By repealing these requirements, SCA1 seeks to streamline the process for state public bodies to initiate low-rent housing projects, potentially leading to an increase in affordable housing availability. This change could also simplify the regulatory path for new housing projects, which is especially significant given the ongoing housing crisis that many urban and suburban areas in California are facing. Thus, the amendment aims to empower state authorities to respond more effectively to the growing demand for affordable housing without being impeded by local electoral processes.
Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 1 (SCA1) aims to amend the California Constitution by repealing Article XXXIV, which currently imposes restrictions on the development, construction, or acquisition of low-rent housing projects by state public bodies. As it stands, the article requires that any proposed low-rent housing project must receive approval from a majority vote of the qualified electors in the local area before moving forward. The intent of SCA1 is to facilitate the development of public housing, addressing a critical need for affordable housing in California.
However, this proposed change is not without controversy. Proponents argue that the local electoral requirement hinders timely housing development and contributes to California’s housing shortages. In contrast, opponents express concerns that repealing this provision might diminish local control and community involvement in housing decision-making. They argue that local voters should have a say in any public housing projects that may affect their communities directly, suggesting that the amendment could sideline local interests in favor of broader state objectives.
SCA1 underwent a voting process that culminated on September 10, 2019, where it passed with a significant majority, receiving 40 votes in favor and none against. This unanimous support in the Senate suggests a bipartisan acknowledgment of the urgent need for housing solutions in California, although the debates around local control and state authority are likely to remain contentious as the bill progresses.