SB 79: Housing Justice or Developer Payoff?

When California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 79 into law this month, the press releases came fast and full of familiar buzzwords: “equity,” “affordable housing,” and “transit-oriented development.” If you didn’t know better, you’d think Sacramento had finally solved the housing crisis — again.

But if you’ve watched California politics for longer than a single news cycle, you know how this goes. Bills passed by the California Legislature, especially those authored by State Senator Scott Wiener, tend to follow a predictable formula. They promise to uplift the vulnerable but somehow always seem to line the pockets of real estate developers, tech donors, and public-sector unions instead.

Follow the Money, Literally

SB 79 is a Wiener special: dense, dressed in progressive rhetoric, and curiously beneficial to the exact special interests that have bankrolled his political career. According to public records compiled by FollowTheMoney.org and OpenSecrets.org, Wiener has received significant financial support from real estate, construction, labor unions, and tech interests. These are the same groups who loudly cheer his “pro-housing” agenda and fund California YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard), a well-heeled advocacy organization that presents itself as grassroots while enjoying support from billionaires and corporate landlords

California YIMBY’s list of donors has included names like Patrick Collison (CEO of Stripe), and other big-money players in tech and real estate. In other words, folks who are rarely mistaken for affordable housing advocates. SB 79, in effect, reads less like a housing justice bill and more like a thank-you note to those contributors.

What SB 79 Actually Does

Let’s strip away the rhetoric. SB 79 allows for the streamlined construction of “workforce” housing near public transit lines, removes local parking requirements, and reduces barriers for developers in urban areas. Proponents argue this is a smart response to California’s housing shortage.

But the bill doesn’t require these new units to be affordable, at least not in any meaningful or enforceable way. “Workforce housing” often ends up targeting middle-income renters, not the low-income families who are most affected by the state’s housing crisis. In practice, this could mean $3,000/month studios in gentrifying neighborhoods, not relief for working-class Californians.

If anything, the bill threatens to accelerate displacement under the guise of supply-side progressivism. Developers get their entitlements faster, unions get contracts, and tech firms get to virtue-signal about solving housing while their employees snap up the new units. The people left out? The same ones this bill was allegedly written to help.

Transit-Oriented for Whom?

One of the most controversial elements of SB 79 is its removal of parking requirements for new developments near public transit. In theory, this nudges Californians to drive less and use public transportation more.

In practice, it’s divorced from the reality of transit in cities like Los Angeles, where the metro system is not just underused, but often unsafe. I’ve written previously about LA Metro’s issues: violent incidents, drug use on trains, and even the need to install “shatterproof, tempered glass barriers” to protect bus drivers from assaults. So the idea that working families, especially women, seniors, and parents with kids, will joyfully abandon their cars to board a train surrounded by chaos is laughable, if not insulting.

And what happens to residents in those new SB 79-compliant buildings who still own cars? They park in surrounding neighborhoods, creating a ripple effect of congestion and tension. Even worse, some renters in existing buildings are seeing their parking spaces eliminated altogether to make way for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Ask the Residents of Koreatown

In Koreatown, tenants recently protested their landlord’s decision to remove on-site parking and replace it with ADUs; a move made possible thanks to SB 1211, which bars cities from requiring landlords to replace demolished parking, even if tenants still rely on those spaces. As a result, residents now scramble for street parking, exposing them to theft and parking tickets thanks to restrictive parking regulations. Worse, elderly and disabled residents are now left vulnerable thanks to the additional burden of potentially dangerous walks from distant blocks. Under California law, landlords can sometimes do this legally, especially if a lease doesn’t explicitly guarantee parking. Yes, it’s another policy loophole benefitting builders over people.

Let’s recap: In Los Angeles, public transit is unsafe for many. Yet, the Legislature still passed laws aimed at pushing more people to use it, by reshaping local zoning and removing parking requirements. SB 1211, passed in 2024, barred cities from requiring landlords to replace parking when building ADUs, even if those spaces were previously used by tenants. SB 79 goes even further.  It overrides local zoning to allow even more ADUs and denser multifamily housing near transit, expanding landlords’ building rights while offering no protections for tenants who lose parking, sunlight, or quality of life as a result.

For all the talk about “housing justice,” SB 79 offers none to the people already living in these communities. If anything, it makes their lives harder. So, why create such legislation? Ostensibly, to serve the progressive dream of climate-resilient, high-density, car-free urban living. Never mind that most Californians, especially outside of tech enclaves, don’t live that way, don’t want to live that way, and can’t afford to pretend otherwise.

Housing Justice or Corporate Subsidy?

There’s a reason people are skeptical of housing bills coming out of Sacramento: they’ve seen this movie before. Whether it’s SB 9, SB 10, SB 1211, or now SB 79, the pattern is the same. The beneficiaries are not renters or low-income families, they’re developers, tech lobbyists, and construction unions. The process is greased by a network of nonprofits and advocacy groups that enjoy funding from the same corporate interests that stand to profit from “pro-housing” legislation.

Meanwhile, Californians keep getting priced out, pushed out, and now, apparently, parked out.

Conclusion: Let’s Call This What It Is

SB 79 isn’t a bold solution to California’s housing crisis. It’s a cleverly marketed handout to the Governor’s, and Senator Weiner’s, donor classes, dressed up in the language of social justice. It does little to protect renters, nothing to guarantee affordability, and much to enrich those who already have access to power.

As usual, in California politics, the progressive packaging hides a profit motive. And until voters start demanding policy that prioritizes people over contracts, we’ll keep watching bills like SB 79 sail through, with Gavin Newsom’s signature and Scott Wiener’s stamp of approval.

In light of the recent “No Kings” protests, the message couldn’t be more timely. “No Kings,” they shouted. But in California, the throne’s just been rebranded as the Governor’s Office.