The City and County of San Diego are currently updating and amending our local Community Plans in their mandate to urbanize our neighborhoods in compliance with sb 375 and several other State goals, such as affordable-housing. It is also an attempt to lower carbon emissions, densify and diversify our neighborhoods in the belief that densification will increase ridership on the newly built trolley system. One of the City’s overarching goals is to increase the property tax base with more housing. The mainstay in implementing the goals of ridership is Transit-Oriented Development. Read the Text of SB 375 here.
Excerpts from Wikipedia-
Although SB 375 supports increased density development surrounding main transit stops, this does not guarantee an increase in affordable options for housing and may even increase land values in these places, which may lead to the displacement of the people who live there. Another way in which the bill contributes to environmental justice is that the bill requires each city to show where housing will be situated in order to meet housing allocations for residents of varying income levels and SB 375 provides direct action to curb urban sprawl . According to a research study on accessory dwelling units by the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design, California’s implementation of SB 375 has indeed placed more pressure on particular neighborhoods to promote affordable housing development and infill. For example, the San Francisco Bay Area is dealing with the challenges of infilling which may lead to increases in the cost of housing and further escalate the economic crisis for the communities there.
There have been claims that SB 375 increases pressure from gentrification and does not improve the livelihoods of low-income neighborhoods with higher levels of minority populations. The pressure from gentrification may lead to population migration such that poorer residents may be displaced by wealthy newcomers as a result of the SB 375 investments that fund particular infrastructure and projects in accordance with the bill. These claims further blame the bill for lacking positive funding as well as restrictions on sprawl. Moreover, opponents of the bill claim that while the bill may promote development near transit areas in urban neighborhoods, they claim that other factors such as crime rate and employment levels in these neighborhoods must not be ignored in the passage of these bills.