Since about 1970, California has been experiencing an extended and increasing housing shortage,[1]: 3 such that by 2018, California ranked 49th among the states of the U.S. in terms of housing units per resident.[2]: 1 [3] This shortage has been estimated to be 3-4 million housing units (20-30% of California's housing stock, 14 million[4]) as of 2017[update].[5] As of 2018, experts said that California needs to double its current rate of housing production (85,000 units per year) to keep up with expected population growth and prevent prices from further increasing, and needs to quadruple the current rate of housing production over the next seven years in order for prices and rents to decline.[6]
The imbalance between supply and demand[7] resulted from strong economic growth creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs (which increases demand for housing) and the intentional, NIMBY-caused illegality of new housing units to meet demand. From 2012 to 2017 statewide, for every five new residents, one new housing unit was constructed. In California's coastal urban areas, (where the majority of job growth has occurred since the Great Recession), the disparity is greater: in the Bay Area, seven times as many jobs were created as housing units. By 2017, this resulted in the median price of a California home being over 2.5 times the median U.S. price. As a result, less than a third of Californians can afford a median priced home (nationally, slightly more than half can), 6 percentage points more residents are in poverty than would be with average housing costs (20% vs. 14%), homelessness per capita is the third highest in the nation, the state's economy is suppressed by $150–400 billion annually (5-14%), and long commutes.[8]
Several factors have together caused constraints on the construction of new housing: density restrictions (e.g. single-family zoning) and high land cost conspire to keep land and housing prices high; community involvement in the permitting process allows current residents who oppose new construction (often referred to as NIMBYs) to lobby their city council to deny new development; environmental laws are often abused by local residents and others to block or gain concessions from new development (making it more costly or too expensive to be profitable); and construction costs are greater because of high impact fees and required use of union labor.[9] The discretionary and burdensome regulatory framework for housing construction in California has created a fertile environment for political corruption, as local politicians take bribes and favors to help actors navigate the regulations.[10]
In recent years, the California legislature has passed several bills: some reduced the fees and bureaucracy involved in creating ADUs, while others have added fees to real-estate document recording to finance low-income housing; yet even the most optimistic projections find that relative to the scope of the problem, these will have minimal effect. In addition, proposed bills that would have legalized higher density development close to public transit failed in the legislature.[11] In 2019, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that deregulating the housing market would lead to rents falling by 55 percent in San Francisco, 40 percent in Los Angeles, and 40 percent in San Diego.[12]: 11,15
LAO_C&C
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).VOX_sb827
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).California ranks 49th among the 50 US states for housing units per capita.
"The depth of power that a council member has around development in their own districts almost facilitates the level of corruption that took place," Mr. Santana, now president of the California Community Foundation, said. "That level of power still exists today."
CEA_1
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).