Dov Kadin

Any reporting claiming California has “weakened” its environmental laws is flat-out wrong.

We *strengthened* our environmental regulatory regime by streamlining the single-most climate-friendly policy goal: infill housing.

Significant and important point right here

Legislators should look to Sacramento as a test case on housing reform | Opinion “Our infill and transit-oriented housing strategy is working extremely well for Sacramento’s affordability and climate goals.”

As we advance big housing reforms — including my bill to allow more homes near transit & @buffywicks.bsky.social bill to exempt infill housing from CEQA — we can look to Sacramento as an example of what happens when a city takes housing production seriously: Lower costs & the sky doesn’t fall.

I’m still hung up on this. Sac has had 3 straight years of rent declines in real terms, its population grew and incomes grew double digits. This is the opposite experience of cities like SF/LA where rents rose alongside economic prosperity. It’s not inevitable!
www.colliers.com/en/research/...

Reminder! Our conversation with Supervisor Rich Desmond on housing in Sacramento County is LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AWAY! We can’t wait to see you there!

If the politics truly aren't there, that's the job of elected officials to compromise down from that proposal, not ours

I think my perspective is that it's not a planner's job to craft policy based on subjective preferences like shade or euphemisms like neighborhood character. It's to identify the higher level goals and then propose a regulatory environment that best facilitates those goals (using persuasion!)

But when I hear you say higher densities can negatively impact one's home and then reference your personal aesthetic preferences as support, you are doing a disservice to a profession that should be making a policy-based case for reforms not equating aesthetic concerns with policy objectives.

Very familiar with the local political process. I helped push through some of the most progressive land use reforms in the country in Sacramento on planning commission. Compromise is sometimes necessary to getting reforms passed...

Exactly. I'm a planner too and the job is not about applying equal weight to all preferences. It's about crafting policy that prioritizes the the most important objectives. Climate and affordability are simply more important than aesthetic preferences like shade--act accordingly!

Reminder that the deadline to apply to these is 5/2! Land Use Planner positions at SACOG don't come up very often so jump on it if you are interested. Feel free to dm or email with any questions!

Should be higher but proud of this city

Only social engineering sorry

Job Opportunities | Employment

Come work with me on the intersection of land use, housing, and climate! SACOG is hiring two land use and housing planners right now. One associate and one planner II. Feel free to reach out if you are interested.

governmentjobs.com/careers/sacog

You can use SB 684 coupled with our missing middle ordinance to do several of these on lots across Sacramento right now. There is a ton of demand for smaller for sale products like this on the grid and inner ring suburbs.

Great turnout at Sacramentos small development workshop today!

That’s right

Skill issue

Safety projects on dangerous Sacramento roads could be fast-tracked if City Council approves Crashes have killed more than 300 people on city streets since 2017. A program to help is under consideration.

Huge Sacramento news — the City is proposing a new team of 6 engineers with funding devoted exclusively to safe streets quick build and tactical innovation projects! @arianelange.bsky.social's story here: www.sacbee.com/news/local/a...

BUT WE NEED YOUR HELP TO GET THIS PASSED! Here's how:

….hell ya

These are the high points! Don't ask what happened between those conveniently selected points in time!

Part of why these 20 years apart years are fascinating is because they are essentially generational housing peaks. The nadirs?

1995: 7.9k units, 8% attached
2011: 2.6k units, 26% attached

Which is most likely going to look like a block of largely single family homes with maybe one 4-6plex and a smattering of ADUs.

Right, totally makes sense. Plus the concern that if you allow missing middle you will get it on every lot has always been unfounded. I am quite curious though about what this analysis would yield on a hypothetical neighborhood like that envisioned in Sac's reforms...

I think 1985 was the best housing year for the Sacramento region on record in terms of overall production and product split. Actually the 20 year splits tell an interesting story.

1985: 24k units, 60% attached
2005: 23k units, 17% attached
2023: 12k units*, 30% attached

*highest since GFC

Dave’s analysis is good (as always!) I just worry about exclusionary neighborhoods pushing back on needed reforms bc the density we need to allow is not really measurable like this. Many communities (like slo) don’t have true missing middle neighborhoods to measure potential parking impacts.

Most meaningful missing middle reforms allow at least a fourplex which is going to be at least 30-40 units/acre. In sac we went from 7 to effectively like 50+ (no density max with max FAR of 1 and 35 ft height).

Not that I think this should have any bearing on whether we should upzone R1 (we absolutely should) but those ideologically opposed to density based on parking concerns wont be comforted that there weren’t effects of going from 7 to 12 u/a. That’s like less than townhome density.

It’s possible this would have been allowed before? Corner lots allowed duplexes in R1 and up to 2 ADUs are allowed by right. Looks fantastic regardless tho!