Eaton palisades and fires represent thousands of personal tragedies, but also constitute a collective disaster, adding new housing shortages to the already massive deficit of California – a catastrophe that does not result from acts of nature but blunders of human politics.
Governor Gavin Newsom bought a new $ 9 million house In November, but too much of his Californian colleagues may never have a house or find an affordable rental. Under Newsom, the state has tried reforms designed to increase construction and affordability, but few precious have changed.
The prices of houses in coastal California are almost 400% above the national average and throughout the state, The median cost of a house is 2.5 times higher than in the rest of the country. California has the second below nation accession rate in the country56% (New York is the lowest, 54%).
Regarding the rental, the average cost of a two -room apartment in Los Angeles is just under $ 3,000 per month, According to apartments.comabout $ 1,000 more that the national average.
Of course, these statistics are not bad news for everyone. A lot California Baby -boomers – who bought their neighborhoods a long time ago – have done like bandits through the climbing of house prices. In addition to the Xers generation, they have property rates similar to those of the rest of the country. But the rate is half the national level for Californians under 35 years old, and they are precisely the group This deserted the west coast for reasons of “cost of living”.
The state housing crisis has its roots Excessive construction regulations And disputes intended for developers – for decades, too few residential units have been built. Unfortunately, the remedy that Sacramento pushes – policies that promote the development of the dense apartment near public transport corridors in the largest cities of the state – does not help.
To begin with, the “full” construction in high density in cities – some call it Yimby development (“yes in my courtyard”) – is expensive. City lands are expensive, the costs of materials are high, the rates of workforce “salary in force” and the process of permit, zoning and expensive planning are added to the results. New buildings of apartments on several floors wrapped along the Sunset Boulevard or the Wilshire corridor can add to the Los Angeles total housing stock, but even when affordable rental units are necessary in these buildings, the delay profit is minimal.
As a teacher of UCLA and London economics school The search for Michael Storper WatchForced densification is an “blunt instrument” which gives few substantial cost savings for housing.
Rental and high density life are also without synchronization with what most people from California want. A recent survey of the California Public Policy Institute revealed that 70% State adults have preferred unified residences. Unsurprisingly, a vast majority Californians, according to a survey by the former obama campaign sounder, David Binder, opposed the legislation signed by Newsom in 2021 which in fact prohibited the unifamilial zoning in a large part of the State. (The law, Bill 9 of the Senate was canceled Last year, before the county court, and this decision was on appeal.)
The climatic objectives were a large part of the reason why Californian policies promote new construction to several units in cities. The idea is that the accommodation of more people in larger buildings will be more energy efficient. And encouraging dense developments near transit is supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But new studies show that the size of the buildings is not necessarily in correlation with more sustainability, and many Californians choose to endure more and more long to buy a house rather than renting in town. Or by leaving completely. According to a new study By the Prosecutor for the Use of the Jennifer L. Hernandez land, the climate -based housing rules have contributed to too few houses under construction at a too high cost.
What should the state do?
Some want us to be able to subsidize an expansion of public housing, adding more projects such as the ambitious renewal of Jordan Downs in the south of theBut it will be difficult in An almost broken city And a state also having budgetary problems, and once again, this will not correspond to the aspirations of most Californians.
One way to get out of this crisis would be to expand the rationalized license and regulation processes that Newsom and local leaders accelerate for the reconstruction of fires, rather encourage the town hall and the construction of unifamilial houses. Instead of laws, but obliging high density units, generally rentals, in the largest state metros, Sacramento must encourage market -oriented projects according to consumer preferences.
Peripheral development, far from the hill at high cost, could open opportunities for house buyers for the first time. The state could take advantage of technological trends – a remote work, for example – to allow greater dispersion of the population. Planned communities of mastery in southern California or in the central valley, with local employers, can be part of the solution.
California’s housing problem requires more alternatives, especially for people looking for lower rents and affordable unifamilial houses. If the state wants to maintain its mobile chops upwards, it must take back its housing policies.
Joel Kotkin is a contributor to opinion, the presidential scholarship holder for Urban Futures at Chapman University and principal researcher at the Civitas Institute of the University of Texas in Austin.
