The Disruption of Single-Family Neighborhoods In San Diego
Imagine, if you can, that you live in the single-family home to the left of the 17 units being built in the above photo. This is not make believe. The 17 units are being constructed at 4601 Almayo Ave in the heart of the Clairemont community in San Diego.
Give it a minute. Visualize yourself sitting at the kitchen table sipping a cup of coffee, looking out your window watching the carpenters offload their building materials in the cul-de-sac in front of your home.
You can’t understand why there was no set-back requirement, as the new units are being built on your property line.
To your chagrin, the City of San Diego removed the requirements for the owner of the new units to provide any parking spaces for the new tenants. You begin to wonder where your friends will park when they come to visit.
You reflect upon the astronomical price you paid for your home in order to raise your children, but had the confidence to make the largest investment of your life because you were certain that over the long run, you’d recoup in equity and appreciation what you had to give up in instant gratification.
You reminisce over the day you got the keys and the joyous spurts of energy you and your loved ones put into repainting and remodeling your new “place.”
The first house party was such wonderful time of laughter and accomplishment with your closest friends, and how the nextdoor neighbor made cookies and brought enough drinks to make everyone tipsy and happy, while welcoming you to the hood.
Or, maybe you bought the home 30 years ago, had finally paid off the mortgage last month and are planning to live out your retirement years in your “American Dream.”
Certainly if you had known up front that 17 units could be built next door, you would have at least had the option to decline purchasing your “home.” You bought a pig in a poke, a term used in real estate regarding the necessity of property inspections and disclosures in order for a buyer to make an informed choice.
Technically, you weren’t purchasing the land upon which your home sits. You were purchasing a “bundle of rights.”
What happened to your rights to live peacefully in your home? Who will compensate you for rights abridged? The State? The nextdoor neighbor building the 17 units who brought the cookies and drinks?
What happened to you was an insidious form of eminent domain.
Insidious because under eminent domain rules, when the government needs to take away your property rights for the “public good,” it has to pay you market price for it.
Under SB9, the State of California took away your original property rights (the original zoning, intent, and quiet enjoyment of it) without paying a dime for it.
They took away your rights in the attempt to solve the state’s housing crisis and left your friend and neighbor building the apartments next door, to bear the heat of your displeasure.
You used to be dear friends and now you feel a great loss.
How are you going to countenance your neighbor once the new tenants move in?
Maybe you won’t have to. Your neighbor isn’t required to live in one of the units to qualify under SB9.
The original version of the law that was passed in 2021did indeed require owners to live in one of the units they develop for up to 3 years.*
*(This requirement was obstensively intended to prevent investors buying existing single-family properties, and taking advantage of SB 9 to convert them into ADUs (apartment units). The State wanted to ensure that affordable housing options were maintained. But that requirement was removed for any new ADUs built after 2025.)
It’s 2025!
Your American Dream shattered now by the daily noise caused by the construction of the units is already so unbearable you decide that your only recourse is to sell.
You get up from the table and dump the last of your coffee into the sink. The new one you installed with the recent kitchen remodel and the beautiful granite countertops.
You contact a real estate agent known for working with investors.
The investor makes you an offer a bit above your asking price and guarantees a quick and painless escrow and closing. You’ll be moving away from dear friends and neighbors, but console yourself that at least you’ll reclaim a quiet existence for you and your family.
Things will get back to normal. You’ll make it a point to come back to the hood to visit old friends, someday.
After closing, the investor determines that the highest and best use of the property is to build the maximum units allowable,17, next door to the construction of the original 17 units.
You’ve moved on, but regret selling to the investor who intends to perpetuate the cycle of disruption in your former neighborhood. It’s a last stab, a wound that’s hard to heal, but at least you have your sanity back.
Looking back, you ask yourself if Sacramento lawmakers implemented SB 9 & SB 10 in order for your neighbor to take away your right to the quiet enjoyment of your property so that they wouldn’t have to?
It’s hard to blame your neighbor for this mess.
Instead, you blame yourself. Why didn’t I see this coming?
If you had been aware of the coming legislation, would the proponents of the bills slandered you with the derogatory term of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) if you spoke out against them?
Now, look what’s happened to my old backyard!
Lawmakers say it’s merely “Accessory Dwelling Units,” but you understand what they really are: apartment complexes under the guise of necessary affordable housing and the supposed cure for the State’s lack of housing inventory.
But you remember the original term ADU referred to one unit built on your property to obstensively house your aging parents, a “Granny Flat.”
What Happened?
What Sacramento passed with SB 9 & 10 was a massive apartment building law.
Unfortunately, our San Diego mayor and city councilmembers made a mad dash to implement the new laws with the passage of the Complete Communities Plan, in which the sub-title refers that we are “all in.”
You, most certainly, we’re never “all-in” if you had known!
Maybe they thought that was the only solution to a very sensitive and escalating housing problem. IF the rush to implement the new law innocently brought unintended consequences (17 units) what can we the people do to mitigate?
Maybe our leaders made a rush to judgement in order to alleviate a very real problem, lack of housing.
The Solution
San Diegans need to pause, modify or recind Complete Communities to make the plan work a better solution to implementing California’s housing law before we destroy more of our single family neighborhoods, abridging others’ long-held rights while pitting neighbor against neighbor and, worst in my opinion, now that they’ve opened the door to an investment community who want the equity and quality of life in our single-family neighborhoods for shareholders.
In the meantime, as we look for better and more immediate solutions to our housing crisis, if you don’t want to purchase a pig in a poke when homebuying or selling in San Diego, I will refer you to one of my in-network real estate agents that can help you determine whether property you’re interested in will be affected by SB 9 law.