Readers React: SB 50 opponents are in denial — California will continue to grow

A Los Angeles apartment complex is under construction in early May on Sawtelle Boulevard.
(Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: It’s wonderful that some of the opponents of Senate Bill 50, which was killed last week and would have allowed for denser housing throughout the state, have such a myopic view of the next two decades of life in California.

Even with more people moving out of the state than moving in, the state’s high birth rate means there will be hundreds of thousands of new Californians per year. That’s a lot of new adult native Californians looking for housing every year.

Do the homeowners opposed to SB 50, other California residents and their government representatives not have a responsibility to help plan for the future of all our children?

If not, they should help these children plan for their future in New Mexico, Utah and Idaho, because without planning in this state, Arizona and Nevada will be full and unable to accommodate so many ex-Californians in the coming decades.


Ed Reynolds, Valley Center, Calif.


To the editor: It’s a relief that SB 50 has been shelved. It was a heavy-handed, top-down approach that would have alienated many Californians and created unintended consequences. More thoughtful approaches are needed.

We need to actually plan for development where it makes sense without destroying neighborhoods. The location opportunities are out there, with so many outdated, underused commercial buildings, surface parking lots and more. Smart design can maximize density where it makes sense.


Sacramento should set the goal and put the task to cities and counties, with rewards for creative solutions.

Mitch Moss, Tustin


To the editor: California’s housing crisis is man-made — by all of us. There are far too many hoops for builders to jump through, and zoning plans are archaic.

First, I would look at single-family properties on what are now main boulevards that have become isolated over the last 75 years.

Second, Proposition 13 must be adjusted to reappraise commercial land every year.

Third, we should consider condemning all golf courses within city limits as an inappropriate use of land. We need parks and modern residential developments in place of closed-off land reserved for a selected few paying users.

Golf will not be missed, except for the few hundred people who play on a course in a typical day. I think a few million of use could make better use of all that acreage.


William Bergmann, Hollywood

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

Get our weekly Opinion newsletter