Home>Articles>Sacramento Mayor and Council Votes to Eliminate Single Family Zoning in Residential Neighborhoods

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg. (Photo: youtube)

Sacramento Mayor and Council Votes to Eliminate Single Family Zoning in Residential Neighborhoods

City adopts ‘equity’ housing policy that State Legislature could not pass

By Katy Grimes, January 21, 2021 8:42 am

The Sacramento City Council voted this week to eliminate standard single-family zoning in Sacramento’s residential neighborhoods, adopting a radical zoning measure that the California Legislature couldn’t even pass – twice.

“City officials said the proposal would help the city alleviate its housing crisis, as well as achieve equity goals,”the Sacramento Bee reported. “The Mayor and Council voted 8-0 to proceed with a draft zoning plan that would allow houses across the California city to contain up to four dwelling units.”

Democrat Mayor Darrell Steinberg explained why:  “Everybody should have the opportunity to not only play in Land Park but to live in Land Park,” Mayor Darrell Steinberg said. “That’s the Sacramento that we all uphold, that we love, that we value, and you better believe this drive for inclusion and equity is the driving force of our city and it is going to continue well beyond my tenure here.”

Steinberg sounds exactly like Karl Marx, who developed the theory of communism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The neighborhood of Land Park which Steinberg spoke of is just South of downtown, with pricey older homes – some dating back to the turn of the last century – with many built between 1920’s – 1930’s. Average property tax bills top $10,000 annually, for homes worth $700,000 – $2 million. While some homes are large, the residential neighborhood is not one conducive to quadraplex conversions.

Steinberg failed to note that the Land Park neighborhood is mostly made up of limousine liberals and “Karens” who voted for him, who won’t appreciate their neighbors converting million dollar homes into four-plexes in what is often referred to as Stack & Pack housing.

The Land Park Community Association weighed in on the zoning vote in opposition, noting “we advocate for financial stability through home ownership, rather than investor development and gentrification.” The LPCA said the zoning changes would “impact traffic congestion, energy use and quality of life for low, middle and high income populations throughout Sacramento.”

One Land Park resident and advocate summed up the zoning issue well: “The purpose (for some) is to let people from disadvantaged communities have better chances of living in ‘wealthy, mostly white neighborhoods’ to meet ‘equity goals.’ This will allow lots that are zoned for single family homes only to now allow up to fourplexes within the lot lines. The reason I say they didn’t think deeply on this is that unless they require the landlords of these new multiplexes to accept vouchers or cap rent permanently, it does not stop high rents in places like Land Park and East Sac, where the promoters of this zoning focused their energies.”

The zoning legislation noted above, which failed twice to pass the Legislature, was SB 50 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). It would have required local governments to provide a specified “equitable communities incentive” to developers that construct residential developments in “jobs-rich” and “transit-rich” areas, which may include certain exceptions to specified requirements for zoning, density, parking, height restrictions, and floor area ratios, according to bill analysis. It was no secret that there were significant disputes over SB 50 among Democrats over housing affordability solutions. Democrats who hail from middle class and affluent cities were under pressure to oppose the bill which many believe would have greatly changed residential neighborhoods from single-family homes to adding many apartment buildings, and low-income housing.

Many lawmakers opposed the bill saying it was an effort to roll back the requirements for inclusionary affordable housing, and to trample all over local control, safety, habitat, conservation, historic preservation, and other elements of good planning that were taken into account, though weakened, in the 2017 compromise legislation.

While local control is almost always preferable, Steinberg, the former Senate President and now Sacramento Mayor, took on managing the destruction of Sacramento’s older neighborhoods himself.

What the Bee did not report were the many derogatory comments made at the council meeting about the Land Park neighborhood and its “whiteness.” Callers to the city council meeting, who identified as members of Black Lives Matter, complained about the lack of “equity” in the “affluent” neighborhood as well as the handling of the riots last Spring and Summer by Sacramento Police.

In addition to addressing “housing equity” issues, the Bee reported Mayor Steinberg and the City Council authorized an audit of SacPD and how they handle riots, claiming the police use less force against white rioters.

“Sacramento’s police watchdogs will review hours of video showing the police handling of demonstrations in recent months and come up with policy recommendations for the City Council,” the Bee reported. “Mayor Darrell Steinberg proposed the idea Tuesday in response to growing concerns that police have treated white supremacists more favorably than counter-protesters during recent confrontations downtown, and also more favorably than those who participated in the largely peaceful protests against police brutality over the summer. Pro-Trump demonstrators have been gathering in downtown Sacramento most Saturdays since Trump’s election loss, including some from the same groups that stormed the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6.”

Katie Valenzuela. (Photo: Katie4council)

“Councilwoman Katie Valenzuela, who requested the discussion, said she disagreed with statements that imply the protest groups are equal, and defended the Sacramento Antifa group.”

“We have groups that are known white supremacy groups whose induction includes things like committing a hate crime,” said Valenzuela, who represents the central city. “That is different from a group of people coming out into the street because they feel like they’re trying to defend unhoused people and their neighbors and community. You may not agree with their tactics and that’s up to each person’s decision. I’m not out there, that’s not my way, but that’s not for me to criticize.”

Valenzuela also represents the Land Park neighborhood, but continues to berate its residents.

No one at the council meeting acknowledged that California isn’t going to have much of a housing crisis in the near future with millions of residents moving OUT of California, not into it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES

23 thoughts on “Sacramento Mayor and Council Votes to Eliminate Single Family Zoning in Residential Neighborhoods

  1. This continued nonsensical madness from the California left is driving my family closer and closer toward the state line. Seriously considering getting the heck out of dodge!

  2. And it is decisions like this that have caused my wife and I to retire from Government jobs (her 25 years and me 31years) and leave California. We will be saying “Adios to Newscum” in mid-March when our new home in Nevada is almost complete.

    The changes in California made our decision very easy..!!!

  3. Maybe this inclusionary housing push will finally wake up those “limousine liberals” and “Karens” of Land Park out of their cognitive dissonance. Elections do have consequences. No one has a “right” to live in Land Park or any other particular neighborhood. Each neighborhood has it own unique form and character. Those qualities should be enhanced. The way to foster housing affordability and equity is to streamline the permitting and entitlement process as well as reduce fees. Also, encourage infill development where land within the city is underutilized as well as concentric greenfield development such as in North Natomas and Delta Shores.

  4. I am very sorry to hear about this. Guess we’ll be seeing it in all the CA cities soon. Worthless, weak, and odious Marxist mayors such as Steinberg and his despicable henchmen are really feeling their oats now, aren’t they?

    “Equity” — what a scam! This meaningless word is being dragged out everywhere to provide cover for certain people to become very very rich from schemes such as this one. “Whiteness?” “White supremacy?” The racism on display and the ability to spew one’s inner ugliness are apparently bonus points for this loathsome crowd. It’s their idea of fun!

    You’re right, though —- the “Karens” in the neighborhood who voted for their Dem hero Steinberg and equally worthless other Dems are likely going to be incensed by this damage to their neighborhood and throw a huge monkey wrench into the leftists’ grand plans.

    1. Agree 100% on all well articulated points.
      The liberal elite only get upset when it hits their backyard!
      ‘Equity” is code for tyrannical government theft!
      I am sure Steinberg and his goons have big enough backyards to erect a stack and pack. All in the name of equity of course!

  5. People who oppose this stuff need to pay attention to what BLM and other leftist group organisers are doing every day in states and cities across the country: pushing their narrative and demands at the LOCAL level. Time to start participating in local government meetings, election campaigns for good candidates and even to run for local school boards or councils. Learn from the left’s strategies (except the violent ones!) and start building alliances in the community.

  6. This is awesome news! The continued narrative of the Left has resulted in a daily redefinition of the wokeness they have driven for years. Compassionate people feel the need to support the politically defined roots of the downtrodden as americans are historically a giving people. However, when it begins to directly encroach upon the lives and neighborhoods of a blindly compassionate populace, the definition of wokeness brings the clarity conservatives have understood for years. Help people help themselves to empower them to move forward. Pass legislation for the good of society, not the good of one’s career. Careerists like Mr Steinberg fail to recognize, “pride goeth before the fall”. It provides me as a conservative hope, this will soon unravel. Conservatives need moderate Democrats to move this state away from the grip of progressives. Jump in and tip the iceberg in our favor, it may be closer than you think. #recallgavin

  7. Whiteness?? LMAO! Have they not SEEN the people that are buying and living in the most expensive homes in California?? Asians, middle easterns, etc. I thought California ‘whiteness’ was the minority now in that state?? Wake up people!! Don’t let these radicals take your state and your neighborhoods. And btw, my DH family worked their a** off to come this country legally, educate themselves, become proud Americans and eventually own property in the state of California. NOT by getting handouts but by working hard which is what we call, ‘The American Dream’.

  8. I retire soon – my in-laws moved across the state line 10 years ago. They left me a map of how to get there…

  9. I am not white…
    I grew-up on the “wrong side” of the tracks…
    I was homeless at age 16… I had a helping hand through grants and scholarships…and good role models.
    I was fortunate and studied hard, worked harder and avoided the lure of drugs and alcohol, got a degree and saved and sacrificed until I could afford a house in “Land Park”
    My wife grew up in Seavey Circle in the projects the youngest of seven kids…
    She attended Jedediah Smith, Cal and McClatchy.
    She too studied hard, worked hard, sacrificed…got into UCDAVIS, worked full time during college, finally graduated, had to leave the Cali for 14 years for her first job….
    When we met, she told me she would walk through Land Park neighborhood from the projects to get to school and was
    chastised and threatened by her project peers for trying to “better herself”; this is the attitude we need to challenge and discourage…
    She told me she had dreams of living in one of the Land Park homes someday….
    Fast-forward…these two kids, this disadvantaged, minority couple have a home in Land Park…we resent being called “privileged” and elitist….we still sacrifice today to stay in our chosen home…we do not have gardeners, we do all our home repairs, we drive an older model car and we cannot afford to eat out daily, go to Starbucks.
    Our wonderful neighbors are a mix of cultures and becoming more diverse every year.
    We have now been in Land Park for 20 years…..we welcome folks who respect and honor each other and the neighborhood…
    But do not categorize us….we read and study science; high-density housing can result in an increase in anxiety, depression and victimization; we DO NOT support high density housing, but we do, however, support thoughtful planning, sweat-equity, personal accountability and community investment by current and future Land Park residents.

    Studies, real science, has shown that an individual is more likely to invest in self-care, self-interest and motivation if they have made a personal investment…
    So for us, it is our advocacy that our local leaders will keep these facts based in science in their decision making….
    Engagement, personal investment and accountability, NOT alienation, giveaways and disenfranchisement…do not call us radicals, we are not; do not call us leftists, we are not; do not call us entitled, we are not…..if you must call us something, call us the original centrists.

    1. SacTown…I have always thought that knowing “who you are and how you want to be“ are most important. After that, everything can be understood. Your letter reflects the best of the relationship between Self and Community.
      SacTown – Please consider joining me on the LPCA Land Use Committee. We have held three Community Zoom Discussion on the City General Plan Update with over 250 attendees, City Staff and our new CM Valenzuela. I would like to include your POV and enhance your influence on our community, if your are willing. Please let me know your interest and allow me to answer your questions. – landuse@landpark.org

    2. SacTown you are determination personified. I would love to shake your hand and buy you a drink . Very well said!

  10. Have these folks noticed that society is working from home, and proximity to downtown is no longer required? Therefore, why live in the City of Sacramento? Downtown is vacant of state workers with empty high rises and may become permanent policy? Destroying well established neighborhoods is a death sentence for these politicians.

    1. Hi Terry, politicians don’t really seem to care! Notice, if you lie, steal and cheat you can become president! USA Gma!

  11. Well, what you’re going to see is a whole bunch of neighborhood associations voting to impose deed covenants mandating property use stay as single-family.

  12. people should be allowed to live anywhere. BUT, CURRENT homeowners bought under certain assumptions like “this neighborhood will not change radically”.

    At worst, this impacts Sactown and we will know in less than 3 years if the result is good bad or neutral.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *