By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Sacramento, CA – California is facing a multipronged crisis—housing, affordable housing and homelessness. Recent reports show a huge increase in homelessness over the last few years and most of the individuals are unsheltered.
Sacramento Bee Deputy Editor Josh Gohkle wrote, “California’s housing shortage and consequent costs, attributable mainly to state and local overregulation, are chiefly responsible for its disproportionate homelessness.”
The Corporation for Supportive Housing, CSH, found, “California has the largest number of people experiencing homelessness of any state in America, 25 percent of all Americans who are homeless, because we lack housing affordable to people with the lowest incomes.”
They add, “When our communities‘ housing costs are too high, finding a place to live becomes impossible for people with extremely low wages or fixed or no incomes. In fact, this income group is priced out of every housing market in California.”
Despite what is increasingly looking like a humanitarian crisis, columnists like Tom Elias are complaining that the state is usurping key power from the cities.
Elias wrote earlier this week, “Via a series of laws mandating new levels of density everywhere in the state, whether or not they are needed and justified, this key local power now belongs to largely anonymous state officials who know little or nothing about most places whose future they are deciding.”
Like many others, Elias seems to be in denial that there is a housing crisis. He laments the policy, implemented through SB 9, which he argues has eliminated single-family zoning.
“It’s being done via the new requirement that the state Department of Housing and Community Development approve housing elements for every locality. If HCD does not approve such a plan for a city, developers can target it with virtually no limits, if they choose,” Elias argues.
He adds, “It’s all based on a supposed need for at least 1.8 million new housing units touted by HCD.”
If Elias wants to quibble whether the exact number of new homes is 3.5 million, 1.8 million or some other number, it’s hard to argue with what we are seeing in terms of people being priced out of communities and the increasing masses of unsheltered homeless people.
Moreover, while Elias focuses on SB 9 and single-family homes, the Vanguard reported last week that, despite the new law and fears that SB 9 would destroy single-family neighborhoods, not much has changed.
“I think the people that have been pushing for this for so long were just glad to get it through,” said Lee Ohanian, an economics professor at UCLA and senior fellow at the Hoover Institute (as reported in the Bee). “But it really ends up being much ado about nothing.”
The Bee surveyed areas in Sacramento and the Central Valley and found that, while cities are required to report on the number of SB 9 projects, the participation has been low.
The Bee found: “The cities of Davis, Stockton, Modesto, Merced and Bakersfield have not received a single application. Fresno has one. Three applications were submitted in Elk Grove, though one was deemed ineligible because it was located in a designated wetland, which is exempt under the law.”
Elias argues, “This leads localities to approve developments in ways they never did before, including some administrative approvals without so much as the possibility of a public hearing.”
But while many have fanned the flames here, the results show—again—not much has changed.
The Terner analysis prior to the passage of SB 9, the most detailed one yet on the impact of SB 9, “finds that SB 9’s primary impact will be to unlock incrementally more units on parcels that are already financially feasible under existing law, typically through the simple subdivision of an existing structure.”
However, in contrast to fears by many homeowners: “Relatively few new single-family parcels are expected to become financially feasible for added units as a direct consequence of this bill.”
The study found that “the vast amount of single-family parcels across the state would not see any new development,” said Garcia.
That appears to be exactly what happened.
And yet you would think something else was happening when you read Elias.
He notes that several cities have “begun to fight parts of today’s state domination of land use.
“Four Los Angeles County cities – Redondo Beach, Torrance, Carson and Whittier — are seeking a court order negating the 2021 Senate Bill 9, which allows single-family homes to be replaced by as many as six units, with cities unable to nix any such project,” he writes.
He concludes, “As city councils and county boards see their constituents objecting loudly to much of this scene, it’s inevitable that other lawsuits will follow. No one can predict whether or not courts will find the state Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom have vastly overreached in their power grab, which is all for the sake of increased density and based on unfounded predictions by bureaucrats who answer to no one.”
And yet we have serious problems in this state, and generally not because we are producing too much housing or because housing is coming in above the objections of local communities, but rather because we don’t have enough housing that people living on the margins can afford.
Elias and other critics offer very little in the way of solutions, even as they cry that the sky is falling.
The state’s population has fallen for the third year in a row.
Meanwhile, cities have continued to approve more sprawl, and developers have continued to build.
Pretty tough to claim that there’s a housing shortage, if comparing those two numbers over that period.
Homeless drug addicts and/or those experiencing mental illness are not going to be helped with market-rate housing. Nor is there enough government money to put them all into their own apartments.
Nevermind that one proximate cause of the population decline is cost of housing.
How is that a “bad” thing? Folks moving to where they can afford it? (The same reason that so many moved to the Sacramento region in the first place.)
It also causes housing prices to moderate (or drop) in the places that they leave. This has been occurring in places like San Francisco for some time, now.
By the way, rents are now starting to drop across California and the country, including Sacramento. This is expected to continue. (Search for “rents falling”, or “rents dropping”.)
One wonders if the corporate landlords are becoming concerned about this (e.g., the ones that bought-up entire single family developments in recent years). I looked at one of their stock prices recently, which had gone down quite a bit over the past year or so.
“How is that a “bad” thing? ”
Basically your reasoning is circular. You say we don’t have a housing crisis because we are losing population when the loss of population is at least in part created by housing crisis.
If folks are leaving, they don’t need housing locally. That’s not circular reasoning; it’s logic. And yet, communities throughout the state have continued to approve more housing, when the population has dropped for three years in a row.
This is actually an example of the “free market” (that you’re usually so fond of) in action. Supply-and-demand, which encourages people to consider alternatives. Especially those looking to move TO an area, such as the Sacramento region.
Consideration of alternatives is also not limited to the housing market. It includes businesses, which have been exiting California for places like Texas (and taking their employees with them).
Again, no one has put forth any coherent argument regarding the reason any of this is a “problem”.
The only thing that isn’t supported is this amorphous “need” for housing. As Tom Elias noted in his column:
This, by the way, is the reason I didn’t vote for Bonta (or Aguiar-Curry, for that matter).
In David’s article, he totally-ignores the primary issue (which has nothing to do with tearing-down existing single family housing:
It probably should be noted that Davis isn’t even a city that strives to oppose the state’s mandates. It’s more of a “please sir, can I have another” type of city. Those on the council are in lock-step with the state’s mandates in the first place.
I am not intimately familiar with all of these cities, but (from my perspective) Southern California should have taken steps to stop sprawling outward decades ago. They are “late to the game”, if anything.
https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/tom-elias-state-usurping-key-power-from-cities/
“If folks are leaving, they don’t need housing locally.”
That’s just absurd. If they are leaving because of cost than it is a market-induced decision and the only way you can escape that is by so narrowly defining need so as to render it inoperable – you only “need” housing in your construction if it is the only housing available. If that’s true, then you never actually need housing. How you square that with people living on the streets and quasi-homeless, I don’t know. But I think this entire exercise one of denial on your part that there actually a problem.
And regarding businesses leaving (or not locating to the area in the first place), what (exactly) is “wrong” with striving for balance between residential vs. business development?
The continuous pursuit of economic development is what created so-called housing shortages. It’s also a never-ending Ponzi scheme.
It’s not just the high cost of housing that’s driving the exodus – it’s also factors such as taxes (of which Texas has no income tax), lousy schools, extremely “woke” politics, etc.
Pick a lane: Do you want a never-ending Ponzi scheme, or do you want stability that’s not based upon continual growth? Actually, some of that decision has already been made, based upon the evidence.
Who (other than some business interests) says that communities must forever grow?
Also, the birth rate among millennials is nowhere near replacement levels. Guess “who” has a “problem” with that? (The usual business interests, etc.) Along with cities which had always counted on that as part of their Ponzi funding scheme.
Maybe it’s time to address all of this, starting with the obvious fact that cities cannot grow forever. And attempting to do so is creating some pretty nasty environmental, social and economic circumstances.
(Then again, the market itself seems to be addressing this.)
I call Republican politics extremely woke because many Republicans can’t even define the term “woke”. Since Mr. Oertel doesn’t seem to enjoy living in California perhaps he should just move to Texas and quit endlessly whining.
“Inoperable”. How are you defining that?
Again, you’re not defining anything here. There’s LOTS of housing available – even in this downturn.
But due to the downturn, housing developers are now drastically pulling-back – nationwide.
Apparently, housing for homeless people doesn’t “pencil out”, unless it’s subsidized (or consists of an old, rundown “flophouse”).
Based upon what?
You seem to have concluded that the free market would (if fully-unleashed) “address” this. And yet, places like Houston had a significant homeless population, even with no zoning whatsoever, sprawl, and cheap housing.
How do you explain that?
You’re apparently referring to homelessness, here – but again, the free market (even fully-unleashed – and in its most-destructive form) hasn’t “solved” that problem.
Look at the sprawling Los Angeles region, and you’ll see that homelessness is worse than ever, there.
And again, isn’t part of the “solution” that you’re seeking to move to areas where you can afford it (and where housing is cheaper)? Both existing housing, and new housing?
You and I would probably be “homeless” if we tried to move to Atherton.
It seems to me that you simultaneously have a “problem” with the free market, while also continuing to expect it to “resolve” what you’re concerned about. Isn’t there a saying about doing the same thing over-and-over again – but expecting a different result?
By the way, I recently watched a video which stated that San Francisco pays approximately $60,000 per year just to provide services for those living in tents! Due to lots of non-profit, duplicative organizations with their fingers in the pie. (Perhaps that’s part of what Houston addressed.)
California’s population increased 10 out of the 11 years between year 2010 and year 2021
The population of California in 2021 was 39,237,836, a 0.66% decline from 2020. The population of California in 2020 was 39,499,738, a 0.16% increase from 2019. The population of California in 2019 was 39,437,610, a 0% increase from 2018. The population of California in 2018 was 39,437,463, a 0.25% increase from 2017.
https://www.mymotherlode.com/news/local/2897982/california-loses-population-for-third-year-in-a-row.html
(This was also reported on The Chronicle, but it sometimes has a paywall. And can be found on other sources, as well.)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Did-the-California-exodus-continue-in-2022-17672447.php#:~:text=The%20state's%20population%20declined%20by,experienced%20from%202020%20and%202021.
It is unprecedented in the state’s history. Or, as Professor Farnsworth (from Futurama) might say, “good news, everyone”.
I call Republican politics extremely woke because many Republicans can’t even define the term “woke”. Since Mr. Oertel doesn’t seem to enjoy living in California perhaps he should considering moving to Texas.
I don’t know how Republicans define “woke”, but it most-often comes up around terms such as “critical race theory”, “trans rights” in schools, etc. It would probably be a good topic to explore.
The thing I don’t enjoy is the folks who want to turn California into Texas (in terms of sprawl, etc.). I’ve seen parts of Texas which are basically sprawling hell-holes. Seems to me that folks like you and David would be better-suited, there. (This would alleviate both of you from trying, without much success, from turning the area into Texas).
But more importantly, I’m already in California, and I’m in a stable situation.
I did move (more than once) from an expensive area in California, to one less-expensive. As did probably half the population in Davis and the Sacramento region.
I have, in fact, been “priced out” of my original home town. Mostly as a result of the pursuit of economic development, and wealthier people moving in as a result.
There’s quite a few places that I think are “better” than the Sacramento region. And quite a few places outside of California that are better than those in California (especially when compared to this valley).
California’s population has flattened or decreased slightly in the last three years. This is almost entirely due to reduced immigration.
More than ¼ of California’s residents are immigrants. Another ¼ are native-born residents with immigrant parents.
Reduced immigration can be attributed to the pandemic, economic slowdown, and increased border enforcement. There is a need for immigration reform that allows for more workers to come in. A consequence of the reduced immigration is that there are now serious labor shortages in the industries that have relied on immigrants: agriculture, hospitality, restaurants, construction trades, housekeeping, and more.
It is very likely that immigration will increase again because of the current demand for labor. Moreover, the demand/supply disparity goes back over 20 years. During that time the housing market has gone through ups and downs, including the Great Recession, but ultimately the trajectory has been toward greater housing deficiency. The short-term fluctuations in the housing market don’t overcome the long-term deficit. They just give a little breathing room for planning and getting more housing built.
When demand for housing significantly exceeds the number of new homes being built, there is a shortage by almost any economic definition. Prices increase on the available homes. The impact of this shortage is obviously higher on lower-income people.
A very large percentage of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Moving is actually a serious financial burden to them. Lots of folks, especially in the lower-income strata, don’t have enough money to cover emergencies, much less uproot themselves and move and meet the income and deposit requirements for rental housing. Frequently they have connections to the region – family, spouse’s job, cultural/ethnic groups, and more – that make moving difficult and can separate them from the support networks of family and friends that most of us retain and value.
For many people, workplace mobility is limited.
Per all the articles I’ve seen, the primary cause is a net exodus to other states. (A declining birthrate is also a factor.)
Perhaps it’s about time to stop taking advantage of those people, which is what occurs when there’s always “more in the pipeline”.
Has anyone even thought about the impact that mass migration is having on the countries “left behind”?
Not to mention encouraging folks to undertake dangerous journeys, just so that we have cheap labor.
Again, not a reason to take advantage of people.
Based upon what, exactly? Have you seen how much the numbers have “changed” from the state, for example (e.g., as noted in Tom Elias’ article).
Even if one were to “accept” this unsupported claim (without any actual number whatsoever), why is it that housing developers haven’t already met that demand? Do you (and others) believe there’s actually been a “shortage” of new construction (especially sprawl) over that period?
Also, why is it that folks like you consistently ignore the impact of pursuing “economic development” has regarding “housing shortages”? Do you see no relationship in regard to housing prices (say, in Silicon Valley?) Really?
Again, there’s no support for that claim. Demand is “flexible”, based upon price, alternatives, broader market conditions such as interest rates, etc.
And even if you (or others) “agreed” on a number (as if people don’t move in-and-out of the region or state all the time), why is it that developers haven’t already met that demand?
Again, you and others can continue claiming that there’s a nebulous, undefined long-term deficit, but claiming it doesn’t make it “true”. Much less putting an actual number on it.
You (and others) don’t seem to have an understanding of how supply and demand works. Both are flexible. Demand is driven by “economic development” (e.g., job availability and salaries), price of housing, and alternatives. One of the alternatives is to move to areas where salaries and housing costs are better-aligned. Again, that’s one of the reasons that so many from the Bay Area, for example, moved to the Sacramento region in the first place.
“Increased supply” itself is also not dependent upon “building more”. “Supply” drastically increased during the last housing crash, and would have done so without building a stick more of housing. Supply increases when more people list their existing properties for rent or sale. (Again, dependent upon several factors.)
It is not a “shortage”. The free market itself generally does not cater to low-income people. Even in much cheaper areas.
Well, I guess their “alternative” is to continue to wait for someone to build cheap housing for them. How’s that been working out?
Ron O
California has had a net exodus to other states since the 1990s, yet the state has had a rising population throughout that period. Don is correct that the change is the reduction in immigration, mostly tied to the Trump Admin policies.
Those immigrants are not being attracted to California–they are being pushed here by the kleptocracies of the Central American counties, many supported by the U.S. government. What is your proposal for how they are to live safely and better in their home countries? Is your solution really to lock them out in the false belief that somehow those countries will improve their lots? Do you really believe that the situation has been created to provide a workforce to be exploited in the U.S.? That’s really a crazy conspiracy theory.
There is substantial evidence from greater housing deficiency. You are just unwilling to acknowledge that evidence because then you would have to admit you’re wrong. Many people have presented that evidence here. You’re the only one who now disputes what’s been presented, yet you have no experience or analysis to back up your assertions. Provide evidence–real evidence, not just statement–that there isn’t a housing deficiency. Most importantly you need to show that housing prices are in fact falling in a long term trend because prices are the best indicator of the demand/supply balance.
Notably, you need to show those regions where salaries and housing are better aligned. Importantly, as reflected by the “red” states votes against the “blue” states as a signal of resentment of being less well off, states like Texas are off the list because people there don’t earn enough.
These two comments reflect the heart of your position: slam and lock the gate behind you and don’t let anyone else live here so that you can selfishly enjoy residing in Woodland unbothered by the teeming masses, especially those unwashed immigrants, even if it means that you have the meddle in the policies of a neighboring town. If you really don’t like crowds and you don’t enjoy the social and cultural amenities of Yolo County, you can move farther north to Tehama or Colusa. You are the epitome of the NIMBY.
Ron O
I wasn’t referring to the 1990s. However, a “net exodus” can be achieved by just “one” more person leaving, than arriving. Are you familiar with math?
The “net exodus” has increased since then.
Please provide evidence of this. Again, I’ve already provided evidence multiple times that the primary cause is a net exodus. Other causes include a reduction in immigration, declining birth rate, and increasing death rate.
Stop supporting kleptocracies?
You just asked me what my “solution” is (above).
That’s almost word-for-word what Don suggested, above. Why don’t you take that up with him? And he’s actually right, regarding the fact that some industries have depended upon a continuing supply of immigrants to be taken advantage of for cheap labor.
Since this isn’t an argument I was making, there’s nothing to prove me “wrong”, here. In fact, your comment isn’t even clear, as to what you’re referring to.
Again, not an argument I was making.
It’s not up to me to “prove” this. It’s up to those claiming a deficiency to prove it – including how those ever-changing numbers were derived.
There’s literally hundreds of articles on the Internet showing this. Here’s the first one that popped up:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-10/home-prices-decline-southern-california-homeowners-equity
I don’t need to “show” anything. The market itself shows this in the form of “where” people are moving to.
Is that why? Folks vote out of “resentment”? Maybe you are the one who “needs” to start providing evidence for completely outlandish claims.
Woodland has more immigrants than Davis does. Maybe it’s “you” who supports “systemic racism”. How did you feel about the “Davis-connected” buyer’s program at WDAAC?
I’d suggest that you’re the one who needs to move to a city where you can enjoy all the continuing sprawl that your heart desires. There’s no shortage of them (and that continuing trend), even as the population of California declined for a third year in a row.
You’d think that the “housing shortage people” (such as you) would be happy that the population is declining.
Then again, these are the same people who believed that DISC wouldn’t exacerbate that claimed housing shortage.
I support Mr. McCann’s last comment 110%.
Ron O
You only presented evidence that there is a net moveout to other states for current residents. You haven’t provided any other evidence. My point is that the net exodus has changed little since the 1990s. Don’s point that the fall in immigration is correct as being the primary change.
I don’t seen in Don’s post anywhere that he says that immigrants are being exploited for their labor.
Citing to homeowners being nervous about a price spike doesn’t address the question of a housing deficiency. The underlying trend as Don points out is still upward. You need to present an empirical study that counters the numerous ones presented by me and others over the last year documenting the deficiency.
There is no evidence about the impact of DiSC either way because it wasn’t approved, much less built.
I am advocating for more housing in Davis to make it easier for immigrants to live here. You are advocating the opposite and have even stated that they should move to another state instead.
Here’s the statistics on resident exodus from 1990. 2021 was not much different than 2010, and even in the early 1990s it was nearly as large. The 5 years from 20005-2010 was larger than the last 5 years.
https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/
BTW, Yolo had the biggest percentage increase in the state at 1.8% in 2021:
https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/leaving-california/#california-population-decline
And here’s an LAO study from several years ago showing 1993 as the biggest exodus year:
https://lao.ca.gov/laoecontax/article/detail/265
This story has been told for decades.
The chart in the PPIC that you referenced shows that California experienced a net increase in interstate migration (TO California) during some periods in the 1990s. And that the exodus has increased overall through the last year that was measured (2020 – which included the largest exodus of all).
The PPIC article then goes on to state the following:
All of this is the exactly opposite of what you claimed. And to make matters worse – it’s the article that YOU yourself referenced!
Neither you nor Don has provided evidence that this is the primary cause. Your own article disputes what you and Don claim.
But even if you and Don were correct, so what?
California’s population growth has been slowing for decades, and it finally went “negative” over the past three years.
Holy cow – I can’t believe you even said this.
The EIR for DISC noted that the increased housing need (resulting from 2,500 additional claimed jobs) need would not be met onsite.
Are you actually claiming that it needed to be built to “prove” this fundamental concept?
I have said NOTHING about immigrants moving to other states, instead.
You’re the one who apparently supports proposals such as the “Davis-connected” buyer’s program at WDAAC.
And based upon your comments in another article, you’re also not much of a supporter of Affordable housing.
Davis is ALREADY overwhelmingly-white and Asian. You support MORE of that trend.