California lawmakers continue to fret about the state’s overly expensive housing market—something causing many renters and homeowners to be “cost burdened,” as the jargon puts it. Per the Public Policy Institute of California, “More than half of the state’s renters—and four in 10 mortgaged homeowners—spend 30% or more of their household income on housing.” We top the nation, but not in a good way.
The Legislature has for years been nibbling around the edges, passing a series of bills that deregulate some types of housing. We have applauded those efforts while noting they don’t go nearly far enough. They mainly exempt or streamline the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or California Coastal Act provisions for high-density, urban infill projects.
The problem is most California Democrats don’t like suburban “sprawl” development and prefer that Californians live in small apartments and condos, where they can then rely on buses and rail rather than freeways to get around. High-density housing is fine, but the state needs more housing of all types. And most Californians prefer to live in single-family homes.
The latest high-profile effort is Assembly Bill 609 by Assembly member Buffy Wicks, D-Berkeley, which admirably exempts CEQA from much larger projects but, alas, it still mainly applies to multi-family and infill housing projects. If lawmakers are serious about addressing our housing crisis, they need to fix CEQA for all types of projects and stop trying to pick winners and losers.
Again, we support AB 609 — but it’s unlikely to do that much more than the current exemptions. Studies show that they haven’t created much new housing at all. California politicians like to think of the state as a leader especially vis a vis more conservative states in the Sun Belt and Mountain West, but this is a good time for them to start following policies that have worked so well in those places, especially with regard to housing.
A new study from the George W. Bush Institute look at the nation’s top 250 metro housing markets and provide a deeper analysis of 25 large metro areas in pro-growth states. It’s not going to shock readers of these pages, but those metros do a far better job than California in incentivizing housing construction. Because their regulations promote growth and are predictable and less cumbersome, housing prices — and we’re talking growing cities, not stagnant backwaters—are lower. This improves the economic condition of poor and working-class families.
“The nation suffers from a demand-supply mismatch: Demand for homes in wealthy, scenic Pacific Coast metros has been strong, but ultra-restrictive policies have blocked sufficient supply,” according to the report. “The leading Sun Belt metros have outperformed in adding housing supply because demand to live there has grown and policies have allowed housing supply to keep up.”
The analysis details specific policies, but they all come down to the basics: Make it easier for builders to construct market-rate housing and reduce zoning restrictions. There’s an important role for government, it notes, by “getting the basics right” on issues such as public safety, infrastructure and the efficient provision of public services. Indeed, the report echoes many of the YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) themes touted by California lawmakers. They just need to take those ideas much further.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( South and West school California in housing policy )
Also on site :
- Israeli airport hit by Houthi missile: Live Updates
- Everything You Need to Know About Fan-Favorite Kewpie Mayo
- Israeli military says missile launched towards country from Yemen