Op-Ed | No, California’s Housing Crisis Won’t Solve Itself, Experts Say

Declining population – if it is declining – in California is due to a lack of housing, not a lack of interest.

It sounds like an something one of our commenters would share or quote in approval—especially the blend of anti-density sentiment, skepticism of state mandates, and the invocation of demographic trends to justify inaction on housing reform. 

A recent op-ed making the rounds claims that California’s housing policies are built on a false premise: that the state is still booming. It argues that because population growth has stalled (if it has stalled which recent data might dispute), and Baby Boomers will eventually vacate their homes, the housing crisis will solve itself—no need for state mandates, zoning reform, or urban density. 

But this argument misunderstands the crisis we face, misrepresents the data, and ignores the very real barriers that prevent Californians from accessing safe, affordable housing.

For one thing, California’s housing crisis is not about raw population growth. It’s about decades of underbuilding, exclusionary zoning, and a housing market designed to benefit those who already own property—at the expense of everyone else. 

The housing shortage didn’t begin in 2020. It’s the product of restrictive land-use policies that have driven up costs, worsened inequality, and pushed working people farther and farther from the communities they serve.

So yes, the state is taking what I would call belated and probably inadequate action—because leaving this entirely to local governments has failed. SB 9 and SB 10 are modest attempts to allow more housing, especially near transit and in areas where decades of single-family-only zoning have prevented multi-family development. But even those incremental reforms are under constant attack by those who prefer the status quo.

The argument that we no longer need more housing because “population is declining” is misleading on multiple levels.

First, declining population doesn’t mean declining demand. Most of California’s population losses are due to a lack of housing affordability, not an absence of interest in living here. People are being priced out, not opting out. That’s not a reason to slow housing production—it’s a flashing red warning that we don’t have enough of it.

Second, aging Baby Boomers vacating homes is not a housing strategy. The idea that we can just “wait out” the crisis until Boomers die or downsize is not only morally grotesque—it’s economically unserious. Most Boomers aren’t moving. Many are aging in place because our housing system and healthcare system give them little choice. And even when homes do change hands, they often do so at prices far out of reach for younger buyers.

A recent study by Freddie Mac estimated a national shortage of nearly 4 million homes. In California, that number is acute in coastal regions and job-rich areas where even middle-income families struggle to buy or rent. Saying we don’t need more housing because “eventually some will free up” ignores the urgent need for affordable, missing-middle, and transit-oriented housing today.

The op-ed also points to low SB 9 uptake as evidence that state policy isn’t working. But here again, it misses the mark. The reason SB 9 hasn’t yet transformed neighborhoods is because cities have thrown up bureaucratic barriers, passed ordinances to obstruct implementation, and, in some cases, actively discouraged homeowners from pursuing lot splits or duplex conversions. That’s not a failure of the policy—it’s a failure of political will at the local level.

Meanwhile, the fearmongering about “bulldozing” neighborhoods is just that—fearmongering. SB 9 explicitly bans demolition of affordable housing and rent-controlled units. It’s a law that gives homeowners the option to create more housing on their lots—not a mandate to turn your neighborhood into Manhattan.

And as for the Japan comparison? Japan’s issue is not that it built too much—it’s that it experienced sustained economic decline, a collapsing birth rate, and depopulation of rural areas. California has its problems, but it remains an economic powerhouse, with one of the world’s largest economies, a housing market that’s still unaffordable for millions, and a desperate shortage of homes near jobs, schools, and services.

The op-ed’s romanticizing of “small towns and remote work” as the solution ignores another fact: California’s sprawl is already unsustainable. Suburban and exurban expansion has fueled traffic, emissions, and segregation. And while remote work has shifted some housing demand, it hasn’t solved affordability. In fact, housing prices in suburbs have surged precisely because people who once lived in cities now compete for a limited stock of homes elsewhere. Building more in walkable, transit-served areas is not ideology—it’s common sense.

Finally, the call to abandon state mandates in favor of “adaptive planning” sounds reasonable—until you remember how we got here. Local governments, left to their own devices, often say no to new housing. They downzone, delay projects, or cave to NIMBY pressure. They object to affordable housing, supportive housing, student housing, even teacher housing. If anything, RHNA (the Regional Housing Needs Allocation) process and new laws like SB 423 are belated corrections to decades of local obstruction.

California’s housing crisis won’t be solved by waiting. It won’t be solved by wishing for demographic shifts or pretending that “organic” change will fix a system designed to exclude. We need housing of all types: affordable units, market-rate apartments, missing middle homes, and yes, more duplexes and fourplexes in the neighborhoods that have long excluded them.

Planning should be grounded in facts—but the facts are clear. Housing is too scarce, too expensive, and too difficult to build. Sacramento is acting because cities have failed to do so. That’s not ideology. That’s reality.

Categories:

Tags: