California's new "friend compound" laws, effective January 1, 2024, significantly ease restrictions on building multiple housing units on a single-family lot. Senate Bills 9 and 10 streamline the process for splitting lots and building duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, respectively, while maintaining local control over design standards. These laws aim to increase housing density and affordability by overcoming outdated zoning regulations, though their effectiveness remains to be seen due to potential loopholes and local implementation challenges. They represent a notable step towards addressing California's housing crisis.
Within the vibrant tapestry of Californian legislative history, a significant thread has emerged, weaving together concepts of communal living, affordability, and regulatory reform. This thread culminates in the recently enacted "Friend Compound" laws, formally recognized as Assembly Bills (AB) 1661 and 2571. These legislative measures, long sought after by proponents of alternative housing models, address the escalating housing crisis and the increasing desire for communal living arrangements by meticulously modifying existing zoning and permitting processes. The essence of these laws lies in their facilitation of the creation of "friend compounds," a colloquial term describing multiple housing units on a single parcel of land, intended for cohabitation by multiple households who share common interests or relationships, not necessarily familial.
AB 1661, in its meticulous detail, focuses on streamlining the approval process for these communal living arrangements. It accomplishes this by easing restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), effectively permitting the construction of up to four units on a single-family lot. This deregulation significantly reduces the bureaucratic hurdles previously encountered by individuals wishing to establish such communal housing configurations. Furthermore, the law relaxes parking requirements, recognizing that communal living arrangements often result in decreased car ownership and usage, thus promoting environmentally conscious practices.
Complementing AB 1661, AB 2571 delves into the intricacies of local ordinances, preempting certain restrictive measures that historically hampered the development of multi-unit housing. This preemption effectively removes obstacles posed by outdated or overly restrictive zoning regulations, paving the way for increased housing density and diversity. By overriding these local constraints, the state legislature has aimed to standardize the permitting process, facilitating a more predictable and streamlined experience for developers of friend compounds. This standardization is critical for encouraging investment and innovation in the realm of communal living.
In summary, these two bills, now enshrined in California law, represent a paradigm shift in housing policy. They demonstrate a legislative acknowledgment of the growing need for flexible and affordable housing options, while simultaneously embracing the social and environmental benefits of communal living. The friend compound laws, meticulously crafted and long-awaited, hold the potential to reshape the California housing landscape, offering a viable pathway to address the pressing housing crisis and foster a more inclusive and sustainable future. The true impact and effectiveness of these legislative interventions will unfold over time, as individuals and communities embrace the opportunities presented by these novel housing models.
Summary of Comments ( 88 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43482005
Hacker News users discussed the complexities and potential downsides of California's recently enacted "Friend Compound" ADU law (AB-2221). Several commenters questioned the financial viability, pointing out that the costs associated with building multiple ADUs on a single lot could outweigh the potential rental income, especially with rising interest rates. Others raised concerns about parking, increased density impacting neighborhood character, and the potential for exploitation by developers seeking to maximize profits. The lack of clear guidelines within the law regarding utility connections and other practical considerations was also a recurring theme. Some expressed skepticism about whether the law would meaningfully address the housing crisis, suggesting it might primarily benefit wealthier homeowners. The overall sentiment seemed to be cautious optimism tempered by a healthy dose of pragmatism.
The Hacker News post titled "The long-awaited Friend Compound laws in California" discussing the Supernuclear Substack article about ADU regulations has generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a mix of perspectives on the new laws and their potential impact.
Several commenters express skepticism about the purported benefits of the new ADU laws. One commenter argues that while the laws aim to simplify the process, local jurisdictions still retain significant control, leading to continued complexity and potential roadblocks. They also point out the ongoing issue of high construction costs, which may negate any advantages gained from easier permitting. Another commenter echoes this sentiment, suggesting that the real issue is the high cost of construction, not necessarily the permitting process itself. They believe that until construction costs decrease, ADUs won't become truly widespread.
Another line of discussion revolves around the actual impact of these ADU laws. One commenter questions whether these laws will genuinely produce more "friend compounds" or simply more expensive ADUs. They raise the concern that the focus might be shifting towards larger, more luxurious ADUs rather than smaller, more affordable units intended for friends.
Some commenters offer alternative solutions to the housing crisis. One suggests exploring cooperative housing models and co-living arrangements as potentially more effective approaches. Another proposes the idea of allowing more density in existing neighborhoods by loosening restrictions on building height limits and reducing parking requirements. They believe that this could significantly increase housing availability without relying solely on ADUs.
A few commenters also touch upon the issue of community impact. One commenter expresses worry about the potential strain on existing infrastructure and public services, particularly in areas with limited resources.
Finally, a couple of commenters offer anecdotes about their personal experiences with ADUs, highlighting the challenges and complexities involved, even with the supposedly simplified regulations. One shares a story of struggling with the permitting process despite the new laws, demonstrating that the reality on the ground may differ from the intended outcome of the legislation. Another simply states they are currently living in an ADU, providing a brief personal connection to the topic.
While the discussion isn't exceptionally extensive, it provides a variety of viewpoints on the effectiveness and potential consequences of California's ADU laws, with a recurring theme of skepticism about whether these changes will truly address the underlying housing affordability challenges.