"The problem in California is that the state's pro-housing laws try to do a whole lot more than just make it easier to build housing: preserve local autonomy, pay high construction wages, guarantee that new units are accessible to low-income renters. In other words, even as they removed some regulatory barriers, they created new ones."
"Last year, only about 102,000 new units of housing were permitted in a state with nearly 40 million inhabitants, almost the same number as a decade ago. Residents have begun fleeing for lower-cost-of-living states at such a high rate that California is poised to lose Electoral College votes after the next census."
"Not all zoning reforms are created equal-as the more successful efforts of other states and cities demonstrate. The California experience does not disprove the YIMBY theory of the case, but it does provide an important addendum to it."
California has passed numerous zoning reform laws over the past decade based on the theory that housing costs stem from restrictive building regulations. However, housing permits remain stagnant at approximately 102,000 units annually despite these reforms, causing residents to migrate to lower-cost states. Some observers conclude the regulatory theory is flawed, but the actual problem lies in how California implemented reforms. The state's pro-housing laws attempted to simultaneously achieve multiple objectives: ease construction, preserve local control, mandate high construction wages, and ensure affordability for low-income renters. By layering these additional requirements onto deregulation efforts, California inadvertently created new barriers that offset the benefits of removing original zoning restrictions.
Read at The Atlantic
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]