California housing shortage

Since about 1970, California has been experiencing an extended and increasing housing shortage,[1]:3 such that by 2018, California ranked 49th among the United States in 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). Experts say 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.[5]

A tent city, a form of improvised housing, in Oakland, California

The cause is the imbalance between supply and demand;[6] the result of strong economic growth creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs (which increases demand for housing) and the insufficient construction of new housing units to provide enough supply to meet the demand. The imbalance is such that in last half-decade, in the Bay Area, seven times as many jobs were created as housing units, while statewide, for every five new residents, one new housing unit was constructed. This has increased home prices and rents, such that by 2017, the median price of a Californian home was over 2.5 times the median in the U.S. as a whole, and in California's coastal urban areas, (where the majority of job growth has occurred since the Great Recession), the shortages are greater.

Several factors have together caused constraints on the construction of new housing: 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); greater local tax revenues from hotels, commercial, and retail development vs. residential incentivize cities to permit less residential; density restrictions (e.g. single-family zoning) and high land cost conspire to keep land and housing prices high; and construction costs are greater because of high impact fees, and often developments are only approved if union labor is used.[7]

The shortage is taking its toll on Californians in multiple ways: less than a third can afford a median priced home (whereas nationally, slightly more than half can), more than 20 percent of residents are in poverty (6 percent more than would be with lower housing costs), homelessness per capita is now the third highest in the nation, California's economy is suppressed by $150 - $400 billion annually (5-14%) (because of lost construction activity, and money that residents must spend on housing cannot be spent on other consumer goods), and the displacement and suburban sprawl caused by high housing costs in the urban centers (where jobs are located) has resulted in several of California's cities being home to the largest share of super commuters in the nation, as well as hindering California's ability to meet its CO2 emissions goals.[8]

In 2016, President Obama issued a report which recommended that cities across the nation with high housing costs follow California's lead on reforming land use regulations by adopting many of California's attempted solutions to its housing shortage, in order to enable the opportunity for people at all income levels to access the jobs being created in growing cities.[9] Since then, the California legislature has passed several bills aimed at addressing the shortage: some reduced the fees and bureaucracy involved in creating ADUs, while others have added fees to real-estate document recording to be spent on low-income housing; yet even the highest projections suggest that relative to the scope of the problem, these changes will only have minimal effect. In addition, proposed bills that would have legalized higher density development close to public transit failed in the legislature.[10] In September 2019, the Trump Administration's Council of Economic Advisers released a report which estimated that deregulating the housing market would lead to rents falling by 55 percent in San Francisco, 41 percent in Los Angeles, and 39 percent in San Diego.[11]:11,15

Background
Median home prices for California and for the United States since 1940, in 2019 dollars[12][13][14]
New residents per new home by decade since 1940[15][16][17]

Issi Romem, an economist at the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley said:

"...as long as abundant new housing was built to accommodate those drawn to California, housing price growth was limited and the state's allure was channeled into population growth: From 1940 to 1970 California's population grew 242 percent faster than the national pace, while the growth of its median home value was only 16 percent faster than the nation's."[18]

Starting in 1970, three major forces caused housing prices to increase dramatically: increased concern for the environment, (which led to environmental laws and designating land for preservation and not development), land use restrictions limiting housing density (zoning many areas to single-family homes, or to at most two stories), and community involvement in the development process (which allows current—but not future—residents a say in land use decisions.)[18]:1

The result of these policies was that from 1970 to 2016, California's population growth (relative to the US average) slowed to a third of what it was during the previous three decades (70 percent faster than the national pace by 2016), while appreciation of median home prices (relative to the US average) more than quadrupled to 80 percent greater than the national rate.[18]:1 [1]:3

By 2016, the median price of a home in California, at $409,300, was more than twice the median price of a home in the U.S. as a whole, more expensive than any state other than Hawaii.[19] The shortage is statewide; from 2010 to 2017, the state added one new housing unit for every five new residents, and is pronounced in employment centers such as the Bay Area and Los Angeles.[20]:1[21]

The housing situation affects individuals differently, depending upon their circumstances. A person who has long since paid off a home mortgage has much lower costs than a renter or someone buying a first home. As of 2020, about 20 percent of California homeowners owned their homes free and clear, and 80 percent were still paying a mortgage.[22] As is typical, homeowners without a mortgage tend to have lower incomes (e.g., due to retirement) than homeowners without a mortgage.[22] California homeowners without a mortgage tend to spend almost 9% of their income on housing costs, including property taxes, which is slightly lower than the national average for homeowners without a mortgage.[22]

Causes

The cause is the imbalance between supply and demand;[23]:1[2]:1[1]:3[24]:1[25]:2[26]:1 a result of strong economic growth creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs (which increases demand for housing) and the insufficient construction of new housing units to provide enough supply to meet the demand.[27]:1[28]:1[29]:1[30][1]:14,17 [31]:1 For example, from 2012 to 2017, San Francisco Bay area cities added 400,000 new jobs, but only issued 60,000 permits for new housing units.[32]:1[26]:1[33]:1 (For California as a whole, from 2011 to 2016, the state added only one new housing unit for every five new residents.)[20]:1 This has driven home prices and rents to high levels, such that by 2017, the median price of a home across California was more than 2.5 times the median in the U.S. as a whole, and in California's coastal urban areas, (where the majority of job growth has occurred since the Great Recession), the shortages are greater.

The shortage has resulted from fewer housing units built in the urban and coastal areas relative to the demand created by economic growth in those areas, resulting in higher prices for housing and spillover to the inland areas.[1]:3

Community resistance (NIMBYism)

NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") resistance by existing residents to new development is a major contributor to the difficulty of developing new housing in the state.[34]:1[35]:1 People who already live in an area often perceive any new development or change as driving increased negative traffic and population impacts.[36]:1 Using various means (political pressure, protests, and voting power), NIMBYs try to keep newcomers out by defeating development projects in the local government permitting process, or slowing them down to the point that they become uneconomical for the builders.[1]:15[37][35]:1

Environmental laws

Environmental laws—primarily the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—can be a hurdle to housing development.[38]:1 CEQA requires the permitting agency, usually a local government, to review each new project in accordance with CEQA to provide a full disclosure of the project's impacts to the approval body (usually a planning commission or city council) and the public. Individual single-family homes are exempt, as well as some smaller multi-family projects, but most mid-size and larger projects must go through a Negative Declaration or EIR to provide the required level of disclosure of project impacts. The EIR process requires the developer to conduct studies and provide a report on a wide variety of impacts including traffic congestion, wildfire evacuation, fire safety, noise, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, biological resources, cultural resources and infrastructure impacts and develop a plan to help mitigate any impacts if any exist. The CEQA process is intended to make the approval process transparent to the public and decision-makers and takes place prior to a local government acting to permit a new development. Additionally, CEQA allows for legal challenges against the CEQA review process itself which may result in lawsuits by those who oppose the project and find the developer did not properly study the impacts from a project prior to the local government approving the project. Litigation is the main enforcement mechanism by which CEQA violations are mitigated. [1]:15 [39]:1 A report by the California Legislative Analyst's Office found that in the state's 10 largest cities, CEQA appeals delayed projects by an average of two and a half years. [40]:8 [35]:1

A 2015 study by Jennifer Hernandez and others at the environmental and land-use law firm Holland & Knight, [41]:21 looking at all CEQA lawsuits filed during the three-year period 2010-2012, found that less than 15% were filed by groups with prior records of environmental advocacy. [42]:1 [41]:24 This study also found that four of five CEQA lawsuits targeted infill development projects; only 20 percent of CEQA lawsuits were targeted at "greenfield" projects that would develop open space. [42]:1

Carol Galante, a professor of Affordable Housing and Urban Policy at the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, who served in the Obama Administration as the Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), [43]:1 stated that "It (CEQA) has been abused in this state for 30 years by people who use it when it has nothing to do with an environmental reason, ... NIMBY-ism is connected to the fact that for everyone who owns their little piece of the dream, there's no reason to want development next door to them, CEQA gives them a tool to effectuate their interest ... We need to fundamentally rethink how the CEQA process works in this state." [44]:1 [38]:1

In an interview with UCLA's Blueprint magazine, Governor Jerry Brown commented on the use of CEQA for other than environmental reasons: "But it's easier to build in Texas. It is. And maybe we could change that. But you know what? The trouble is the political climate, that's just kind of where we are. Very hard to — you can't change CEQA [the California Environmental Quality Act]. BP: Why not? JB: The unions won't let you because they use it as a hammer to get project labor agreements." [45] [46]:1

While CEQA's original intent must remain intact, now is the time to end reckless abuses of this important law – abuses that are threatening California's economic vitality, costing jobs and wasting valuable taxpayer dollars. ... Today, CEQA is too often abused by those seeking to gain a competitive edge, to leverage concessions from a project or by neighbors who simply don't want any new growth in their community – no matter how worthy or environmentally beneficial a project may be. - Former Governors George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Gray Davis in a 2013 editorial in The Sacramento Bee[47]:1

A CEQA study (commissioned by the Rose Foundation, [48]:2 an environmental advocacy group) done by BAE Urban Economics, estimated that 0.7% of all CEQA projects with review documents had been subject to litigation, for the years 2013-2015. [48]:22 In San Francisco, the attorney general's office, during an 18-month audit of CEQA in 2012, found that 0.3% of (non-exempt) CEQA projects were subject to lawsuits.[49]

Tax structures

Partially because Proposition 13 limits the property tax that local and state governments can collect, cities are incentivized to permit commercial development rather than residential development. Commercial development can potentially yield both sales tax revenue (car dealerships and shopping malls are examples of favored development due to their density of revenue), as well as business tax revenue (many cities levy either a payroll tax or a gross-receipts tax on all businesses located within their boundaries).[40]:7

Residential development is typically seen as a net loss to a city's budget due to costs associated with service delivery (public safety, roads, parks, etc.) to residents exceeding the tax revenue received from those residents.[1]:15 For example, the city of Brisbane, when considering developing a greenfield, (Brisbane Baylands development) was told that a housing-heavy development would bring in $1 million annually in additional income for the town, but a commercial development with no housing and a larger hotel would bring in $9 million annually—and that without building hotels, the development would be a net loss to the city budget.[50][51]

High land cost and low density

High land cost and low-density development with very small increases in housing density, which in turn keep land prices high.[1]:12 The Sacramento Bee notes that residential land prices are more than 600% greater in coastal California than the average of America's other large metropolitan areas.[52]

Coastal Commission

With quasi-judicial authority over zoning on the coast statewide, the California Coastal Commission is an added hurdle for citizens and cities seeking to build housing. The state agency recently blocked 175 infill units in Downtown Santa Cruz,[53] up to 400 apartment units in Ventura County,[54] and was originally formed in opposition to the builders of the utopian coastal community Sea Ranch. University of California researchers documented that quality-adjusted homes inside the Commission’s jurisdiction are 20% more expensive than those just outside it[55] and that the Commission increased housing prices by restricting supply.[56] The Commission has levied million-dollar fines on California families for insufficient permits.[57][58]

Construction costs

The higher cost of construction due to government fees, labor, and materials:

  • Greater government-imposed development fees for building a single-family home than in the rest of the country. (The California Legislative Analyst's Office reported it to be 266% greater, $22k vs. $6k).[1]:14 For example, the developer planning to redevelop the site of a former Naval Hospital in Oakland with a residential community of 935 homes will be paying $20M (= $21k / home) in fees to the City of Oakland's affordable housing fund.[59]
  • Higher cost of labor, because of both prevailing wage laws and that often projects are only approved if union labor is used. (Estimated at 20% more by the California LAO.)[1]:13[60][61] The contribution of prevailing wage requirements to total construction cost has been estimated to be as large as a 40 percent increase.[62]:1
  • Higher material costs, due to building codes and standards requiring better quality materials and higher energy efficiency.[1]:13

Effects

Affordability
Housing Affordability Index for California and Santa Clara County since 1991[63]

This shortage has driven home prices and rents to extremely high levels.[64] In 2017, the median price of a home in California was more than 2.5 times the median in the U.S. as a whole, and in California's coastal urban areas, the shortage was greater than the inland areas, as demonstrated by the median prices of homes in those respective markets: $1.3M in San Francisco, $1M in San Jose, and $600k in Los Angeles, while only $250k in Fresno.[65][66][67] In the rental market, California now has the lowest vacancy rate the state has ever seen, at 3.6%;[68] and while the median rent throughout the state for a two-bedroom apartment is $2,400, the median rent in coastal urban areas is even higher, surpassing $4,000 per month in San Francisco.[69]:1

Housing affordability has declined over the last three decades; as of 2018, less than a third of Californians could afford a median-priced home; in job centers such as the San Francisco Bay Area, that number is less than a quarter. (Nationally, more than half of American households can afford the median-priced American home.)[63] Housing unaffordability also leads to crowding, defined as more than one adult per room of a dwelling (counting two children as one adult). Californians are four times as likely to live in crowded housing as the average American, and this holds across every type of housing—renters, owners, those with and without children.[1]:29-31

When comparing the rental rates of Los Angeles and the average rate across the United States one can see just how much higher the city is compared to the rest of the country.  While in 2017 the average rental rate in the United States was $1,357, in comparison the average rental rate in Los Angeles in 2017 was $2,284, almost a $1,000 average increase.

Displacement and environmental impact

As a result, workers have moved to more affordable inland locations which requires longer commutes. As of 2018, the three cities in the United States with the largest share of super commuters—workers spending an hour and a half or more each way to get to and from their jobs—are Stockton, Modesto and Riverside.[70][71]:1 Workers have been displaced outside of the state as well; from 2007 to 2016, California saw net out-migration among all groups making under $110,000 a year, largely to Sun Belt states like Arizona, Nevada and Texas.[72]

Longer commutes and increased traffic caused by suburban sprawl due to housing shortages concentrated in job centers increase greenhouse gas emissions. Because of California's mild climate and heavily renewable energy mix, transportation is the largest category of emissions in the state.[73] When Californians emigrate to states with higher per-capita greenhouse gas emissions, they drive more, consume more energy for air conditioning, and use more fossil fuel-dependent electricity generation. The New York Times notes how scarce, low-density housing is directly at odds with California's stated climate goals.[74]:1

Scientists at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley recently found that infill development, that is utilizing existing vacant urban structures for future housing or commercial use, has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions; more so than any other option. Simply put, creating a denser housing structure limits the amount of travel time from work to home and back, thus limiting CO2 emissions drastically. At governor Gavin Newsom's first legislative session, he pledged to make the housing crisis one of his top priorities. One such solution is the More Homes Act, which overrides restrictive zoning requirements by implementing small to midsize apartment buildings near major job and transit centers.[75][76][77]

Poverty

When the cost of housing is factored into the poverty rate, as the Census Bureau now does in its releases of the "Supplemental Poverty Measure,"[78] California's poverty rate lists as the highest in the nation, (and has since 2011, when the Census Bureau first started releasing poverty by this measure) currently at 20.4%, or just over 1 in 5 people.[79]:1 [80] The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that if the housing costs in California matched those for the nation overall, California's poverty rate would instead be 14 percent.[79]:1

Homelessness
A homeless person sleeps on the sidewalk next to a limousine in the Mission area of San Francisco.

California in 2017 is home to an oversized share of the nation's homeless: 22%, for a state whose residents only make up 12% of the country's total population.[25]:1 [81] The Sacramento Bee notes that large cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco both attribute their increases in homeless to the housing shortage.[81][82]:1 Homeless persons in California now number 135,000 (a 15% increase from 2015).[68]

A study by the California Housing Partnership found that from 2016-2017 homelessness increased by 47 percent in Sacramento County (home to the state's capital, Sacramento), 36 percent in Alameda County, and 13 percent in Santa Clara County.[20]:1

Nationwide, California ranks third for the most homeless persons per capita, behind New York and Hawaii.[83][82]

In September 2019, the Trump Administration's Council of Economic Advisers released a report in which they stated that deregulation of the housing markets would reduce homelessness in some of the most constrained markets by estimates of 54 percent in San Francisco, 40 percent in Los Angeles,[11]:1 and 38 percent in San Diego, because rents would fall by 55%, 41%, and 39% respectively.[11]:14,16

Economy

A 2017 study[84] by Nobel Laureate in economics Edward Prescott, Lee Ohanian (senior fellow at the Hoover Institution), and Kyle Herkenhoff, estimates that if California were to roll back its land use regulations to where they stood in 1980, the state's GDP could permanently increase by almost $400 billion (a 14% increase).[30] "If every state rolled back land regulations to 1980 levels, [total US] GDP could rise by as much as $1.8 trillion [9%]."[30][85]:1

A McKinsey Global Institute report estimates that the housing shortage is costing the California economy between 143 and 233 billion dollars per year, from lost construction activity (at least $85 billion annually), lower consumption of consumer goods because of high housing costs (at least $53 billion annually) and the costs of providing services to the increased number of homeless persons (at least $5 billion per year).[86][87][69]:1[35]:1

Quantifying the shortage
Persons per housing unit for California and for the United States since 1940[15][17][16]

Estimated under-supply of housing units

The California Legislative Analyst's Office 2015 report "California's High Housing Costs - Causes and Consequences" estimates that for the state to have kept housing prices no more than 80% higher than the median for the U.S. as a whole (the price differential which existed in 1980, as opposed to the >150% differential which exists today), California would have needed to add approximately 210,000 new housing units each year over the past three decades (1980-2010), rather than the 120,000 / year which were built. Their midpoint estimate of the underbuilding for the last three decades is 90,000 units per year, an estimated shortage of 2.7 million housing units (20%) by 2010.[1]:21

Since 2010, the state's construction of new housing units has averaged well below 90,000 units per year.[88] It took a drop after the 2008 Great Recession, but has increased to about 90,000 / year in 2016.[88][89]

In September 2017, a team of economists from UCLA Anderson Forecast, lead by Jerry Nickelsburg, predicted that "it would take 20 percent more housing to achieve a 10 percent reduction in prices. Such a reduction throughout California would bring costs down roughly to 2014 levels..."[90] In a 2018 UCLA Anderson Forecast report, economist Nickelsburg estimated the shortage at 3 million units.[91]:1

In October 2017, lieutenant governor and gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom said that California should set a goal to produce 3.5 million new homes by 2025. This would require a quadrupling of the current rate of building to almost 400,000 units per year, a rate the state has not experienced since 1954.[92] [93]:1[94]

In April 2018, state Senator Scott Wiener, author of several bills to reduce the housing shortage, estimated it at 4 million units.[95]

Increase in housing production needed

Experts say that California needs to double its current rate of housing production (85,000 units per year) just 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 7 years in order to for prices and rents to decline.[23]:1[96]:1[86][25][1]:21[27]:1[97]:1

Ratio of residents and jobs to housing units
Jobs per housing unit for California and for the United States since 1980[15][16][98][99]

In 2018, California ranked 49th among the United States in housing units per resident.[2]:1[3]

While some people claim that a "healthy" ratio of jobs to housing units is around two, many California metros are far from that, with San Diego at 3.9, Los Angeles at 4.7, and San Francisco at 6.8.[24]:1

Responses

Federal

In a September 2016 report from the Executive Office of the President of the United States titled "Housing Development Toolkit",[100]:2 [101]:1[102]:1[103]:1[104]:1[85]:1 the authors cited several of California state and localities' attempted legislative fixes for the housing shortage as models that it recommends other states and localities also follow to abate their housing shortages,[100]:12 including:

  • establish by-right development,[100]:14
  • tax vacant land or donate it to non-profit developers,[100]:15
  • streamline or shorten permitting processes and timelines,[100]:16
  • eliminate off-street parking requirements,[100]:17
  • allow accessory dwelling units,[100]:17 and
  • establish density bonuses.[100]:18

The report also highlighted one of President Obama's remarks to the U.S. Conference of Mayors on January 21, 2016:

We can work together to break down rules that stand in the way of building new housing and that keep families from moving to growing, dynamic cities.

2016 Legislative session

In September 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2406, AB 2299, and SB 1069, all of which reduce the cost and bureaucracy needed to construct an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit), also known as a "granny flat" or "in-law unit".[105] The Bay Area Council notes that if only 10 percent of the Bay Area's 1.5 million single family homeowners build ADU's, that would create 150,000 units of new housing.[106]

This change resulted in dramatic increases in applications for ADU building permits; Los Angeles saw 25 times as many applications in the 2017 calendar year than it did in the previous two years combined.[107]:1

2017 Legislative session

In the 2017 legislative session, a package of 15 housing bills was passed. One bill legalizes microapartments as small as 150 sq. ft. and prohibits cities from limiting their numbers near universities or public transit;[108]:1 another (SB 2) adds a $75 real-estate document recording fee (for everything other than property sales), which is projected to generate $250 million per year for affordable housing construction.[108]:1[109]:1[110]:1 The total 2017 housing package is expected to have only a minimal impact on the shortage, because even the most optimistic predictions suggest that the measures will increase yearly housing production by about 14,000 units per year, still well short (14%) of the additional 100,000 new units needed yearly (in addition to the 80,000 being produced yearly) just to keep pace with population growth and prevent prices from rising.[35]:1[110]:1[36]:1

Senate Bill 35
Main article: California Senate Bill 35 (2017)

Another bill was Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), authored by state Senator Scott Wiener which shortens the approval process by eliminating environmental and planning reviews for new infill housing in cities which have failed to meet their state housing production goals. The state sets goals for production of different types of housing: market-rate, low-income, etc., (to keep up with expected population growth) and this law applies only to development types for which the city is not meeting its production goal. To make use of the streamlined approval process, the developer must pay prevailing wage and abide by union-standard hiring rules.[108]:1[109]:1[110]:1[111][112] Wiener said, "Local control is about how a community achieves its housing goals, not whether it achieves those goals.... SB 35 sets clear and reasonable standards to ensure that all communities are part of the solution by creating housing for our growing population."[111] SB 35 has been used, for example, to redevelop the derelict Vallco Shopping Mall in Cupertino into a mixed-use development containing 2,402 apartments, half of them affordable, with no government subsidies, which will quintuple Cupertino's affordable housing stock.[113]:1[114]:1[115]:1[116]

Senate Bills 827 and 50
Main article: California Senate Bill 50 (2019)

In 2018, Senator Wiener introduced SB 827, which would have required localities to allow buildings of at least 4 or 8 stories within a half-mile of a high-frequency transit stop, or within a quarter-mile of a bus or transit corridor, as well as waiving minimum parking requirements in those areas.[2]:1 The bill was controversial, being opposed both by local governments concerned about the loss of local control of zoning, and by anti-gentrification activists concerned about displacement.[117] The bill was supported by a group of scholars who stated that it would help reduce decades of racial and economic residential segregation,[118][119]:1-2[120]:1 as well as pro-housing groups nationally, and by over 100 San Francisco Bay area technology industry executives who voiced their support of the bill in a joint letter.[121]

Regarding the issue of local control, Wiener said: "In education and healthcare, the state sets basic standards, and local control exists within those standards. Only in housing has the state abdicated its role. But housing is a statewide issue, and the approach of pure local control has driven us into the ditch."[36] Anti-displacement provisions were inserted in response to gentrification concerns. It was subsequently defeated in its first committee hearing.[122][123]

In December 2018, Senator Wiener introduced a similar bill for the following legislative session, SB 50, which was defeated in a senate floor vote in 2020.

Other efforts

Since 2014, several YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) groups have been created in the San Francisco Bay Area.[124][125] These groups lobby both locally and in Sacramento for increased housing production at all price levels, as well as using California's Housing Accountability Act ("the anti-NIMBY law")[124]:1 [125]:1 to sue cities when they attempt to block or downsize housing development.[124] One activist, in a comment to the San Francisco Planning Commission supporting the construction of a new 75-unit mostly market rate housing development stated that: "The 100 or so higher income people, who are not going to live in this project if it isn't built, are going to live somewhere...They will just displace someone somewhere else, because demand doesn't disappear."[126]

As a way to rapidly create inexpensive housing, a Bay-Area startup company converts 8' x 20' shipping containers into homes for as little as $8,000, though due to expensive ($3,000 - $5,000 for a permit) and restrictive zoning in many cities, has found it hard to find locations that will allow the homes.[127]

There are over 400,000 deed or use-restricted affordable housing units in California which were built with the provision that they remain affordable for the following decades (generally between 30 and 55 years) in exchange for subsidies.[128] The state's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates that there are more than 35,000 units whose affordability requirement will expire by 2021 and that many of these will likely be converted to market rent units. HCD has made the preservation of these units as affordable housing a priority.

Under the federal government's Section 8 voucher system, residents pay 30% of their salary and the Housing Authority pays the difference of the rental cost.[129] As indicated by Metcalf (2018), "In 2015, 2.2 million households, comprising 5 million people, used rental vouchers to secure housing in the private market" though these figures are for the entire United States.[129] Unlike other public assistance programs (such as SNAP or Medicaid) there are only a limited number of Section 8 vouchers, meaning that most people who apply and qualify for the program are not able to participate in the program, and instead are placed on a wait lists for years.[130] The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles closed its Section 8 wait list for over a decade due to high demand, and only reopened in 2017.[131]

See also

References
  1. Taylor, Mac (March 17, 2015). California's High Housing Costs - Causes and Consequences (PDF) (Report). California Legislative Analyst's Office. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 6, 2015. Retrieved October 26, 2017.
  2. Roberts, David (February 23, 2018). "A sweeping new bill targets California's housing crisis". Vox Media. Archived from the original on March 1, 2018. Retrieved March 1, 2018.
  3. "A TOOL KIT TO CLOSE CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING GAP". McKinsey Global Institute. October 1, 2016. Archived from the original on November 5, 2016. Retrieved March 1, 2018. California ranks 49th among the 50 US states for housing units per capita.
  4. Annual Estimates of Housing Units for the United States, Regions, Divisions, States, and Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 (Report). United States Census Bureau. July 1, 2017. Archived from the original on February 13, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2018.
  5. See the section on Increase in housing production needed for sources.
  6. See the section on Causes for the references supporting that "supply and demand" is the fundamental cause of this shortage.
  7. See the section on Causes for a more thorough explanation of these issues with all sources cited.
  8. See the section on Effects for a more thorough explanation of these issues with all sources cited.
  9. See the section on Federal Response for more detail about these recommendations and attempted solutions, with all sources cited.
  10. See the section on State Responses for more detail about the above-mentioned legislation, with all sources cited.
  11. "The State of Homelessness in America" (PDF). Council of Economic Advisers. September 1, 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 18, 2019. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  12. U.S. Census Bureau (June 1, 2000). "Historical Census of Housing Tables Home Values". Retrieved June 13, 2018.
  13. U.S. Census Bureau. "MEDIAN HOUSING VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS". American Community Survey. Archived from the original on February 13, 2020. Retrieved June 13, 2018.
  14. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved January 1, 2020.
  15. "Table 12-13". United States Summary: 2010 Population and Housing Unit Counts (PDF). United States Census Bureau. 2012. p. 30. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
  16. Annual Estimates of Housing Units for the United States, Regions, Divisions, States, and Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 (Report). United States Census Bureau. July 1, 2017. Archived from the original on February 13, 2020. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
  17. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 (Report). United States Census Bureau. July 1, 2017. Archived from the original on February 15, 2020. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
  18. Romem, Issi (March 28, 2018). "California's Housing Prices Need to Come Down". CityLab - The Atlantic Monthly. Archived from the original on March 30, 2018. Retrieved May 3, 2018.
  19. "MEDIAN HOUSING VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS (DOLLARS)". American Fact Finder. U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. Archived from the original on February 13, 2020. Retrieved June 17, 2018.
  20. Chronicle Editorial Board (May 11, 2018). "Editorial: The Bay Area's housing crisis has become an emergency". The San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on May 15, 2018. Retrieved May 15, 2018.
  21. Malas, Nour (March 19, 2019). "California Has the Jobs but Not Enough Homes". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved March 19, 2019.
  22. Lansner, Jonathan (June 24, 2020). "1-in-5 California homeowners live mortgage-free". The Mercury News. Retrieved June 25, 2020.
  23. Levin, Matt (May 4, 2018). "5 Reasons California's Housing Costs Are So High". KQED. Archived from the original on May 5, 2018. Retrieved September 24, 2018.
  24. Schneider, Benjamin (March 5, 2018). "In California, Momentum Builds for Radical Action on Housing". CityLab - The Atlantic Monthly. Archived from the original on May 3, 2018. Retrieved May 25, 2018.
  25. Bates, Lisa; Seeger, Jennifer; Kirkeby, Megan; Coy, Melinda; Anixter, Harrison (February 1, 2018). California's Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities - Final Statewide Housing Assessment 2025 (PDF) (Report). California Department of Housing and Community Development. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 4, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  26. Dillon, Liam (April 14, 2016). "California doesn't have enough housing, and lawmakers aren't doing much about it". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on May 4, 2016. Retrieved December 17, 2018.
  27. Collins, Jeff (April 13, 2018). "5 ways to solve California's housing crisis". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on May 7, 2018. Retrieved April 17, 2019.
  28. Dillon, Liam (October 21, 2018). "Experts say California needs to build a lot more housing. But the public disagrees". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on November 1, 2018. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  29. Cutler, Kim-Mai (April 14, 2014). "How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists (Or SF's Housing Crisis Explained)". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on April 30, 2014. Retrieved December 11, 2017.
  30. Ohanian, Lee; Prescott, Edward (December 1, 2017). "What in the Sam Hill Are Cows Doing on Sand Hill Road? They're eating the priciest grass in America, thanks to California's out-of-control land-use rules". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on January 6, 2018. Retrieved May 23, 2018. If California rolled back its land rules to where they stood in 1980, our research estimates that the state's population could ultimately grow to 18% of the country. U.S. gross domestic product could permanently increase by about 2%, or $375 billion. If every state rolled back land regulations to 1980 levels, GDP could rise by as much as $1.8 trillion. Note: This article is behind a paywall.
  31. Nagourney, Adam; Dougherty, Conor (July 17, 2017). "The Cost of a Hot Economy in California: A Severe Housing Crisis". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 11, 2017. Retrieved November 2, 2017.
  32. Clark, Patrick (June 23, 2017). "Why Can't They Build More Homes Where the Jobs Are?". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on August 28, 2017. Retrieved December 1, 2017.
  33. Swan, Rachel (December 19, 2018). "Ambitious plan to ease Bay Area housing crunch draws heat, but passes". The San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on December 20, 2018. Retrieved December 20, 2018.
  34. Hart, Angela; Murphy, Katy (September 28, 2018). "Will rent control kill California housing production? Not necessarily, data shows". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on September 29, 2018. Retrieved October 17, 2018.
  35. Levin, Matt; Christopher, Ben (August 21, 2017). "Californians: Here's why your housing costs are so high". CalMatters.org. Archived from the original on September 29, 2017. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  36. Hiltzik, Michael (March 29, 2018). "California's housing crisis reaches from the homeless to the middle class — but it's still almost impossible to fix". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on March 31, 2018. Retrieved June 27, 2018.
  37. Dougherty, Conor (December 1, 2017). "The Great American Single-Family Home Problem". The New York Times Company. Archived from the original on December 4, 2017. Retrieved December 5, 2017. Around the country, many fast-growing metropolitan areas are facing a brutal shortage of affordable places to live, leading to gentrification, homelessness, even disease. As cities struggle to keep up with demand, they have remade their skylines with condominium and apartment towers — but single-family neighborhoods, where low-density living is treated as sacrosanct, have rarely been part of the equation.
  38. Dillon, Liam (September 25, 2017). "Which California megaprojects get breaks from complying with environmental law? Sometimes, it depends on the project". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on October 3, 2017. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  39. Dillon, Liam (January 28, 2019). "California construction workers, builders are near deal that could mean a flood of new building". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 30, 2019. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  40. Taylor, Mac (May 18, 2016). "Considering Changes to Streamline Local Housing Approvals" (PDF). California Legislative Analyst's Office. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 22, 2016. Retrieved April 6, 2019.
  41. Hernandez, Jennifer (December 1, 2018). "California Environmental Quality Act Lawsuits and California's Housing Crisis" (PDF). Hastings Environmental Law Journal. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 23, 2018. Retrieved December 23, 2018.
  42. Hernandez, Jennifer (December 21, 2015). "New CEQA Study Reveals Widespread Abuse of Legal Process by 'Non-Environmentalists'". 'The Planning Report' - planningreport.com. Archived from the original on December 24, 2015. Retrieved December 23, 2018.
  43. "Carol Galante". Archived from the original on October 9, 2016. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
  44. Johnson, Chip (March 10, 2016). "Bay Area housing crisis fueled by greed, study finds". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on April 4, 2016. Retrieved September 20, 2018.
  45. Newton, Jim (May 1, 2016). "Gov. Jerry Brown: The Long Struggle For The Good Cause - Jerry Brown has been fighting for the environment for decades. He reflects on that history". UCLA Blueprint. Archived from the original on May 24, 2016. Retrieved December 23, 2018.
  46. Dillon, Liam (July 20, 2016). "Why construction unions are fighting Gov. Jerry Brown's plan for more housing". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on August 10, 2016. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  47. Deukmejian, George; Wilson, Pete; Davis, Gray (February 3, 2013). "Viewpoints: Preserve CEQA's goals, end its abuses". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on February 12, 2013. Retrieved May 24, 2019.
  48. Smith-Heimer, Janet (August 1, 2016). "CEQA in the 21st Century" (PDF). rosefdn.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
  49. Office of the Attorney General, "Quantifying the Rate of Litigation Under the California Environmental Quality Act: A Case Study," 2012
  50. Dillon, Liam (July 28, 2017). "A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 sorely needed homes. Here's why it won't happen". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on September 1, 2017. Retrieved June 16, 2018.
  51. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (March 2016). "Preliminary Assessment of Fiscal Impacts: Brisbane Baylands" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on August 22, 2017. Retrieved June 16, 2018.
  52. Hart, Angela (August 21, 2017). "How California's housing crisis happened". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on October 1, 2017. Retrieved January 28, 2018. Residential property is valued at a staggering $150,000 per acre or more in California's coastal regions, compared to $20,000 per acre, on average, in other large metropolitan areas of the country.
  53. Meyberg Guzman, Kara (December 6, 2020). "Coastal Commission, Santa Cruz staff clash on housing proposal". Santa Cruz Local. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
  54. Wilson, Kathleen (August 13, 2020). "Fisherman's Wharf project derailed with Coastal Commission defeat". Ventura County Star. Retrieved December 26, 2020.
  55. "The Housing Market Effects of Discrete Land Use Regulations: Evidence from the California Coastal Boundary Zone". Journal of Housing Economics, UCLA School of Law. February 10, 2011. Retrieved January 18, 2021.
  56. "The effect of the California Coastal Commission on housing prices". Journal of Urban Economics. July 27, 1983. Retrieved January 18, 2021.
  57. Smith, Doug (August 24, 1997). "A blow against bureaucracy: A couple who built a small house with their own hands ended up with criminal records and a $1.5-million fine, but now they've won". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
  58. "IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE, 11 LAGUNITA, LLC et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant". The Court Of Appeal Of The State Of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three. December 12, 2020. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
  59. Veklerov, Kimberly (June 24, 2016). "Massive development may come to long-blighted East Oakland site". The San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on June 24, 2017. Retrieved November 10, 2017. And though SunCal would eventually pay almost $20 million in fees to a city affordable housing fund, all of the 935 homes would be sold at market rate,...
  60. Saltsman, Michael (June 5, 2016). "Unions' fight against affordable housing". The Orange County Register. Archived from the original on November 8, 2017. Retrieved November 7, 2017.
  61. Li, Roland (October 26, 2016). "Housing development's latest enemy: Bay Area construction unions". San Francisco Business Times. Archived from the original on June 29, 2017. Retrieved January 7, 2018. Angered by some developers' attempts to use cheaper non-union labor, Bay Area construction unions have filed appeals challenging projects' approvals and allied themselves with community groups who oppose the projects for different reasons. Labor groups are also fighting policies that supporters say would help address the region's housing crisis, such as more use of modular housing and streamlined project approvals. It's a high-stakes game: Unions say the appeals give them leverage to pressure developers to commit to using union labor and to hire locally.
  62. Dillon, Liam (May 12, 2017). "Here's how construction worker pay is dominating California's housing debate". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on June 1, 2017. Retrieved May 9, 2019.
  63. "Housing Affordability Index - Traditional". California Association of Realtors. Retrieved June 16, 2018. C.A.R.'s Traditional Housing Affordability Index (HAI) measures the percentage of households that can afford to purchase the median priced home in the state and regions of California based on traditional assumptions.
  64. Khouri, Andrew (May 26, 2019). "A little-noticed zoning twist is set to spark a home-building boom in L.A." Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  65. Scheinin, Richard (November 16, 2017). "As housing supply shrinks, San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland are nation's three most competitive markets". Bay Area News Group. Archived from the original on November 17, 2017. Retrieved November 19, 2017.
  66. Romero, Dennis (March 27, 2017). "A Middle-of-the-Road L.A. Home Now Costs Nearly $600,000". LA Weekly. Archived from the original on June 11, 2017. Retrieved November 19, 2017.
  67. Lee, Bonhia (August 9, 2017). "How much do you have to make to buy a home in Fresno?". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on August 10, 2017. Retrieved November 19, 2017.
  68. Fagan, Kevin; Graham, Alison (September 8, 2017). "California's homelessness crisis expands to country". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on September 11, 2017. Retrieved December 12, 2017. With the county's rental vacancy rate hovering around 1 percent — California's is 3.6 percent, an all-time low for the state —
  69. Levin, Matt (August 28, 2017). "California's housing crisis – it's even worse than you think". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on August 30, 2017. Retrieved November 2, 2017.
  70. Bennet, Sydney (April 24, 2018). "Rise of the Super Commuters". Rentonomics. Retrieved June 16, 2018.
  71. Dougherty, Conor; Burton, Andrew (August 17, 2017). "A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M. - Like many in the housing-starved San Francisco region, Sheila James has moved far inland, gaining affordable space at the price of a brutal commute". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 20, 2017. Retrieved September 27, 2018.
  72. Uhler, Brian; Garosi, Justin (February 21, 2018). "California Losing Residents Via Domestic Migration [EconTax Blog]". Legislative Analyst's Office. Retrieved June 16, 2018.
  73. California Air Resources Board (June 6, 2017). "California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory". Retrieved June 16, 2018.
  74. Dougherty, Conor; Plumer, Brad (March 16, 2018). "A Bold, Divisive Plan to Wean Californians From Cars". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 7, 2018. Retrieved June 16, 2018.
  75. Wiener, Scott; Kammen, Daniel (March 25, 2019). "Opinion | Why Housing Policy Is Climate Policy (Published 2019)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved November 18, 2020.
  76. June 30; Bergöö, 2020 Bettina. "We Must Invest in Climate-Ready Affordable Housing Now". NRDC. Retrieved November 18, 2020.
  77. "HCD Policy: Housing and Climate Change". www.hcd.ca.gov. Retrieved November 18, 2020.
  78. "Supplemental Poverty Measure". United States Census Bureau. March 16, 2017. Retrieved January 4, 2018. The official poverty measure, which has been in use since the 1960s, estimates poverty rates by looking at a family's or an individual's cash income. The new measure is a more complex statistic incorporating additional items such as tax payments and work expenses in its family resource estimates. Thresholds used in the new measure are derived from Consumer Expenditure Survey expenditure data on basic necessities (food, shelter, clothing and utilities) and are adjusted for geographic differences in the cost of housing.
  79. Levin, Matt (September 28, 2017). "How sky-high housing costs make California the poorest state". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on September 28, 2017. Retrieved November 9, 2017.
  80. Huang, Josie (September 12, 2017). "California's housing costs are driving its No. 1 poverty ranking". Southern California Public Radio. Archived from the original on October 5, 2017. Retrieved November 7, 2017.
  81. Hart, Angela (August 21, 2017). "How California's housing crisis happened". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on October 1, 2017. Retrieved January 28, 2018. California is home to 12 percent of the U.S. population, but 22 percent of its homeless people. Cities that have seen dramatic rent increases, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, attribute their spikes in homelessness directly to a state housing shortage that has led to an unprecedented affordability crisis.
  82. Kushel, Margot (June 14, 2018). "Why there are so many unsheltered homeless people on the West Coast". The Conversation. Archived from the original on July 10, 2018. Retrieved October 31, 2018.
  83. Nichols, Chris (March 27, 2018). "Has California's homeless population 'skyrocketed'? And how does it rate nationwide?". PolitiFact California. Archived from the original on April 2, 2018. Retrieved May 24, 2018. California has the third highest rate nationally with 34 in every 10,000 people in the state experiencing homelessness. Two states are worse off: New York and Hawaii. New York ranks second with 45 homeless people per 10,000. Hawaii, meanwhile, ranks first with 51 per 10,000.
  84. Herkenhoff, Kyle; Ohanian, Lee; Prescott, Edward (November 9, 2017). "Tarnishing the golden and empire states: Land-use restrictions and the U.S. economic slowdown" (PDF). Journal of Monetary Economics. 93: 89–109. doi:10.1016/j.jmoneco.2017.11.001.
  85. Florida, Richard (October 26, 2017). "The Flip Side of NIMBY Zoning". CityLab. Archived from the original on December 28, 2017. Retrieved October 6, 2018.
  86. "A TOOL KIT TO CLOSE CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING GAP:3.5 MILLION HOMES BY 2025". McKinsey Global Institute. October 1, 2016. Archived from the original on November 4, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  87. Smith, Kevin (January 4, 2017). "California needs to build a staggering number of homes and we are way behind". Pasadena Star-News. Archived from the original on January 23, 2018. Retrieved January 22, 2018. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that California's housing shortage is costing the state $143 billion to $233 billion in lost economic output, primarily from consumption that's crowded out by high housing costs and lost construction activity.
  88. Khouri, Andrew (May 1, 2017). "Housing construction is on the rise in California, but it's still not enough". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on May 10, 2017. Retrieved November 5, 2017.
  89. Coy, Peter (February 11, 2019). "America Isn't Building Enough New Housing". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved February 11, 2019.
  90. Fimrite, Peter (September 27, 2017). "Report: To cut housing prices 10 percent, California needs 20 percent more units". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on October 4, 2017. Retrieved February 21, 2018.
  91. Chiland, Elijah (June 14, 2018). "Can LA build its way out of its housing crisis? - It may not be easy". Curbed. Archived from the original on June 15, 2018. Retrieved October 31, 2018.
  92. Dillon, Liam (October 23, 2017). "Gavin Newsom calls for California to nearly quadruple its annual housing production". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on February 2, 2018. Retrieved June 1, 2018.
  93. Dillon, Liam (March 12, 2019). "Newsom delays threat to block transportation funds to cities that flunk housing goals". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on March 23, 2019. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  94. "Editorial: Gavin Newsom tells Southern California to plan for housing. A lot more housing". Los Angeles Times. September 2, 2019. Retrieved September 4, 2019.
  95. Dillon, Liam (April 17, 2018). "California lawmakers killed one of the biggest housing bills in the country". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on April 23, 2018. Retrieved April 23, 2018. Wiener said the bill would help the state reduce a shortage of homes he has estimated at 4 million.
  96. Dillon, Liam (June 29, 2017). "California lawmakers have tried for 50 years to fix the state's housing crisis. Here's why they've failed". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on August 1, 2017. Retrieved April 16, 2019.
  97. Garofoli, Joe (May 17, 2019). "Wealthy Bay Area suburb gets housing religion: It's allowing 11 affordable units". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on May 19, 2019. Retrieved May 20, 2019.
  98. Economy at a Glance - California (Report). United States Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics. November 4, 2017. Retrieved November 4, 2017.
  99. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (Report). United States Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics. November 4, 2017. Retrieved November 4, 2017.
  100. "Housing Development Toolkit" (PDF). Executive Office of the President of the United States. September 1, 2016. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 1, 2016. Retrieved September 17, 2018.
  101. Woellert, Lorraine (September 26, 2016). "Obama takes on zoning laws in bid to build more housing, spur growth". Politico. Archived from the original on October 1, 2016. Retrieved September 17, 2018.
  102. Walker, Alissa (September 28, 2016). "Obama's new housing toolkit aims to make cities more affordable - Wealthy communities have pulled up the 'ladders of opportunity' from lower-income residents, says the White House". Curbed. Archived from the original on November 3, 2016. Retrieved September 17, 2018.
  103. Grabar, Henry (September 26, 2016). "The Obama Administration Is Finally Targeting the NIMBY Nonsense That's Made Cities Unaffordable". Slate. Archived from the original on October 1, 2016. Retrieved September 17, 2018.
  104. Beyer, Scott (September 30, 2016). "The Verdict Is In: Land Use Regulations Increase Housing Costs". Forbes. Archived from the original on October 1, 2016. Retrieved September 17, 2018.
  105. Pender, Kathleen (December 3, 2016). "New California housing laws make granny units easier to build". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on June 15, 2018. Retrieved July 12, 2018.
  106. Wong, Queenie (September 27, 2016). "California eases restrictions on 'granny units'". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on October 19, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2018.
  107. Levin, Matt (April 5, 2019). "Are in-law units the secret solution to California's housing shortage?". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on April 8, 2019. Retrieved April 11, 2019.
  108. Collins, Jeff (September 25, 2017). "Housing crisis: See how California lawmakers are putting more teeth — and more money — into reform". Southern California News Group. Archived from the original on September 25, 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2017.
  109. Koseff, Alexei; Luna, Taryn (September 14, 2017). "Efforts to control California housing costs go to Jerry Brown after tight vote". Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on November 12, 2017. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  110. Dillon, Liam (September 29, 2017). "Gov. Brown just signed 15 housing bills. Here's how they're supposed to help the affordability crisis". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on November 1, 2017. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  111. Dillon, Liam (January 23, 2017). "California cities would have to make it easier to build houses under new legislation". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on June 7, 2017. Retrieved May 28, 2018.
  112. Dillon, Liam (October 5, 2017). "How a new California law could kill a 30-year-old rule that slowed development in Los Angeles". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on December 1, 2017. Retrieved May 29, 2018.
  113. Lee, Wendy (March 27, 2018). "A mile from Apple HQ, housing proposal for dying Cupertino mall sparks fight". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on March 30, 2018. Retrieved April 11, 2019.
  114. Li, Roland (November 25, 2018). "A dying mall near Apple's headquarters is turning into a fight over Silicon Valley's soul". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on November 27, 2018. Retrieved April 11, 2019.
  115. Kendall, Marisa (March 27, 2018). "Developer tries to fast-track housing at Vallco Mall under new state law - Plan includes 2,402 housing units". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on April 5, 2018. Retrieved April 11, 2019.
  116. Brinklow, Adam (March 28, 2018). "Cupertino: Vallco developer invokes SB 35, says it will build 2,400 homes". Curbed SF. Retrieved December 8, 2018.
  117. Bollag, Sophia (March 21, 2019). "With renters struggling, California still needs 1.4 million more affordable units, report finds". The Sacramento Bee. ISSN 0890-5738. Retrieved March 21, 2019.
  118. Vallianatos, Mark (April 23, 2019). "L.A.'s land use rules were born out of racism and segregation. They're not worth fighting for". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  119. Multiple Signatories (April 5, 2018). "The Fair Housing Promise of SB827" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on April 8, 2018. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  120. Dougherty, Conor (April 17, 2018). "California Lawmakers Kill Housing Bill After Fierce Debate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 26, 2018. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
  121. Kendall, Marisa (January 24, 2018). "Tech execs back California bill that aims to build more housing near transit". The Mercury News. Retrieved April 29, 2018. Bigger, taller apartment buildings surrounding your neighborhood BART station? More than 100 California tech leaders are enthusiastically saying yes, please. ... On Wednesday, 130 tech executives and venture capital partners said they 'solidly support' the plan in a letter addressed to Wiener.
  122. Dillon, Liam (April 17, 2018). "California lawmakers killed one of the biggest housing bills in the country". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on May 2, 2018. Retrieved April 7, 2019.
  123. "California Lawmakers Kill Housing Bill After Fierce Debate". The New York Times. April 17, 2018. Retrieved December 8, 2018.
  124. Murphy, Katy (November 12, 2017). "'Homes for human beings': Millennial-driven anti-NIMBY movement is winning with a simple message". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on November 23, 2017. Retrieved June 14, 2018.
  125. Dougherty, Conor (April 16, 2016). "In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 25, 2016. Retrieved July 2, 2018.
  126. McCormick, Erin (October 2, 2017). "Rise of the yimbys: the angry millennials with a radical housing solution". The Guardian. Archived from the original on November 7, 2017. Retrieved August 23, 2018.
  127. Kendall, Marisa (November 3, 2017). "Can't afford housing? You could move into a shipping container". Bay Area News Group. Archived from the original on November 3, 2017. Retrieved November 8, 2017.
  128. California Department of Housing and Community Development (February 2018). "California's Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities Final Statewide Housing Assessment 2025" (PDF).
  129. Metcalf, G. (2018). Sand castles before the tide? affordable housing in expensive cities. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(1), 59-80. doi:10.1257/jep.32.1.59
  130. "Housing Vouchers Work: Huge Demand, Insufficient Funding for Housing Vouchers Means Long Waits". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. April 19, 2017. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  131. "Up to 600,000 expected to apply when L.A. reopens Section 8 housing list this month after 13 years". Los Angeles Times. October 1, 2017. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.