Republish
When legislators delay on housing reform, people of color lose
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 āBy Author Name, CalMatters.ā If youāre republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use āBy Author Name, Special for CalMatters.ā
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the storyās text, include this copy: āThis story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.ā If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: āThis commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.ā If youāre 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, āyesterdayā can be changed to ālast week,ā and āAlameda Countyā to āAlameda County, Californiaā or āhere.ā
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: āAdditional reporting by [Your Publication]ā 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 āfor CalMattersā 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 youād like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if youāre 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? Weād love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
When legislators delay on housing reform, people of color lose
Share this:
By Adam Briones, Special to CalMatters
Adam Briones is the economic equity director of The Greenlining Institute in Oakland, adamb@greenlining.org.
Lea este artĆculo enĀ espaƱol.
At the start of the last legislative session, Californians were assured that 2020 would be the year our representatives addressed our extreme housing shortage.Ā
Early on, both houses introduced 15 bills in packages that were promising, if not the bold reforms needed to fully solve the crisis or close the racial wealth gap. But instead of even these modest fixes, in the end only three bills, each offering important but minor changes, made it to Gov. Gavin Newsomās desk due to fierce opposition.
Patricia McCloskey addressed the Republican National Convention months after she and her husband waved guns at Black Lives Matter protesters. She echoed recent comments by President Donald Trump saying that Democrats āwant to abolish the suburbs all together by ending single-family home zoningā and that this would bring ācrime, lawlessness and low-quality apartments into now thriving suburban neighborhoods.ā
McCloskeyās comments are alarmingly similar to those from affluent California neighborhood associations and advocates who have opposed policies that would even incrementally impact single-family zoning.
Fear of people of color moving into white neighborhoods is nothing new in California. In light of court rulings and federal bills that invalidated racial housing zoning and redlining, white communities and NIMBY activists began imposing codes that restricted the construction of multifamily housing in most neighborhoods starting in the early 1970s. Many still exist today.
Single-family zoning laws hold people of color and low-income families back by making homeownership cost-prohibitive. A recent Sacramento Bee headline: āCaliforniaās median home price just broke a record. Hereās how much it isā underscored the urgency of housing reform and went on to point to a new median of $700,000. The inability of all but the wealthy to access good schools or accumulate wealth through homeownership has kept generations of Californians in poverty.
Likely the biggest disappointment this year was the death of Senate Bill 1120 in the final moments, despite passing both the Assembly and Senate. The premise of the bill was simple: allow homeowners to turn their single-family lots into duplexes and or split into two parcels. The bill did not remove anyoneās ability to purchase or own a single-family home. It simply ended the bans on smaller housing units that exist in two-thirds of residential communities in California.
SB 1120 fell victim to the end of session clock, but it never should have been controversial to begin with. The intense opposition campaigns against SB 1120 and other modest reforms demonstrated that any change that allows more working families, who are likely to be people of color, to live in wealthy, exclusive neighborhoods is too much for affluent homeowners in Californiaās āprogressiveā cities.
Their excuses are weak tropes claiming that the bill “crushes single-family streets and directly attacks homeownership;ā āsteals yards from children;ā ādestroys backyard vegetable gardensā and creates āunhealthy surroundings for children and the elderly.ā
Again, these are the comments that came not from far-right actors, but from those in affluent cities that are happy to put a sign in their window supporting racial justice while at the same time employing the same, albeit watered-down, rhetoric to uphold discriminatory single-family zoning.
By blocking the construction of new housing in wealthy areas and preventing affordable housing options in white communities, single-family zoning laws make it disproportionately harder for people of color to own, or even rent homes.
If our Legislature wants 2021 to be the real year we tackle housing, elected officials must reckon with our stateās ugly history of discriminatory zoning and aggressively pursue policies that enable our stateās housing stock to grow and meet the needs of all families.
Until we can abandon the racist attitudes that have underpinned policies and undermined people of color for decades, we will continue to see failures at the state level to pass meaningful housing reform.