cawacko
Well-known member
If one doesn't live in California this may not resonate but as the old adage goes 'as goes California, so goes the nation'. Our lack of housing has not only made inequality worse (richest state, highest poverty rate), but we are on track to lose electoral votes and Congressional house seats (while Texas and Florida gain seats).
We've heard the same argument for decades; more housing = more traffic, having more renters is bad etc. etc. The loss of (some) power is going to be the result.
(And for those not getting what's being said here California Values = Progressive Values.)
On Dec. 2, Gov. Gavin Newsom convened a special session of the state Legislature focused on upholding “Californian values.” The session was intended to focus on “bolstering California legal resources to protect civil rights, reproductive freedom, climate action, and immigrant families,” with Newsom seeking up to $25 million for anticipated legal battles with the Trump administration.
To most effectively preserve Californian values, however, Newsom will have the biggest impact if he focuses just as much on promoting new homes as he does on legal activism. California’s slow housing production is a direct threat to the future of our state’s political values and power in the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election.
California faces a fundamental problem: Our state doesn’t build enough new homes at all levels of affordability, and the cost of living is too high as a result. According to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, the median home price in California is more than twice as expensive as other states. Rents have increased by more than 30% on average across the state since 2020, piling on top of decades of existing price increases.
Californians who leave the state most commonly cite high housing costs, according to the Public Policy Institute for California. The majority of those residents are low and middle-income — though the rate of high-income California emigrants has increased rapidly recently as well.
Data produced by the California Research Bureau, a state government research institute, shows that California issued permits for less than half the amount of homes per month in 2023 than it did in the 1980s, approximately half as much housing as Texas and two-thirds as many as Florida.
As a result of our slow growth relative to other states, California is on track to lose four seats in the House of Representatives and the proportional electoral votes by 2030, while Texas and Florida could gain four House seats each. Our barriers to building homes threaten our political influence for a generation.
What is the value of strong civil rights and reproductive freedom in our state if those most vulnerable to oppression cannot afford to benefit from them?
Though it’s too late for Newsom’s special session to include housing, he can ensure that legislators make meaningful changes to California’s housing regime in the legislative session that begins Jan. 6.
The state can start by looking at legal restrictions on development, embodied most starkly by single-family zoning laws. Zoning rules generally regulate the size and appearance of new developments. Single-family zoning specifically requires that only one house can be built per lot — a de facto ban on apartments and affordable housing. Apartments are banned in 85% of residential land in the Bay Area and 89% of the land in its wealthiest county, San Mateo.
Newsom should push the Legislature to substantially change zoning statewide, especially near major public transit stops and corridors. Prior legislation Newsom signed, like SB9 in 2021 and SB450 this past year, have attempted to legalize duplexes in single-family neighborhoods, and a collection of laws has facilitated a boom in the production of accessory dwelling units, colloquially known as backyard cottages.
The administration can go further, embracing no-strings-attached rezonings for dense apartments in all neighborhoods near high-quality transportation corridors. Prior attempts to allow five-to-eight-story buildings within a quarter mile of transit, such as SB827 in 2018 and SB50 in 2019, provide a model. Layered with existing laws, statewide rezoning can allow new housing while also protecting preexisting tenants from evictions because of demolition.
Even when developments comply with local zoning rules, slow permitting processes, expensive fees and restrictive building codes raise building costs, limiting the financial feasibility for new homes. Some areas face additional constraints, such as the increasingly large portion of the state covered by historic districts and the high-demand areas regulated under California’s coastal zone.
Well-intended environmental laws also pose a barrier to new housing. The California Environmental Quality Act, first passed in 1970, was a landmark law that established a review process for significant government decisions like new mines, refineries or power stations to avoid negative environmental impacts. Today, however, 78% of lawsuits under CEQA are against housing in higher-income neighborhoods of preexisting cities — blocking housing in the areas that need it most.
Ideally, CEQA would protect our most vulnerable environments, critical habitat, water quality and verdant forests. But right now, CEQA makes it easier to build suburban sprawl on prime farmland in the Central Valley than it does apartments on vacant parking lots in downtown San Francisco.
A report by the Little Hoover Institute, a government-sponsored watchdog, wisely recommends creating “a broad, simplified exemption for infill housing” from CEQA review. “Infill” housing refers to housing within existing cities. To protect open space and preserve the environment Californians cherish while simultaneously creating homes for those who need them, we must make it easier to build housing in areas where people can live more sustainably near transit and jobs.
Fundamentally, defending California’s values depends on solving our housing shortage. Our state can be a haven for women’s rights, for the LGBTQ community, for immigrants and for anyone in need of a safe place only if we have enough housing. Preserving the freedom and security of Californians, present and future, will require allowing homes to be built for them to live in.
Newsom and the Legislature have an opportunity to better promote our state’s values with housing.
Michael Lane is state policy director for SPUR, a public policy think tank in San Francisco. Jeremy Levine is the executive director for Inclusive Lafayette, a volunteer-led organization dedicated to promoting housing affordability.
We've heard the same argument for decades; more housing = more traffic, having more renters is bad etc. etc. The loss of (some) power is going to be the result.
(And for those not getting what's being said here California Values = Progressive Values.)
There’s no protecting California values without building more housing
Slow housing production is a threat to the state’s political values and power in the aftermath of the presidential election
On Dec. 2, Gov. Gavin Newsom convened a special session of the state Legislature focused on upholding “Californian values.” The session was intended to focus on “bolstering California legal resources to protect civil rights, reproductive freedom, climate action, and immigrant families,” with Newsom seeking up to $25 million for anticipated legal battles with the Trump administration.
To most effectively preserve Californian values, however, Newsom will have the biggest impact if he focuses just as much on promoting new homes as he does on legal activism. California’s slow housing production is a direct threat to the future of our state’s political values and power in the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election.
California faces a fundamental problem: Our state doesn’t build enough new homes at all levels of affordability, and the cost of living is too high as a result. According to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, the median home price in California is more than twice as expensive as other states. Rents have increased by more than 30% on average across the state since 2020, piling on top of decades of existing price increases.
Californians who leave the state most commonly cite high housing costs, according to the Public Policy Institute for California. The majority of those residents are low and middle-income — though the rate of high-income California emigrants has increased rapidly recently as well.
Data produced by the California Research Bureau, a state government research institute, shows that California issued permits for less than half the amount of homes per month in 2023 than it did in the 1980s, approximately half as much housing as Texas and two-thirds as many as Florida.
As a result of our slow growth relative to other states, California is on track to lose four seats in the House of Representatives and the proportional electoral votes by 2030, while Texas and Florida could gain four House seats each. Our barriers to building homes threaten our political influence for a generation.
What is the value of strong civil rights and reproductive freedom in our state if those most vulnerable to oppression cannot afford to benefit from them?
Though it’s too late for Newsom’s special session to include housing, he can ensure that legislators make meaningful changes to California’s housing regime in the legislative session that begins Jan. 6.
The state can start by looking at legal restrictions on development, embodied most starkly by single-family zoning laws. Zoning rules generally regulate the size and appearance of new developments. Single-family zoning specifically requires that only one house can be built per lot — a de facto ban on apartments and affordable housing. Apartments are banned in 85% of residential land in the Bay Area and 89% of the land in its wealthiest county, San Mateo.
Newsom should push the Legislature to substantially change zoning statewide, especially near major public transit stops and corridors. Prior legislation Newsom signed, like SB9 in 2021 and SB450 this past year, have attempted to legalize duplexes in single-family neighborhoods, and a collection of laws has facilitated a boom in the production of accessory dwelling units, colloquially known as backyard cottages.
The administration can go further, embracing no-strings-attached rezonings for dense apartments in all neighborhoods near high-quality transportation corridors. Prior attempts to allow five-to-eight-story buildings within a quarter mile of transit, such as SB827 in 2018 and SB50 in 2019, provide a model. Layered with existing laws, statewide rezoning can allow new housing while also protecting preexisting tenants from evictions because of demolition.
Even when developments comply with local zoning rules, slow permitting processes, expensive fees and restrictive building codes raise building costs, limiting the financial feasibility for new homes. Some areas face additional constraints, such as the increasingly large portion of the state covered by historic districts and the high-demand areas regulated under California’s coastal zone.
Well-intended environmental laws also pose a barrier to new housing. The California Environmental Quality Act, first passed in 1970, was a landmark law that established a review process for significant government decisions like new mines, refineries or power stations to avoid negative environmental impacts. Today, however, 78% of lawsuits under CEQA are against housing in higher-income neighborhoods of preexisting cities — blocking housing in the areas that need it most.
Ideally, CEQA would protect our most vulnerable environments, critical habitat, water quality and verdant forests. But right now, CEQA makes it easier to build suburban sprawl on prime farmland in the Central Valley than it does apartments on vacant parking lots in downtown San Francisco.
A report by the Little Hoover Institute, a government-sponsored watchdog, wisely recommends creating “a broad, simplified exemption for infill housing” from CEQA review. “Infill” housing refers to housing within existing cities. To protect open space and preserve the environment Californians cherish while simultaneously creating homes for those who need them, we must make it easier to build housing in areas where people can live more sustainably near transit and jobs.
Fundamentally, defending California’s values depends on solving our housing shortage. Our state can be a haven for women’s rights, for the LGBTQ community, for immigrants and for anyone in need of a safe place only if we have enough housing. Preserving the freedom and security of Californians, present and future, will require allowing homes to be built for them to live in.
Newsom and the Legislature have an opportunity to better promote our state’s values with housing.
Michael Lane is state policy director for SPUR, a public policy think tank in San Francisco. Jeremy Levine is the executive director for Inclusive Lafayette, a volunteer-led organization dedicated to promoting housing affordability.
Last edited: