- SB 79 would allow mid-rise apartment buildings near public transit.
- SB 677, a bill to strengthen housing streamlining laws, was voted down.
SACRAMENTO — California’s housing politics took another dramatic turn Tuesday as the Senate Housing Committee advanced one of Senator Scott Wiener’s most ambitious proposals — SB 79, which would legalize mid-rise apartment buildings near public transit — while voting down a second measure, SB 677, that aimed to strengthen the state’s existing housing streamlining laws.
The committee approved SB 79 on a 6-2 vote, signaling strong support for a bold state-level intervention to override local zoning and allow buildings of up to seven stories within a half-mile of major transit stops. But just hours later, lawmakers rejected SB 677 by a narrow 4-3 margin, citing concerns over the effectiveness and consequences of past YIMBY legislation.
The split decision reflects growing tensions within the pro-housing coalition. On one hand, legislators are facing pressure to deliver transformative housing solutions amid soaring costs and climate urgency. On the other, they are increasingly confronted by constituents — and fellow lawmakers — who express frustration over perceived gaps between the promises of YIMBY reforms and their on-the-ground results.
“Californians are demanding bold, radical changes right now to address a generational affordability crisis.” – Senator Scott Wiener
SB 79, dubbed the “Abundant & Affordable Homes Near Transit Act,” would establish mandatory zoning standards around train stations and bus rapid transit (BRT) stops. It would eliminate local prohibitions on mid-rise multifamily housing within close proximity to public transportation, while also streamlining the approval process for qualifying projects under the state’s existing streamlining pathways, including SB 35 and SB 423.
The bill also grants transit agencies the ability to develop high-density housing on land they already own — a strategy modeled after successful systems in Tokyo, Singapore, and Hong Kong, where such development helps financially sustain transit systems.
Wiener framed the passage of SB 79 as a turning point in California’s effort to align land use, affordability, and climate policy.
“We’re making it legal to build homes where people want to live — near jobs and transit,” he said. “SB 79 is a game changer. It addresses our housing shortage and helps save our public transportation systems.”
“The weirdest part of my entire career in climate activism has been the refusal of major climate donors and groups to engage on housing and transportation.” – Matthew Lewis
Supporters of SB 79, including Streets for All, California YIMBY, Greenbelt Alliance, and the Bay Area Council, say the bill could reshape the landscape of California’s cities. Despite major investments in transit, much of the land near stations remains zoned exclusively for single-family homes. Advocates argue that this mismatch contributes to high housing prices, declining ridership, and rising emissions from car dependency.
Housing experts and climate advocates also hailed the bill as a long-overdue reform. Matthew Lewis, a longtime environmental organizer, wrote on X (formerly Twitter), “The weirdest part of my entire career in climate activism has been the refusal of major climate donors and groups to engage on housing and transportation — the largest sources of pollution in the U.S.”
But the defeat of SB 677 cast a shadow over that momentum. That bill was designed to strengthen SB 9 and SB 423 — two of California’s cornerstone housing laws — by closing loopholes, preventing local governments and homeowners associations from subverting state law, and streamlining local permitting processes. Among its many provisions, SB 677 would have prevented HOAs and CC&Rs from banning duplexes allowed under SB 9, shortened the reassessment timelines for jurisdictions failing to meet their affordable housing targets, and made it harder for localities to use environmental objections to block housing.
Wiener expressed disappointment but remained optimistic: “While I’m disappointed the Committee did not advance SB 677 — an important bill to ensure our housing streamlining laws are as effective as they can be — the passage of SB 79 is a game changer.”
Some observers were more blunt. UC law professor Chris Elmendorf criticized the decision to split the bills: “SB 677 mirrors the one California housing intervention that’s demonstrably effective: the ADU law. Killing it makes no sense.”
The committee’s skepticism appeared to be less about the bill’s content than a broader discomfort with the trajectory of YIMBY policy. Jeremy B. White of Politico summed up the political maneuvering by noting that Wiener “officially rolls Wahab” — a reference to committee dynamics and shifting alliances that helped secure SB 79’s passage, while leaving SB 677 to fall.
The vote also revealed deeper philosophical divides. Supporters of SB 677 argue that the bill would have cleared away bureaucratic obstacles, empowered more small-scale developers, and enabled thousands of new homes. Critics, however, questioned whether previous streamlining efforts had delivered enough affordable housing or had simply fueled speculative development.
The stakes are high. California’s housing shortage remains one of the worst in the nation, with sky-high costs pushing residents out of the state and deepening inequality. The state’s climate goals also hang in the balance, as car dependency remains entrenched in large part due to exclusionary zoning near transit.
Wiener, in his post-hearing remarks, warned that resistance to reform only perpetuates the failed status quo. “Californians are demanding bold, radical changes right now to address a generational affordability crisis. Opponents of more homes are not offering real solutions — just vague appeals to hypothetical alternatives while ignoring actual opportunities.”
With SB 79 now headed to the Senate Local Government Committee, Wiener signaled he is open to continuing negotiations on SB 677. “My door remains open to work with any and all stakeholders who wish to address our affordability crisis — the democratic process often makes bills better.”
As the 2025 legislative season continues, the fate of housing reform remains uncertain. The success of SB 79 may embolden future efforts to confront restrictive zoning head-on, but the fate of SB 677 shows that streamlining remains a politically fraught battleground — even among those who say they want more housing.
“But just hours later, lawmakers rejected SB 677 by a narrow 4-3 margin, citing concerns over the effectiveness and consequences of past YIMBY legislation.”
Sounds more like they’re getting pressured from those who oppose the YIMBYs; not that they want “more” YIMBYism. (Regardless of what they say on the surface.)
The truth is that communities across the state don’t want what YIMBYs are attempting to force. We’ve seen evidence of that on local/regional levels, across the state. Unfortunately, we haven’t yet seen an effective, organized opposition so far. (Probably due to the reason cited in this article – YIMBYs haven’t been very effective regarding what they’re attempting to force.)
But honestly, those opposed to the YIMBYs have also not had an effective message, themselves. (It needs to start by examining claims regarding “housing shortages”, rather than just going-along with the ever-changing fake numbers presented for a state and country which are essentially no longer growing.)
If you are opposing ways to densify infill, then you are pushing growth out onto the periphery.
Seems like my original response is not going to be posted for some unknown reason.
In any case, the “choice” that David is attempting to present is not real – it’s a fake choice.
The truth (that David himself acknowledged) is that infill usually doesn’t pencil-out in the first place.
And if the state is ever actually successful in forcing growth on a massive scale, the state’s authority will ultimately be removed (e.g., voter initiative – the same way that Proposition 13 came into existence.) There’s already plenty of opposition to what the state is attempting, but it is not yet adequately organized in a cohesive manner across communities. (The biggest reason for that is because the state hasn’t been successful in the first place, and it appears from this article that some lawmakers are starting to get “cold feet” regarding further weakening of local control.)
“The truth (that David himself acknowledged) is that infill usually doesn’t pencil-out in the first place.”
If that were the case (which is not what I said btw), why would anyone oppose a bill (or propose a bill)
To further clarify, I recall that you said that the “builder’s remedy” doesn’t pencil out.
But I suspect that very little “infill” actually pencils-out, since they generally have to remove existing structures to accomplish it.
Regarding this particular bill (the one that passed the state senate “committee”), does it include an Affordable housing requirement? And is it in its final form yet, before heading to the governor?
And would the “other” bill (that didn’t pass the committee) still enable local communities to challenge proposals?
20 percent affordable on infill generally is not going to pencil out
Why do you progressives continue to bastardize the language? This bill doesn’t make it ‘legal’ to have high-density housing near major transit stops. Rather, it makes it illegal for local government to oppose such. Big difference.
I’m for having high-density housing downtown and near the rail station. I did not oppose Lincoln40 which is 200′ from me and has impact on my life every day and has 700 students.
But seriously, are y’all so housing-frenzy-deluded that you want Davis to have no zoning control over the core area, where most of the rich character that makes us Davis exists? It’s like phrases like ‘character’, ‘quality of life’, ‘historic’ have become bad words, even ‘racist’ through some twisted logic. It’s an underhanded, developer-controlled narrative that the pro-housing tools in Davis and statewide have bought into. I think you all are sick, sick, sick people.
That’s more of a framing issue than a language issue
“SB 79, dubbed the “Abundant & Affordable Homes Near Transit Act,” would establish mandatory zoning standards around train stations and bus rapid transit (BRT) stops. It would eliminate local prohibitions on mid-rise multifamily housing within close proximity to public transportation, while also streamlining the approval process for qualifying projects under the state’s existing streamlining pathways, including SB 35 and SB 423.”
So, if transit stops are planned and implemented along Covell Boulevard, buildings of any height could be built there and the city and its residents couldn’t stop them? Seven stories all along Covell?
“within a half-mile of major transit stops.”
Perhaps for the entire Village Farm, Shriner’s, and DISC sites, if the city annexes them. As well as whatever might be proposed next adjacent to Mace (south of I-80).
Sounds like a reason to not annex those sites.
(Actually, that was already a concern regarding the “builder’s remedy”.)
In other words, the specifics of a Measure J proposal may not matter. You’re gonna get a combination of builder’s remedy and 7-story towers, if voters approve anything at all. Might as well promise all kinds of things that will be overriden by the state, anyway.
Talk about “backfiring” regarding motivation to vote for ANY proposal, at this point.
Still requires a Measure J vote
Right – with any proposal resulting in nothing but “builder’s remedy” and 7-story towers, regardless of how it’s described on a ballot. Like I said, developers might as well promise them all kinds of things
A lot easier for that type of development to “pencil out” on undeveloped land.
But it’s sure going to look strange to have that type of thing outside of town. (Single-family housing in the actual town, and dense towers surrounding it.)
Now, that’s something I’d have to admit would be somewhat amusing. Sort of a “gauntlet of density” surrounding the town. Should make for some interesting trips up the CostCo Highway.
“Still requires a Measure J vote”
Yes, but this bill would create considerable uncertainty about what a Measure J vote actually approves. Measure J is just a zoning change approval. You can load in all the features you want in the development agreement tied to the Measure J vote, but with this legislation in place those would be moot. If the voters approve the change, state law, it seems to me, would supercede any of the other details of what the voters approve.
This legislation would decrease the likelihood of a Measure J vote passing for any project on the periphery. We don’t have enough infill sites.
It would be a mess. And it would reduce, not increase, the likelihood of a larger transit plan being approved for Mace and Covell because that transit plan would increase the likelihood of high-density high-rises being essentially foisted on the city.
You could, but is anyone going to approve it if someone argues that it will lead to a seven story building on Covell?
Perhaps the most-amusing outcome would be if the pro-development forces (especially someone proposing a development) started to oppose this type of YIMBY bill, due to a resulting fear of a Measure J rejection. (Which would at least lead to a significant delay.)
Which begs the question, who should I “root for” in that case?
Do you prefer dense infill or peripheral?
Me? Neither one.
The state and country aren’t growing.
Having said that, I do think there are properties downtown which could use redevelopment (e.g., the block that houses Kim’s market, for example).
I personally never found Trackside to be that offensive, but I don’t live in that neighborhood. I was actually more-against University Mall (from an objective point of view), because I thought that housing would compromise the mall.
I also appreciate that restricting peripheral development results in more investment in existing neighborhoods. (I previously posted an example of a small house on K Street that is undergoing massive renovation for the main house, as well as the pre-existing ADU in back – a former garage.) Now, if that place was in West Sacramento, it’s doubtful that it would have attracted such investment. That’s what “restricting” peripheral growth can help accomplish.
So “my” preference (regarding any pursuit of growth) lies with making existing cities better – more attractive and functional. I am not trying to “solve” fake housing crises.
I don’t think neither is a viable answer
If you look more-carefully at my response, I said “neither” in terms of solving fake housing crises. Not that I’m opposed to all redevelopment – a lot of which is actually beneficial. And (strangely-enough), I’m actually quite impressed at the skill which goes into buildings and redevelopment. To me, it’s almost a form of “magic”. (A lot of which they don’t teach at universities, except for engineering.)
But it obviously doesn’t matter what “I” think that much in the first place. (Take a look around the region, if you think I have much influence. Hell, I probably don’t have any influence anywhere, when you come right down to it.)
But I’ll continue trying.
My response is the same.
That’s o.k. But I don’t think you’re going to get whatever you’re actually looking for (cheap housing, equity for all, whatever else you imagine).
On an individual level, it seems to me that there’s other places that are better for those without much assets and who are starting out in life. (Of course, there’s fewer-and-fewer in that demographic in the first place.)
Davis “used to be” a place like that (not so long ago), but the ship has sailed. Even throughout the entire region and beyond – you basically need access to at least $500,000 for a house – to start.
You can’t blame Measure J for this, as it’s true throughout much of California (and even the nation).
A lot of this is due to basic inflation, but there’s also other factors (such as increases in the cost of materials, labor, etc.).
There are still places where you can get a nice house in a decent neighborhood for maybe $150K, as well as a job that’s more-aligned with housing prices. But it seems likely that those opportunities are also starting to disappear. (The reference below is for a guy who invests in those type of places.)
But there are other places as well that are even nicer (and not that much more). Places in Tennessee, the Carolinas, etc. – with mountains as well.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwi9Hu0rE5eblY4NiyTyX1A
This comment suggests Ron is either incredibly out of touch or clinging to an outdated perception of the housing market. In most of the U.S.—even in many rural areas—$150K barely gets you a teardown, let alone a “nice house in a decent neighborhood.” And the idea that jobs are neatly “aligned” with housing costs ignores decades of decoupling between wages and real estate prices, especially post-2008 and again post-COVID.
He’s peddling a kind of mythic small-town America that no longer exists in any widespread or sustainable form. That mindset also conveniently overlooks systemic issues like regional inequality, wage stagnation, housing underproduction, and land use restrictions—all of which have contributed to the affordability crisis.
You have to put housing near where jobs are – there’s just no reality here.
David: It’s you who hasn’t researched this. I watch these investor/real estate videos all the time.
These aren’t “slow-growthers” – they’re people who analyze the market. (And none of them think there’s a housing shortage.)
My “opinions” of what’s out there have been influenced by what investors are CURRENTLY doing, as well as where younger generations are actually moving to. As well as where their JOBS have been moving to – including technology jobs.
It’s not even in question as to locations where the price of housing is more-aligned with what local jobs pay. (Though some of those places are now experiencing a significant downturn in housing prices – largely due to “overbuilding”.)
Again, there is no housing shortage, and I can refer to a university study which shows this.
The fact is that young people aren’t even having kids at replacement levels, anymore – not even close.
It’s you who is clinging to a “trickle-down” theory. Meanwhile, those who aren’t trying to change a community to suit their personal desires have “moved on”.
This is becoming comical. That’s a classic case of YouTube University meets confirmation bias. Ron’s conflating anecdotal investor chatter and cherry-picked market commentary with actual economic analysis. Watching real estate influencers is not the same as engaging with peer-reviewed research or policy studies. Over and out.
The following Youtuber is probably a better “informal” source from a non-investor point of view. I think this is the video I watched the other day, in regard to the “10 Best Places” to move to (and which also discusses housing prices and jobs – in general):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UXNt0ZWeZE
But truth be told, it’s the creation of (more) jobs than a given community actually needs which causes housing prices to rise.
There’s also sources which provide detailed data/analysis regarding where the housing market is headed (mostly “down”). I could refer you to those, if you’re interested.
In any case, here’s what artificial intelligence has to say when asked where home prices are well-aligned with income:
“Several metropolitan areas in the United States offer relatively balanced housing markets where housing prices are more aligned with income levels compared to other regions. Some of these areas include Dallas, Jacksonville, San Antonio, Indianapolis, Chattanooga, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Birmingham, and Columbus, Georgia. These locations often exhibit a lower cost of living and a favorable price-to-income ratio, making them attractive for homeownership and rental properties.”
(I don’t even see “Sacramento” on this list, and I (mostly) think of that as an inexpensive, crime-ridden, flat, hot, floodplain. Though some areas of that enormous-footprint city are nicer than others. Based on a quick search, it looks like you could fit “two San Franciscos” into the area that “just” Sacramento occupies.)
O.K., David – you want a peer-reviewed university study?
Here ya go:
“Maybe we should listen instead to the housing experts whose bank accounts don’t get a boost every time a crane goes up. Take Alex Schwartz and Kirk McClure. Schwartz, a professor at the New School, literally wrote the book on U.S. housing, Housing Policy in the United States, now in its fourth edition from Routledge Press. McClureis professor emeritus in urban planning at the University of Kansas. Like Schwartz, he is a widely-published, highly-decorated expert on housing markets.”
“In a recent Barron’s article, Schwartz and McClure decided to look past the housing-supply hype and crunch the numbers. Those numbers show that 21st century housing construction has produced a surplus of 3.5 million units, including a surplus in virtually every metropolitan area. New York, for example, has a quarter-million more units than are needed to house its population.”
“Schwartz and McClure put it plainly: “Nationally, there is no shortage of housing, and adding to the surplus won’t resolve the nation’s affordability problems.”
“Past the profit-focused cacophony insisting on building more housing, Schwartz’s and McClure’s warning is being repeated by others. Allan Mallach, a senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress and the National Housing Institute, concurred in large part with Schwartz and McClure in a Shelterforce article earlier this year.”
https://news.ku.edu/news/article/study-finds-us-does-not-have-housing-shortage-but-shortage-of-affordable-housing
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/affordable-housing-crisis
A single academic paper, pulled out of context and misunderstood, becomes a weaponized anecdote rather than evidence. People who don’t understand how peer review works, or how to interpret findings within a larger body of literature, often walk away with conclusions that are less accurate than if they’d read nothing at all.
You asked for a university study (after not even looking at the other sources I listed), and now you’re criticizing that (without any actual argument). What part do you think I’m “misunderstanding”?
Your arrogance is the only “evidence” on display, here.
Go ahead and post a study which refutes it. Doing so will serve you better than insulting me or university researchers.
As Don pointed out the other day, the apparent “target” of affordability for the imaginary group you claim exists is between $875 – $2,000 per month – total cost of housing. Name ONE developer who is planning to provide that (other than subsidized developers).
I didn’t ask for anything, I pointed out the flaw in using YouTube videos to prove your point. Do you think that the study you cited – which you’ve never read – is considered the definitive work in the field?
You did, in fact, note that I wasn’t providing university studies. When I did so, you criticized that (without any content or actual argument), as well.
Again, I don’t have a budget (unlike the Vanguard) to gain full access to the study. You do, so what part do you (as a “non-researcher”, “non-professor”) disagree with? What part of the summary (which I do have access to) do you think is “wrong”?
I already suggested that you post a university study which refutes that study, but you don’t need an invitation from me to do so.
As far as YouTube videos, maybe you should try watching a few of them before dismissing them altogether. These aren’t “slow-growthers”, and the data they present is available for anyone to critique. (I didn’t post a video to the one guy who goes deep into the data, and presents other data from sources like Zillow for comparison.) These are not “slow-growth” people, to say the least. Or maybe you think that “you’re” more qualified than a YouTuber to present data?
But again, post all the “actual” studies you want – I’m obviously not preventing you from doing so.
Limitations of McClure’s “Where Is the Housing Shortage?”
Kirk McClure’s article “Where Is the Housing Shortage?”, co-authored with Alex Schwartz and published in Housing Policy Debate in 2024, has sparked wide discussion in housing circles for its provocative thesis: that the U.S. does not face a housing shortage but rather an affordability crisis. However, while its contrarian stance has attracted attention, the article suffers from methodological oversights, selective framing, and a limited understanding of how housing markets actually function.
At the core of McClure’s argument is a national-level accounting exercise that compares household formation with the number of housing units built from 2000 to 2020. The authors conclude that there are millions more units than households, and thus, no shortage. But this approach glosses over critical realities. It treats all housing units as interchangeable—ignoring that a vacant luxury condo in downtown Los Angeles does not “solve” the housing needs of a working-class family in Riverside. The metro-area framing is too coarse to capture the hyper-local mismatches between housing supply and demand, particularly in job-rich, exclusionary cities like San Francisco or Palo Alto where low-income renters are displaced or forced into extreme commutes.
Moreover, the article leans heavily on unit counts without seriously addressing habitability, overcrowding, or regional segregation. It understates the dynamics of filtering, vacancy rates, and speculative ownership that reduce the effective availability of homes. Even the article’s assumption that the unit-to-household surplus implies no structural undersupply ignores that many households are involuntarily doubling up, delaying household formation, or enduring severe cost burdens—all signs of a dysfunctional market, even if raw numbers appear sufficient.
The article has generated thoughtful responses from respected scholars like Yonah Freemark and George Galster, who argue that affordability and supply are not mutually exclusive problems. Galster, for instance, emphasizes that constraints on supply in high-opportunity metros worsen inequality and segregation. While McClure’s critique of trickle-down “build anything” solutions is valid, his rhetorical framing veers into false dichotomies: either there’s a shortage or there’s an affordability crisis. In reality, America faces both—especially for renters in the bottom half of the income spectrum.
Finally, despite claims that the article is reshaping the discourse, its scholarly footprint remains limited. As of April 2025, it has only two citations in academic literature. The stronger reaction has come from housing skeptics and online commentators who cite it to bolster anti-growth arguments, often misreading the article as an endorsement of status quo zoning. In that sense, its greatest impact may be unintentional: giving intellectual cover to those who oppose housing reform altogether. For a piece aimed at nuance, it has become a blunt instrument in culture war debates over housing.
In short, McClure’s piece challenges the dominant narrative, but does so in ways that oversimplify complex structural realities. It is less a conclusive answer than a useful provocation—one that deserves to be read critically, not embraced uncritically.
See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
Not seeing a link to your source, but this type of discussion/debate is generally more useful than screaming about a “housing crisis” – especially when there’s not even agreement as to what that actually means.
Perhaps the biggest “omission” in the counter-argument you present is that it doesn’t consider that jobs have also been relocating from the so-called “high opportunity zones” to more-affordable areas, along with its workers (the “California Exodus”, as well as the opportunities that have recently arisen due to telecommuting).
In other words, the same job-creators that created a “housing shortage” in specific areas (that no one asked for in the first place), have been increasingly moving to other areas around the country.
I personally think that homeowners were partly to blame for the situation in places like the Bay Area. In other words, some of them were probably pleased when their home prices were rising as a result of the technology industry, until the industry itself outgrew the communities (and turned against those long-term residents).
Perhaps that’s a useful lesson, going forward.
As I previously noted, middle class homeowners would have no opportunity to purchase the homes they currently live in, as a result of the pursuit of the technology industry (in/near Silicon Valley, etc.). So even if they “cash out” and move, they aren’t coming back. I know someone who recently sold their long-term home for an obscene amount of money, but also had to pay a large, unexpected capital gains tax. They’re now living on the east side of the Sacramento valley (and are “somehow” surprised at how hot it is there).
But you know who “didn’t” cause that situation? The homeowners, themselves.
There’s no link because I wrote it. I just never published the piece. I was going to use it then things moved too fast.
I don’t believe that McClure is altogether wrong. The biggest finding in the piece is actually the 7 million short fall in affordable units – and I don’t believe that can be bridged without addressing supply.
The housing crisis cannot be solved by the market alone—but it also cannot be solved without a massive expansion of housing supply. Non-market solutions like social housing, cooperative ownership, and deeply affordable homes all depend on building more—more units, more density, and more intentional development.
Supply without justice fuels speculation; justice without supply fuels scarcity which also fuels more speculation and that’s a huge problem that the McClure article doesn’t account for. The only sustainable path forward is a both/and strategy that embraces new construction as a precondition for equity, not a substitute for it.
I even annotated a bibliography:
McClure, Kirk & Alex Schwartz (2025). “Where Is the Housing Shortage?” Housing Policy Debate 35(1): 49–63. (Abstract summarizes the finding of no nationwide housing unit shortfall) .
ResearchGate entry for McClure’s article (showing 2 citation entries as of Apr. 2025) .
Housing Policy Debate forum responses: Yonah Freemark’s “What Is a Housing Shortage?” ; Airgood-Obrycki & McCue’s “The Housing Shortage Is Still Out There” ; Galster’s “Is There Enough Housing Production?…” ; Quercia’s “Where Has All the Housing Gone?” ; and McClure & Schwartz’s reply . (These works directly cite and discuss McClure’s article, exemplifying the scholarly debate.)
Freemark, Yonah (2024). “What is a Housing Shortage?” Housing Policy Debate 35(1): 64–74. (Critiques McClure’s geographic scope, noting units aren’t interchangeable across locations) .
Airgood-Obrycki, W. & McCue, D. (2024). “The Housing Shortage Is Still Out There.” Housing Policy Debate 35(1): 75–79. (Reiterates evidence of a national housing shortfall, particularly at affordable levels) .
Cianfarani, F. et al. (2024). “Identifying the Affordable Housing Shortage: A Study for Oklahoma.” Urban Planning 9(??). (Uses McClure’s findings as national context; finds Oklahoma’s issue is affordability, not total units) .
KU News/ScienceDaily (2024). “Study finds US does not have housing shortage, but shortage of affordable housing.” (Press release quoting McClure: high prices and low incomes are the main problem, not lack of units) .
Institute for Policy Studies (2024). “Billionaire Housing Disruption” report. (Cites
It’s not a bad piece of writing.
Where I’d disagree with you is that the housing market largely “balances” itself, eventually (e.g., the California Exodus I just mentioned). Davis itself is partly the result of a “Bay Area Exodus”.
The other part I’d “disagree” with is something that the study I cited noted: Some people simply don’t make enough money – even in “cheap” markets. The reason for the focus on housing (as opposed to “everything else”) is because it’s almost always the largest single category of costs. But other costs have been rising at largely the same rate. (The cost of a college degree has been rising a lot faster than housing, I understand. And is becoming less-valuable, to boot.)
So that, coupled with the collapse of federal support for public housing is the real cause. And Section 8 is apparently not well-funded, either.
Then there’s the constant attempts to discourage rent control – which are usually successful.
The only place to get “cheap” housing is where it already exists. The cost of building/rebuilding greatly exceeds the cost of a pre-existing house even in “cheap” areas (and exceeds what a low-income person can afford).
As Don noted the other day, the “suggested target demographic” in Davis can only pay approximately $875 – $2,000 per month. (Taxes and insurance alone can easily-exceed $1,000/month for a middle-class house in Davis.) Ultimately, the only entity that “owns” anything is the government – they’re the only ones that permanently “rent” a property to an occupant, an it increases every year.
So for me, I’m not willing to support Ten New McMansions on farmland so that they subsidize “one” Affordable dwelling. That’s probably the main area of disagreement, and it also increases the cost of the “McMansions” (or even the “normal”, non-subsidized houses).
“So for me, I’m not willing to support Ten New McMansions on farmland so that they subsidize “one” Affordable dwelling.”
I definitely agree on that point.
The other part I (and apparently McClure) “disagree” with is your conclusion regarding this:
“I don’t believe that McClure is altogether wrong. The biggest finding in the piece is actually the 7 million short fall in affordable units – and I don’t believe that can be bridged without addressing supply.”
Would have to go back to see if McClure said that there’s a 7 million shortfall in affordable units, and what, exactly that means (regarding what they “should” cost).
But again, McClure is NOT suggesting that the buildings “don’t already exist”. They exist (and are presumably occupied), but they’re not “affordable” – whatever that means.
The other day, you mentioned something like 35 million more units, in order to address the 7 million units. I’m not sure what type of calculation you were performing, but it doesn’t seem likely that there’s demand for 35 million more market-rate units, IN ADDITION TO the 7 million units.
Housing restrictions are not preventing developers in most locales from building market-rate units. The market itself is preventing them from being built.
McClure noted that there was an “oversupply” created in the previous decade.
At some point, someone has to pay for something. You can’t just keep hanging this on the backs of a population that isn’t increasing. The market-rate housing market is already in a downturn, so it doesn’t seem likely that builders are going to provide 35 million more units that won’t sell.
McCluare conceptualizes the shortage of affordable housing not as a general supply issue, but as a mismatch between the incomes of low-income households and the rent levels that the private market can profitably provide.
The problem for him, isn’t that there are too few units in general, but that the private market cannot—and will not—supply enough units at rents those households can afford.
McClure maintains that deep affordability requires deep subsidy. Whether through public housing, housing choice vouchers, or LIHTC units targeted to lower income thresholds, non-market intervention is required to supply housing affordable to the bottom 20–30% of earners.
My 35 million unit figure was an example of the market solution to affordable housing – assuming 7 million units at 20 percent affordable, that would take 35 million units to achieve. That’s not practical obviously.
I don’t agree with your last sentence. Jurisdictions have been flagged because they have failed to move housing proposals forward – that’s not a market problem, that’s a regulatory problem.
BTW, while McClure argues that the market won’t produce affordable housing without subsidy, he doesn’t deny that restrictive local policy drives up housing costs. He simply argues that the solution for low-income households must go beyond liberalizing land use.
McClure’s conclusion (the one that I could see) is that some people simply don’t make enough money. Or maybe that was a reference to the study – I can find it if you’d like.
But most municipalities have not been “flagged” for failing to provide housing. Most municipalities welcome it. (You’ve seen what’s been occurring in Natomas, Folsom, Roseville, Woodland, Vacaville, etc.), right?
And that’s just in THIS area.
Texas welcomes this stuff with open arms, as does most of the rest of the country.
The only place that TRULY resists it are locales that are already developed, and are extremely expensive to redevelop. It costs a lot to tear down and rebuild structures – regulations or not.
But if those communities truly want to rid themselves of the pressure to develop, they’re going to have to increasingly question the pursuit of jobs beyond what a community actually “needs”.
Also, it seems pretty obvious that when a community has a plethora of high-paying jobs, the janitors and other service people are going to have trouble finding affordable housing anywhere nearby. That’s always been the case, in communities that are already-developed. That’s why Manhattan is expensive, despite having high-rise residences. One of them being owned by our “illustrious president”, for that matter.