The Great California Housing Dodge: How Cities Are Undermining SB 79 and Failing Their Citizens

The Facts: A Law of Loopholes and Local Manuevers

Last fall, California legislators passed Senate Bill 79, a landmark piece of legislation designed to tackle the state’s chronic housing shortage and associated crises of affordability and homelessness. The core mandate of the law is direct: it legalizes the construction of mid-rise apartment buildings, some up to nine stories, in major metropolitan neighborhoods near rail stations, metro stops, and certain bus lines. The goal is clear—increase density, reduce reliance on cars, and create more homes where jobs and transit exist. The law is scheduled to take effect on July 1 of this year.

However, as detailed in recent reporting, the final version of SB 79 contained a critical feature: it offered local governments significant flexibility regarding where, when, and how the law would be applied. This flexibility has created a statewide scramble, with cities across California choosing paths that range from reluctant acceptance to strategic delay to crafting bespoke alternatives. It has transformed a straightforward state mandate into a complex “choose your own adventure” game for municipal governments.

The City of Los Angeles provides the most striking example. Last month, the LA City Council voted to reform part of its zoning map, not to immediately comply with SB 79, but to exploit a series of exception clauses within the state law. By proactively allowing moderate-sized multifamily buildings (up to three or four stories) in dozens of higher-income neighborhoods currently zoned for single-family homes, the city pushed these areas past a 50% density threshold. This technical maneuver qualifies these zones for a temporary exemption from SB 79’s full requirements until after the next mandatory state planning period, which for Southern California is 2030. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky framed the vote as adding “significant housing capacity now” while buying time to decide where the rest of the density should go.

Other cities are charting similar courses. San Francisco is considering a policy that would exempt industrial zones and many lower-resource neighborhoods while preemptively increasing allowed density in certain low-rise locations to also qualify for a delay until 2032. Oakland’s planning staff proposed an ordinance to pursue all possible delays to develop a comprehensive alternative plan, a move met with opposition from some councilmembers who wanted the state override applied immediately in their districts.

Meanwhile, some cities with smaller budgets may have no choice but to accept the state’s zoning, while others, like Sacramento, are considering only minor administrative tweaks. Governor Gavin Newsom has publicly criticized Los Angeles and San Diego for their exemption proposals, though he has not suggested they are breaking the law. The stage is set for a fragmented and delayed implementation of a law intended to provide a uniform, urgent response to a statewide emergency.

The Context: A Crisis of Affordability and Institutional Failure

The backdrop for SB 79 is a California housing market in catastrophic failure. Decades of restrictive local zoning, particularly mandates for single-family homes on large lots, have artificially constrained supply in the face of massive demand. The consequences are visible in every city: skyrocketing rents, median home prices that require astronomical incomes, crowded and unsafe living conditions for working families, and a humanitarian disaster of street homelessness. Our zoning codes have effectively become tools of economic segregation and environmental harm, promoting sprawl, long commutes, and carbon-intensive lifestyles.

SB 79 emerged from a growing political movement, championed by groups like California YIMBY and Abundant Housing LA, that recognized local governments alone could not or would not solve a problem they helped create. The bill represented a necessary assertion of state power to override local obstruction and mandate the creation of more housing where it is most logical and sustainable: near public transit. It was a hard-fought victory for those who believe in housing as a fundamental component of human dignity and economic liberty.

Opinion: Local Control as a Shield for Inaction

The current maneuvering by cities like Los Angeles is a masterclass in bureaucratic evasion and a profound betrayal of public trust. It demonstrates how the principle of “local control,” often invoked as a sacred democratic virtue, can be weaponized to defend the status quo of exclusion and scarcity. When Councilmember Yaroslavsky speaks of buying time to find a “better alternative,” one must ask: better for whom? The six-year delay until 2030 is not a neutral planning period; it is six more years of families being priced out, six more years of commutes lengthening, and six more years of preventable suffering on our streets.

This is not smart, cautious governance. It is the politics of delay, designed to placate incumbent homeowners fearful of change while offering nothing but empty promises to those shut out of the housing market. As Scott Epstein of Abundant Housing LA noted, the smaller apartment buildings Los Angeles is allowing in wealthy areas are less likely to be financially viable where land costs are high. The city’s plan may check a technical box to secure a delay, but it does little to actually produce the substantial, dense housing required by the law’s spirit. It is a fig leaf over inaction.

Aaron Eckhouse of California YIMBY strikes a conciliatory note, suggesting that even a delayed, locally-tailored plan is progress because “it’s still happening, because the state forced the issue.” While there is a pragmatic truth here—state pressure has moved the needle—we must not mistake motion for progress. The fundamental compact of a democratic republic is that laws are followed, not endlessly negotiated after passage. SB 79 was the product of the state’s democratic legislature, signed by the governor, and represents the will of California as a whole. For individual cities to spend years and millions of dollars devising ways to minimize its impact is an affront to the rule of law and the concept of a common good.

The arguments for delay often sound reasonable: we need to consider wildfire risks, historic preservation, and impacts on low-income communities. These are valid concerns, and the law itself includes exemptions for them. But when a city like Los Angeles presses “every possible pause button,” it reveals these concerns not as genuine hurdles to be thoughtfully overcome, but as a comprehensive political strategy of resistance. As Oakland Councilmember Zac Unger argued in favor of immediate implementation, “In a way, I’m advocating that we face that reality right now, rather than spending a year letting people believe we can opt out of state law.” His honesty is refreshing.

The Path Forward: Accountability and Moral Clarity

The coming months will reveal which path California chooses. Will SB 79 be the catalyst for a new, more abundant and equitable housing landscape, or will it become another well-intentioned law neutered by local intransigence? The responsibility now lies with several actors.

First, the California Department of Housing and Community Development must rigorously review and reject any local alternative plan that is a transparent dodge of SB 79’s core objectives. They must hold cities to the letter and spirit of the law Governor Newsom signed.

Second, voters and advocates must hold their local officials accountable. The debate in Oakland, where councilmembers from both wealthy and low-income districts demanded immediate implementation, shows that political courage is possible. Citizens must demand their representatives be builders, not delayers.

Finally, we must reframe this issue in moral and constitutional terms. The freedom to pursue happiness, to build a life and a family, is hollow without the fundamental security of a home. Our current system, defended by the politics of delay, systematically denies that freedom to an entire generation. It is anti-human. Supporting SB 79’s full and prompt implementation is not about favoring developers; it is about favoring people. It is about affirming that the right to a home is a cornerstone of the liberty we cherish, and that sometimes, to protect that liberty for all, local parochialism must yield to statewide democratic action. The time for choosing our own adventure is over. The time for building homes is now.