Collectivism, the idea that everything kind of belongs to everybody and the government’s job is to distribute it fairly, always produces shortages.
Call it communism, call it fascism, call it whatever it is that we’re doing in California in our successful bid to lead the nation in poverty, the result is always the same. For a relatively short period of time, these systems can leech from the accrued prosperity and accomplishments of an earlier system that respected individual rights and protected liberty. Eventually, though, they run out, and then they turn to force.
That’s what’s happening now with housing in California. Government policies have created shortages, and now government policies are coming in with force.
The shortages are caused by a combination of climate policies, rent control and excessive government-imposed costs.
Related: Climate activists versus affordable housing
California’s high fees and multiple requirements for permits can add tens of thousands of dollars in costs to a project before the first shovel goes into the ground. That’s one reason housing costs are so high. And rent control has caused some multi-family building owners to get out of the business. Many studies have documented that while rent control benefits the tenants who get in on the deal, over the long term it always results in fewer rental units available on the market.
The climate policies harming housing development are based on the ludicrous idea that the earth’s climate is affected by how far Californians drive to work. “Sprawl,” it is fervently believed in Sacramento, is to be avoided at all costs. At ALL costs. So it costs a lot to buy a house, now that it’s almost impossible to get housing development approved in any location beyond the imaginary line known as the “urban boundary.”
“Urban infill” is all the rage among Sacramento steakhouse dwellers. The idea is to cram people together in dense living conditions in the cities and eliminate parking spaces, the better to force people to rely on public transportation or, alternatively, to accept having access only to options and opportunities within walking distance. The fantasy is that Californians will someday go along with this, and in the meantime the state has lost so much of its population that California actually lost a seat in Congress, for the first time in its history, in the redistricting that followed the 2020 census.
Related: California’s war on private property rights
Instead of tearing down the “urban boundary” and building new housing developments, Sacramento politicians have declared war on the suburbs, first with the abolition of single-family zoning in California and now with the construction “by right” of cube-like, taxpayer-subsidized apartment buildings.
A 2018 law, Assembly Bill 2162, “streamlined” certain affordable housing developments. As long as these are planned for zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, and they have a 55-year covenant as affordable housing, and they are 100% low-income, publicly funded and have at least 25% of the units set aside as permanent supportive housing, they may be built “by right” and they are eligible for various density bonuses.
That means cities must grant “ministerial” approval, without any conditions or local approval process.
Another 2018 law, AB 686, requires public agencies to administer housing development programs in a manner to “affirmatively further fair housing.” The idea is to achieve economic desegregation by placing low-income housing in “areas of opportunity,” which may be high-income neighborhoods that many taxpaying residents can’t afford themselves.
Related: Sacramento’s misguided attacks on single-family zoning
A building is planned for the west edge of Ventura Blvd. in Woodland Hills, for example. It will be 8-stories high, a total of 100 apartments, “100% affordable” with 25% permanent supportive housing units.
Development standards will be waived to grant the project a maximum floor ratio of 3.0:1 instead of the otherwise permitted 1.0:1, a maximum height of 96 feet instead of the allowable 45 feet, maximum lot coverage of 74% instead of the allowable 60%, and a waiver of transitional height, set-back and step-back requirements.
Not everyone thinks it’s a good idea to use state force against cities and prevent local communities from approving new developments. A bipartisan coalition of local elected officials is preparing a 2024 ballot initiative that would prohibit Sacramento from overriding local control on zoning and planning. More information is available at OurNeighborhoodVoices.com.
Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on Twitter @Susan_Shelley