My understanding is the bill has weaker requirements (as little as 5%) on affordable housing than alternatives. Think of cities and negotiating with developers over affordability, and this is a more developer-friendly offer.

I think that is meant to be left to local requirements. Municipality could jack it up to 20% AFAIK.

That's the key question. The article I cited details many limitations on local governments that would seem to limit their ability to demand affordable housing.[1]

Bottom line, this bill is massively supported by developers, so take that as a gauge of how much power it gives municipalities.

[1] http://48hills.org/2016/05/22/a-terrible-housing-bill-looms-...

You are confused; the 48hills article is referring to a different bill[1] (affordable housing bonus) than the Governor’s budget trailer bill that Sam Altman is referring to[2]. The Governor’s bill requires that localities deterministically and expediently approve projects near transit that provide some low-income housing and comply with local zoning laws.

But speaking of the affordable housing bonus, Tim Redmond’s specific concerns seem to be that height limits, setbacks, and backyard requirements may be waived, not that there would be any reduction in affordable housing. But I agree that the affordable housing bonus law is somewhat open-ended so who knows what concession a developer might request.

[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

[2]: http://web1a.esd.dof.ca.gov/Documents/bcp/1617/FY1617_ORG224...

I guess, thanks, but it looks like exactly the same problem: It sets affordability requirements as low as 5%. See: 65913.3(b)(4)

The Governor’s budget trailer bill says that if a developer sets aside a certain fraction of the units for inclusionary housing and the proposal complies with the local zoning code, then the locality must approve it deterministically and quickly. This does not prevent a local government from setting a higher inclusionary requirement in their zoning code; it would remain 12% in San Francisco (or higher if Proposition C of June 2016 passes). The inclusionary fraction in the bill is just the threshold at which the other provisions begin to apply.

By the way, the Legislative Analyst’s Office has released an endorsement[1] of the bill which provides background, justification, and proposed improvements.

[1]: http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/3470

But bear in mind this just brings California in line with a bunch of places that managed to build their way out of a housing crisis. $1T in war spending dumped on DC in the last decade, led to cranes everywhere, not massive rent increase.

Uh, DC has had significant rent (and home price) increases in the past decade. Not as bad as here, but it's definitely not correct to claim that they've built their way out of a housing crisis.

In fact, when you look around, you see similar trends nationwide. A lot of this is just the predictable consequence of our near-zero interest rate policy since 2009.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/medi...

https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-washington-rent-t...