If we want to have a serious conversation about housing in California—and across the country—we need to move past tired narratives that reduce demand to nothing more than population growth and immigration trends. The reality is more complex, and more urgent.
Yes, demographic shifts matter. Yes, birth rates have declined. Yes, older generations will eventually move out of their homes—whether by choice or necessity. But housing demand doesn’t simply evaporate because fewer babies are born or because net migration slows.
The crisis we face isn’t just about how many people are coming or going—it’s about whether the people who are here now can afford a place to live, and whether we’re building a society where housing is treated as a basic foundation for life, rather than a speculative commodity.
People form households for many reasons beyond having children. Young adults are delaying marriage but still moving out on their own. Divorce rates, aging, and cultural shifts all contribute to more one- or two-person households.
And while some older homeowners may eventually sell or downsize, many are staying in place longer, often because of favorable property tax laws that make moving financially irrational.
So the idea that there’s a coming “boomer die-off” that will magically free up enough housing is not only macabre—it’s wishful thinking. It’s also not new. That narrative has been floated for decades.
The problem is, it doesn’t solve the housing shortage today.
And make no mistake: there is a shortage—especially for those who need it most.
A University of Kansas study may have found that, while the total number of housing units may have kept pace with household growth nationally between 2000 and 2020, that aggregate number masks a stark imbalance: we are not building enough affordable rental housing for low-income families.
The study showed that nearly all metro areas have enough owner-occupied housing but are deeply lacking in affordable rental options. So while some may claim there’s no overall shortage, the reality is that there is a massive gap between what exists and what people can actually afford.
That gap is especially visible in California, where housing costs have long outpaced wages. Teachers, nurses, grocery clerks, and janitors—the people who keep communities functioning—are often unable to live in the cities where they work. Many face punishing commutes, overcrowded housing, or forced displacement altogether.
If the market were truly functioning, rising prices would trigger new construction to meet demand. But decades of exclusionary zoning, environmental weaponization, and local opposition have created artificial scarcity that distorts the market and drives prices even higher.
When someone says, “If you don’t build it, they don’t come,” they’re missing the point. People are already here. They just can’t stay.
This isn’t just a supply-side problem, and it’s certainly not just a problem of young people making poor financial choices. It’s the result of decades of deliberate policy decisions: disinvestment in public housing, restrictive zoning laws that ban multifamily homes in desirable areas, and tax structures that encourage speculation and vacancy while penalizing mobility.
We have created a system where housing is not distributed based on need—but on wealth, timing, and luck.
Meanwhile, some argue that California is becoming less affordable not because of a housing shortage but because of economic success. “Don’t create good jobs unless you can house the janitor,” the logic goes. But that’s a false choice.
We don’t need to freeze economic development to protect low-income workers—we need to build housing policies that are equitable, inclusive, and capable of meeting the needs of a diverse workforce. That means mixed-income housing. That means social housing. That means land-use reform and meaningful investment in public infrastructure.
There’s also an emerging narrative that says we don’t need to worry so much about housing in expensive regions because people can just move to cheaper areas. But exporting people to lower-cost regions isn’t a solution—it’s a surrender.
When we force people out of opportunity-rich places because they can’t afford to live there, we’re not solving inequality—we’re entrenching it. That’s not good for families, communities, or the economy.
Some point to subsidies and say, “There’s only so much we can afford.” But the same people often oppose building new housing as well. If we won’t build more, and we won’t subsidize more, then what exactly are we offering people? A vision of permanent exclusion?
California has started to move in the right direction—streamlining permitting for infill development, funding affordable housing, and closing outdated prisons to reallocate resources.
But much of this progress is fragile and slow. Warm shutdowns of decommissioned prisons leave them vulnerable to reactivation. Lawsuits and local obstruction stall new housing projects.
Misinformation and fear continue to dominate public discourse. All the while, the crisis grows worse for renters, workers, and the unhoused.
Ultimately, what we need is a shift in mindset. We need to stop treating housing like a luxury good and start treating it like what it is: essential infrastructure for human flourishing.
That requires courage from lawmakers, creativity from planners, and solidarity from communities. It means standing up to those who benefit from the status quo and demanding better for those who are being pushed out.
This crisis isn’t theoretical. It’s not coming in 10 or 20 years. It’s already here. And the people who are feeling it most—the single parent with two jobs, the student living in their car, the elder being priced out of their long-time home—can’t wait for the market to sort itself out.
They need action. They need housing. They need justice.
And so do we.
From article: “And while some older homeowners may eventually sell or downsize, many are staying in place longer, often because of favorable property tax laws that make moving financially irrational.”
Proposition 19 “fixed” that in regard to property taxes, but there (can) still be capital gains taxes. But the other enormous costs have to do with real estate agent fees, transaction fees, moving costs and hassles, etc.
Also, it’s a myth that you need “less room” when you retire. If anything, you need MORE room, since you’re home more often after you retire. And sometimes, adult children are (wisely) staying with their parents, to save up money to buy their own house. (Multi-generational living is “normal” for some cultures – including those in the United States.)
From article: “There’s also an emerging narrative that says we don’t need to worry so much about housing in expensive regions because people can just move to cheaper areas. But exporting people to lower-cost regions isn’t a solution—it’s a surrender.”
Well, if that’s the case, then Davis itself is a “surrender” for people moving from the Bay Area.
From article: “So the idea that there’s a coming “boomer die-off” that will magically free up enough housing is not only macabre—it’s wishful thinking. It’s also not new. That narrative has been floated for decades.”
Right – that’s how calculations work – they look at demographics and make calculations for the future based upon that. The oldest boomers are just now approaching 80. They weren’t dying in mass in previous decades.
It’s occurring now, and will pick up steam. This isn’t “wishful thinking” – it’s evidence-based reality.
It’s the same reality that’s already causing a significant reduction in demand for schools and colleges. Young people aren’t having kids at replacement levels.
Ever hear of the saying that there’s only two certainties in life? (Death and taxes.)
And you know who will inherit those houses? The children of boomers. (Of course, some of them won’t be able to preserve their parents’ property tax as a result of Proposition 19.)
There isn’t a shortage of buildings.
There’s no shortage of buildings—but there’s a massive shortage of access to housing, especially for those without inherited wealth.
So you’re talking about a difference in wealth; not a shortage of buildings. That’s a pretty big step for you to acknowledge.
But you’ve got this part wrong (missed it the first time):
From your article: “A University of Kansas study may have found that, while the total number of housing units may have kept pace with household growth nationally between 2000 and 2020, . . .”
It didn’t just “keep pace” – it exceeded household formation.
Also – from your article: “Meanwhile, some argue that California is becoming less affordable not because of a housing shortage but because of economic success.”
There is no question that the underlying reason for extremely high housing prices (in places like Silicon Valley) is due to the pursuit of the technology industry.
From your article: “Don’t create good jobs unless you can house the janitor,” the logic goes. But that’s a false choice.”
It’s absolutely the choice that you yourself are arguing for. And yet, it’s not an achievable goal, when you’re simultaneously pursuing companies with millionaire workers and billionaire owners in a locale that’s already developed.
Ultimately, however, the companies themselves have often been leaving for less-expensive locales. (Can’t help but notice that a new city “Starbase” was just created for SpaceX. (My guess is that Teslas aren’t vandalized, there. And that a janitor can find housing somewhere nearby – assuming that the janitor isn’t replaced by a robot.)
Acknowledging wealth inequality isn’t a concession—it’s the core of the housing crisis: we don’t lack units; we lack equitable access to them in opportunity-rich regions where people actually want to live.
It’s not that simple, nor is it necessarily where “folks want to live”. What you’re seeing (e.g., in/near Silicon Valley, for example) is the pursuit of an industry that created millionaires and billionaires, in a locale that was already developed. It is not “cheap” to knock down existing buildings and replace them. That’s why Manhattan is expensive – many of the original buildings that occupied that space are gone and replaced.
This is also why Trackside, for example, hasn’t been built yet. Even though it doesn’t compare to the Bay Area.
If you want an example of “affordable” housing in an already-developed locale, I’d suggest taking a look at the reference below. (Do you think the housing activists in Hong Kong blame “NIMBY’s” for this? I doubt it.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/29/hong-kong-coffin-homes-horror-my-week
You’re writing-off entire regions of the U.S., where opportunity is actually better. You can do a quick “AI” search yourself, showing places where housing costs are more-aligned with local salaries. (Here’s a hint: None of them are in California, as I recall.)
And again, Davis is “still” cheap housing for those coming from the Bay Area. It’s ultimately all “relative”.
Nor are housing costs the only costs that have been rising. It would be odd if housing costs stayed the same while everything else is rising, don’t you think?
(My third comment.)
What’s truly odd is pretending that displaced demand, unequal access, and wealth concentration don’t distort housing markets. People don’t “want” to live in places like Silicon Valley because it’s expensive—they want to live there because it concentrates opportunity. The problem isn’t that housing is expensive; it’s that we’ve made it artificially scarce in the very places where people’s futures hinge on access.