Friday Roundup 10-29-21

In 2019, California legalized accessory dwelling units (ADU), commonly called a granny flat or mother-in-law apartment. When a resident of Malibu wanted to build an ADU for her ailing mother, the city denied a permit. The daughter wanted her mother nearby, but there wasn’t space in her house for her mother. For her and her family, an ADU was the perfect solution. The City of Malibu had different ideas. They claimed that the family could rearrange their house to accommodate an additional person, so an ADU wasn’t necessary. It’s bad enough that property owners have to grovel at the feet of government officials for permission to use their property as they choose. But in Malibu, those officials will also make personal decisions regarding how individuals can live.

Last week, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) held two public hearings about the effects of the SpaceX facility in south Texas. The FAA noted that the facility would impact the water, culture, and natural resources of the area. No explanation was offered as to why the FAA would be concerned about culture. When the public was allowed to comment, one of the biggest complaints was that SpaceX had not made enough accommodations for Spanish-speaking people. This, some claimed, is “environmental racism.” However, one man said, “There is no such thing as environmental racism. That is a manufactured wokeism…. [Locals] want what they want, without any consequences.” The FAA is still considering whether it will require an environmental impact statement for the facility, a process that could take years and impose an enormous expense on SpaceX.

Two bills being considered by the Massachusetts legislature would give municipalities the power to grant tenants a “right of first refusal” to purchase a multi-family housing property when the owner decides to sell. The stated goal is to prevent the displacement of tenants, particularly the elderly and low-income renters. One of the provisions in the bills allows prospective buyers to engage in “small amounts of demolition” to inspect for lead and asbestos. And the property owner would be required to immediately repair any demolition. This would be an open invitation for malicious tenants to engage in all sorts of mischief. The law would also require at least 220 days before closing on a multi-family property. Lawyers could request an extension and use that process to get the seller to reduce his price. Given that closing generally occurs about 30 days after an offer is accepted, a year-long closing process introduces tremendous uncertainty into the transaction. Investors are going to be reluctant to commit to such deals. Like many of the so-called tenant protections that legislators are enacting, these measures will simply make the problem worse.