Republish
Proposed California housing reform could result in ‘too much upzoning’
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
Proposed California housing reform could result in ‘too much upzoning’
Share this:
Guest Commentary written by
Michael Barnes
Michael Barnes is a former member of the Albany City Council.
Re: “Why building more homes near transit will transform lives across California“
As a former city council member, much of the commentary surrounding Senate Bill 79 can be exasperating. SB 79 seems to be based on little more than drawing circles around transit stops. This is not planning.
The Legislature already requires local jurisdictions to plan and zone for far more housing through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, or RHNA (pronounced ree-nah). Along with state reviewers, California’s 540 local jurisdictions have spent countless dollars on RHNA over the years.
SB 79 throws a wrench into the process.
The goal of upzoning should be to shape development so that taller apartments are built along transit corridors. This increase in density creates more foot traffic on the street, allowing shops and restaurants to thrive. It also increases the number of commuters who can easily be served by transit.
READ NEXT
Why building more homes near transit will transform lives across California
Too much upzoning, like that proposed by SB 79, will allow developers to spread out buildings over a wide area, randomly dotting the landscape with expensive apartment towers. This does nothing to bring about the benefits of urban density.
Both chairs of the Senate Housing Committee, Democrat Aisha Wahab and Republican Kelly Seyarto, have consistently voted against SB 79. Other legislators should follow their example.