter Principle says every highly competent worker is promoted until reaching and staying at that level of minimal competence. The Developer Principle says “every desirable place to live must provide housing for everyone who wants to come and live there, until it is so crowded, no one else wants to come.”

Mayor Gloria and the rest accept substantial campaign contributions from developers and trade unions. Res ipsa loquitur — the thing speaks for itself.

Hal Valderhaug
La Mesa