For the last few years, politicians and real estate interests have pushed the narrative that people are fleeing California en masse, using that argument to justify policies that favor landlords and weaken tenant protections.
But new census data just shattered that myth: the Bay Area’s population actually grew in 2024. Contra Costa County, which was among the least affected by previous declines, now has more residents than ever before.
The implications of this are clear—California’s housing crisis isn’t going away, and the policies that have made rent unaffordable and homeownership unattainable are only becoming more destructive.
For those hoping the supposed exodus would lead to lower rents, the reality is more grim. Despite the tech industry’s shifts, the high cost of living, and post-pandemic economic uncertainty, people are still choosing to stay or move to the Bay Area.
This means that demand for housing remains strong, and without aggressive intervention to protect tenants and build truly affordable housing, the region’s affordability crisis will only deepen.
The idea that people were fleeing California in droves—particularly from the Bay Area—became a favorite talking point of anti-regulation groups and corporate landlords. While it is true that there were population declines in some years, these were temporary fluctuations, largely influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, shifting work trends, and economic uncertainty.
But the bigger picture tells a different story: the Bay Area remains a desirable place to live, with economic opportunities and quality of life still drawing new residents.
The census data shows that Contra Costa County, which saw only modest declines in population during the worst of the pandemic, now has more residents than ever. San Francisco, often cited as the poster child for urban decline, also saw population growth in 2024, as did every Bay Area County. This directly contradicts the claims that the region was on a long-term trajectory of depopulation.
A growing population without sufficient housing supply or tenant protections is a recipe for disaster. The Bay Area already has some of the highest rents in the country, and as more people move in or stay put, those costs will continue to rise.
The problem isn’t just a lack of housing—it’s what kind of housing is being built. Instead of investing in deeply affordable housing for working-class residents, developers continue to prioritize luxury units that cater to the wealthy.
At the same time, existing tenants are being squeezed by rising rents, eviction threats, and corporate landlords eager to maximize profits.
For renters, this means fewer options and higher costs. For lower-income residents, it means an increased risk of displacement, especially as landlords and developers push to repeal rent control and other tenant protections.
And for the growing number of people experiencing homelessness, it means even fewer pathways to stable housing.
Despite years of warnings about California’s housing emergency, lawmakers have failed to enact the bold policies needed to address the crisis. Instead, housing policy in the state has largely been dictated by developers and corporate landlords, who have successfully lobbied against stronger tenant protections while securing tax breaks and incentives to build market-rate housing.
Even when policies meant to help renters are proposed, they are often watered down or outright blocked by the real estate industry. The failure to pass statewide rent caps that actually keep housing affordable, the rollback of eviction moratoriums without adequate protections, and the continued resistance to public housing solutions have all contributed to worsening conditions for tenants.
Meanwhile, local governments have been slow to act. Cities across the Bay Area continue to allow rent hikes that outpace wage growth, while eviction protections remain inconsistent and full of loopholes.
The reality is clear: the Bay Area isn’t emptying out—it’s growing. And if we don’t confront the housing crisis with meaningful action, we are heading toward an even more unequal future where only the wealthiest can afford to stay.
Policymakers must immediately prioritize:
- Stronger Rent Control: Expanding and strengthening rent stabilization laws is crucial to preventing displacement and keeping housing affordable.
- A Major Expansion of Public and Affordable Housing: Market-driven solutions have failed. It’s time for a serious public investment in non-market housing that serves working-class and low-income residents.
- Permanent Tenant Protections: Just-cause eviction protections, right-to-counsel programs, and rental assistance must be expanded to prevent further displacement.
- Holding Corporate Landlords Accountable: Large real estate firms and institutional investors have treated housing as a speculative asset rather than a human right. Stronger regulations and penalties for predatory landlords are essential.
The census data confirms what many renters have known all along—people want to live in the Bay Area, but they are being priced out. The question now is whether policymakers will act before it’s too late.
It would be nice if the Vanguard used sources that don’t require a subscription to see where it’s getting its information from.
Here’s a publicly-available source, which shows which shows that “one group” (international immigrants) has been causing a slight increase in population.
Let’s see what impact Trump has on that, before the growth advocates declare “victory”.
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/bay-area-population-comeback-immigration-20221940.php
Though truth be told, a lot of these are foreign tech workers – which Elon Musk vehemently supports. I recall that Musk’s views regarding this have created a lot of division within the “Maga” party.
But it is interesting, in that “no” – you won’t be getting one of those jobs, unless you’re “better” than the skilled workers that the tech industry is bringing in. (I’ve met people who meet that description – skilled foreign workers.)
“The post-pandemic wave of migration has coincided with rising house prices … the rise in costs makes housing less affordable for natives”
“A meta-analysis by William Cochrane and Jacques Poot, both of the University of Waikato, finds that a 1% increase in the migrant population of a city lead to a 0.5-1% rise in rents. Another study, by Umut Unal of the Czech Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs and co-authors, estimates that a 1% rise in migration to a German district leads to a 3% rise in house prices. James Cabral and Walter Steingress, both of the Bank of Canada, calculate that a 1% increase in an American county’s population raises median rents by 2.2% … the rise in costs makes housing less affordable for natives.”
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/03/13/your-guide-to-the-new-anti-immigration-argument
How come you only cherrypicked the portion that confirmed your belief rather than their overall analysis of the impact of migration on housing costs?
For example: “Indeed, the rise in demand for American houses after the pandemic owes much more to millennials’ behaviour (as low interest rates at last enabled them to get a foot on the housing ladder) than migration, suggests Riordan Frost of the Harvard Joint Centre for Housing Studies.”
And their conclusion: “The biggest public-policy problem facing much of the West is a lack of housebuilding, not a rise in migration.”
Thanks Keith! Proved my point. Good job. I didn’t even need to use any advanced tools, I just read the whole article!!!!!
“I didn’t even need to use any advanced tools”
LOL, by advanced do you mean Whopper?
David says: And their conclusion: “The biggest public-policy problem facing much of the West is a lack of housebuilding, not a rise in migration.”
Another article that can’t be accessed, but the Economist is stating that about the entire “West”? Really? Including places like Phoenix and Las Vegas?
The really strange part about all of this is that conservatives point to the California Exodus as something “bad” (and are blaming progressive policies), while progressives (at least some of them) also (inadvertently/apparently) agree that it is “bad” when they’ve denied or downplayed it.
So I’m not clear on the difference between these two groups – especially since neither one advocates for a stable population.
It can be accessed, you chose not to. That’s fine, but it’s a choice. I didn’t choose the article. It was Keith who did and pulled out misleading quotes. West isn’t for the record referring strictly to the US.
Right – I didn’t feel like signing up for an account. Yes, I realize Keith posted the link, and you responded to it.
The Economist is probably not a publication I would turn to for environmental OR social justice concerns.
Since you read it, would you care to explain what they meant by the “West”?
“It’s time for a serious public investment in non-market housing that serves working-class and low-income residents.”
Regrettably, there is no funding available for this.
Second biggest failure of Newsom – didn’t put his capital behind the increment tax.
“Household formation” is probably the single most-flexible factor that most young people can control. Well, that, as well as the choice regarding “where” to live.
And the “bright side” of all of this is that post-millennial generations are smaller, since young people are not having kids at replacement levels (nationwide). This is an astounding/historic change.
In the meantime, there’s an interesting article today in The Chronicle regarding how boomer parents are helping their kids buy houses in the Bay Area (in a variety of different ways).
Every day, millennials are also inheriting assets from their parents. Soon-enough, all of them will (assuming their parents have any assets left).
https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/how-to-help-kids-buy-home-20215480.php