Where I was wrong on housing
The issue is bigger than I realized—and much more hopeful
Last year I published How to save San Francisco, a Medium post that attributed the Bay Area housing crisis to government failure, and specifically the lack of high-level, metropolitan urban planning. In the Bay Area, we have over 100 local governments planning myopically—and restrictively—and as a result we are drastically underperforming peer cities in creating new housing and cohesive transit infrastructure.
The post was widely shared, and it was exciting to see the message resonate with many people who think we can do better. But, ultimately, the solution proposed—greater unification, including central authority—is extremely difficult politically, and the near-term outlook for the Bay Area seemed to be more of the same, with insufficient homebuilding and prices that are rising so high that they are destroying the fabric of our community.
What I learned later
After publishing the piece, I did (a lot) more research. Many people reached out and provided new perspectives, and I was able meet with several people and organizations whose lives are focused on these issues; they have a depth of knowledge far greater than a guy writing on Medium.
While I learned that many of my original points were valid, I also learned that I was wrong in a few major ways. The biggest mistake I made was thinking that this is a Bay Area problem. It’s not. It’s a California problem, and California’s other major cities are on the same track as the Bay Area, for the same reasons.
Los Angeles County, for example, has 88 unique municipalities alone, and has recently been permitting even less housing than the Bay Area per-capita. And it’s not because of geography; Sacramento is no different. Peer cities like Seattle are permitting roughly double the number of housing units per capita, per year.
The graph below shows housing units permitted per year, per capita, for a select group of cities.
This is a colossal policy failure in California. This problem has compounded for years and has literally affected millions of Californians and would-be residents. The real life impacts of this are visible in our cities, as friends, family members, and neighbors are slowly evicted (either legally or effectively, due to high prices).
There is (actually) hope
But viewing this at the state level opens the door to new solutions—specifically, state advocacy that could fix root issues in all California’s cities. And this is exactly what is happening. A new bill, SB-827, is on the table that could radically address the underlying causes of California’s affordability crisis, by overriding local governments to create minimum zoning requirements near transit hubs.
Third party research suggests this bill could unlock up to 3 million new housing units. In a state building less than 100k housing units per year, this would be transformational, with the potential to truly impact the supply and demand equation for the first time in at least a decade. Because this bill only applies near transit hubs, it protects open space, reduces pressure on freeways, and puts people where they actually want to live—in dynamic urban areas.
In short, this bill could dramatically improve California’s biggest problem. It could make our state livable again.
But we have work to do
But because it is so bold, it faces long odds. At public hearings across the state, hundreds of homeowners are showing up to speak against the bill, because it removes some municipal control of zoning. But homeowners are the ones that benefit when prices rise (and due to Proposition 13, many of them pay hardly any property taxes). And the “local control” argument is weak; the the shapes and borders of California’s “cities” are highly convoluted and often based on historical oddities, not true communities.
Millennials, on the other hand, are not showing up public hearings and are not even aware there is a debate happening. Yet this is literally a debate that will make or break their future in California. If California does not increase housing supply, prices will continue to rise, and our cities will simply become off-limits to all but the very wealthy. Young people will not be able to move here and will not be able to create lives here.
Independent research shows there are huge opportunities to increase housing in existing California cities. Housing prices are astronomical not because we are surrounded by natural features or because California is already “built-up,” it’s because the people who are engaged politically at the local level (where zoning occurs) are homeowners, not Millennials.
But SB-827 is the chance for the rest of us to engage. By operating at a “different level of local government” (the State level), we have the opportunity to create one of the most radical and transformative solutions to the housing crisis in recent history. SB-827 will not only dramatically increase supply, but it’s also highly pragmatic—it does so in a way that minimizes impacts on the environment and puts humans close to their jobs and friends.
Yes, SB-827 means that California would change: cities will get denser, and mid-rise buildings may cast shadows near BART stations. California may become more European. But consider the alternative: it’s either stagnation or sprawl. We can either stick to a broken system that is stifling us, or we can put Millennials in suburban housing tracts 2 hours from their jobs.
Californians are dreamers. We build for the future. We have dynamic, diverse cities, which are constantly being reinvented. Let’s embrace the reinvention and change, and choose a path that honors our values. Let’s show young people that they too have a place here. Change is inevitable — we have to manage it, not avoid it.
This is what SB-827 is really about.
Unfortunate Updates
After this post was written, SB-827 triggered a statewide (and even national) debate on housing and land policy. Many urban policy experts praised the bill, but California municipalities and homeowners came out strongly against it. Oddly, several social justice and environmental organizations also came out against it for reasons I could never fully understand, since there were amendments strongly preventing displacement, forcing developers to provide transit passes for residents, and addressing many of the other critiques of the original version of SB-827.
Sadly, the bill failed in the first committee in the California State Senate. Underlying the debate about the bill, there was a great deal of negativity on both social media and in real life (during the committee meeting, a group of opponents chanted “kill the bill, kill the bill;” Senator Wiener was also the target of hate mail and absurd memes). I was personally surprised that a proposal to legalize four story apartment buildings near transit could trigger so much vitriol in a state that is ostensibly liberal and inclusive.
This was an ambitious bill, and Senator Wiener and other housing advocates have vowed to bring more. My question going forward is if California will be able to muster the political will to boldly address this crisis, given that so many Californians are shielded from its effects by property tax control (Prop 13) or rent control. Can we govern for the future, or will entrenched interests prevent us from addressing root issues?
For many of us of a certain age, we may not have the time to find out.
