After years of political inertia, failed bills, and half-measures, California’s long-simmering housing crisis may finally be met with a dose of urgency in Sacramento. The recent passage of Senate Bill 79, along with long-overdue efforts to reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), signals a potential turning point in the state’s approach to housing. But even as advocates cheer the legislative progress, a hard truth remains: the cost of building—especially affordable housing—remains prohibitively high, and the political appetite to fund such projects is still dangerously weak.
That contradiction—between legislative movement and financial paralysis—raises a critical question: Is California truly turning a corner on housing, or are we still circling the block?
SB 79, authored by State Senator Scott Wiener, represents the boldest statewide zoning reform in years. The bill would override restrictive local zoning laws to allow mid-rise apartment buildings—four to seven stories tall—near high-quality transit stops, even if local jurisdictions oppose the development. The goal is to promote dense infill housing, reduce car dependence, and chip away at the supply-demand mismatch driving the state’s soaring housing prices.
The bill’s passage in the Senate, by the bare minimum 21 votes, is both a substantive and symbolic milestone. This is Wiener’s third attempt to pass such legislation, after SB 827 (2018) and SB 50 (2020) were killed by entrenched opposition. That SB 79 survived where its predecessors failed reflects shifting political winds—and mounting pressure on lawmakers to address California’s housing shortage with real urgency.
“There’s a growing recognition in the California legislature that cost of living is the number one issue,” said Nolan Gray of California YIMBY in an interview with the Vanguard. “It was the issue that determined the 2024 election—and not in the favor of Democrats.”
Indeed, the broader political terrain is changing. Matt Lewis, communications director for California YIMBY, called the SB 79 vote “a signal the politics of housing are changing.” But he and Gray both acknowledged that the win is fragile. “It’s exciting but terrifying,” Gray said. “We needed every single vote.”
Another front in this fight is CEQA, a well-intentioned environmental law that has, in practice, become a tool of obstruction—especially against infill development. This year, two reform bills—AB 609 and SB 607—are gaining traction. AB 609, co-sponsored by California YIMBY, would exempt most infill projects from CEQA review. SB 607 aims to streamline and clarify the environmental review process statewide.
“There’s something approaching consensus now,” said Gray. “We need to carve out infill projects from endless CEQA delays.”
Importantly, by focusing reform efforts on already urbanized areas—not greenfields—housing advocates have begun winning over environmental allies. Brooke Pritchard, a UC Davis alum and longtime housing advocate, pointed to growing bipartisan support: “The Little Hoover Commission identified this last year. When groups like that are calling for change, it shows how overdue this is.”
But legislative reform alone won’t fix the crisis. The core economic challenge remains: the cost of building. In California, the average per-unit cost of income-restricted affordable housing can exceed $1 million. That price tag makes it nearly impossible to build at the scale required—without massive state and federal subsidies that don’t currently exist.
“There’s no path to affordability that depends exclusively on income-restricted housing,” Gray said. “It’s just too expensive.”
Pritchard agreed. “You talk to a lot of regular Californians, and they hear about the cost of building a restricted affordable unit—and they have understandable reluctance about that,” she said. “We need to relieve market pressure by allowing more overall housing.”
That means building both subsidized and market-rate housing—especially in the so-called “missing middle” of duplexes, triplexes, and low-rise apartments. Minneapolis provides a compelling case study: after eliminating single-family zoning and promoting dense infill development, the city saw real housing price declines—even as prices rose elsewhere. “Minneapolis was one of the only cities where prices fell in real terms,” Gray said.
There are modest signs of similar momentum in Sacramento, where local reforms have contributed to a slight drop in rents. “It’s happening in our backyard,” Pritchard said. “We’re already seeing what’s possible when cities take bold action.”
But statewide, progress remains limited. Gray warned that “overall production has not increased,” and if not for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), California would be hitting new housing production lows. Cities like San Diego and Berkeley have started to embrace pro-housing policies, but results are still scattered—and far from enough.
Davis, for example, offers a cautionary tale. With infill opportunities dwindling and Measure J requiring voter approval for development on the city’s edges, the ability to meet future housing needs is vanishing. “Davis is a microcosm,” Gray said. “It’s a case study of what happens when a city resists growth for too long.” Pritchard, who hopes to return to Davis to raise a family, described it as “beautiful but increasingly unaffordable.” The number of students in Davis schools who no longer live in the city, she added, is a warning sign. “It’s a graying community, and the vibrancy is slipping.”
Opponents of SB 79, like Geoffrey Hueter of Neighbors for a Better San Diego, argue the bill’s reliance on transit proximity is flawed, allowing dense buildings in neighborhoods where transit is proposed but not guaranteed. Others, like David Moty, have labeled the bill an “unfunded infrastructure mandate.” And as Dr. Julianne Malveaux recently wrote, the market alone can’t address the needs of diverse or vulnerable populations. “We don’t just need more units; we need the right kinds of units,” she warned.
Without strong funding commitments for affordable housing and safeguards for equity, the market risks delivering mostly high-end development. “To ensure the right type of housing is built, the state’s leaders should expand funding for deeply affordable units and programs like the federal Section 8 voucher system,” Malveaux wrote.
Meanwhile, the political stakes are rising. California could lose up to five congressional seats due to population loss—an erosion of political power equivalent to an entire state like Nevada. “Even if you’re not moved by the human cost of the crisis, there are political consequences,” Gray said.
Pritchard, just back from the California Democratic Convention, said grassroots support for housing reform is growing—but frustration with Democratic leadership is growing as well. “People feel it in their pocketbooks,” she said. “They’re looking for leadership. And right now, I’m not sure the party is delivering.”
Some local officials quietly welcome state mandates, Gray noted, because they provide political cover. “They’ll say, ‘Sorry, the state tied our hands,’ and then thank us later. But for that argument to work, the state actually has to act.”
And time is running out.
So is California making real progress? The answer is a cautious yes. The political landscape is shifting. Key bills are advancing. And local experiments are showing promise. But unless state leaders follow through with funding and a full-scale commitment to building at every level—market-rate, subsidized, and everything in between—the crisis will continue to outrun the solutions.
We’ve opened the tap. But we haven’t turned the water on.
If you ACTUALLY look at what’s occurring, the “momentum” is moving in the opposite direction. (This isn’t “hopeful thinking” on my part.)
SB 79 has already been considerably-weakened (and is also subject to local Affordable housing requirements), and SB 607 has been blocked.
“Under the proposed legislation, apartment buildings would be the tallest directly adjacent to a transit stop, stepping down with a quarter-mile and again within a half-mile. The transit systems would be further separated into “tiers” based on the type of system, frequency of service and where the transit agencies are located.”
https://www.kqed.org/news/12042670/controversial-housing-near-transit-bill-advances-to-next-stop-in-legislature
“Why did the California Senate shunt a cost-cutting housing bill?”
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2025/05/california-senate-ceqa-housing-reform/
But it is kind of interesting that the state (to some degree) is already answering the question regarding where “they” think housing should go – even if it doesn’t pencil-out. When cities ultimately include these sites in housing elements, it seems to me that the state would automatically have to agree that it’s “feasible” – since the proposed law is coming from the state in the first place!
You argue that SB 79 was “weakened” but the reality is that this is the first time that bill has gotten through the Senate. So your argument doesn’t hold. The same thing for CEQA reform.
Would have to compare it to previous (similar) bills, and would also have to compare it to whatever ultimately passes – assuming it does. But it is far more-mild than I had expected (e.g., subject to Affordable housing requirements, and perhaps most-importantly – has “tiers” of height depending upon several factors as noted in my comment/reference).
But as I already noted (and was implied in the KQED article), this bill may result in housing elements becoming “less important” – since the state isn’t going to be able to deny that housing near transit is “not feasible” – even if true in reality, under the conditions allowed by this bill. (The bill itself is likely undergoing further changes in the Assembly.)
Regarding CEQA reform, your own (earlier) article noted the massive resistance which resulted in it being blocked – as does the CalMatters article referenced above.
I realize you think I’m making these observations for the same reason that you are (an attempt to “spin” what’s actually happening). But I am seeing something different – objectively. I’m also seeing more reports of local representatives objecting to the state’s unachievable goals.
In any case, here’s what the CalMatters article concluded regarding the failure so far of SB 607:
“The SB 607 blockage may indicate that Newsom is losing clout with the Legislature as he nears lame duck status. However, he could revive the bill as part of the forthcoming negotiations over the state budget, as a statement by Wiener and McGuire suggested.”
There are two different CRQA reform bills, the Wicks one was the one part of the budget package and the less controversial with them. If that passes, it will be the first of its kind.
“We’ve opened the tap. But we haven’t turned the water on.”
It is super ironic and telling that this would be your headline. For many of us, continued development of California is insane for environmental reasons not the least of which is limited water. I care more much more about restoring the salmon habitat than about trying to make California ‘affordable’ for anyone who wants to live here. This path would lead to more groundwater draw, raising Shasta Dam, and building the abominable Sites Reservoir in the coast hills NW of Davis — a reservoir whose water would have to be *pumped uphill* at huge energy expense because it has almost no water of its own to dam! This shallow dam would raise water temperatures for the system–bad for salmon. Insanity, yet few are fighting it. Our left have left — lost their minds on defunding police, subsidizing housing and taking away natural gas.
Haven’t looked into it so far, but I’m curious as to how Affordable housing requirements are managed/enforced within buildings that are subject to them under the Builder’s Remedy (or the proposed new bill).
For example, within apartment buildings that contain (both) market-rate AND Affordable units.
Will building managers/owners create, manage, and enforce those requirements into eternity? (In any case, this seems like an area where there could be legal challenges, one way or another. And introduces another element of risk into plans, or perhaps even to the law itself.)
As I recall, SB9 was already struck down in regard to charter cities, since the state was not able to show how it contributed to “affordable” housing. (Which is supposedly the ENTIRE REASON/JUSTIFICATION for all of the state’s recent housing laws.)
You keep getting the SB9 ruling wrong. It was struck down by a trial court and the ruling was limited to that county and those cities.
My comment doesn’t conflict with yours.
Your comment was extremely misleading for any one not familiar with the issue
Your comment was probably more misleading than mine, especially since you missed the part regarding Affordable housing (how it would work and be administered indefinitely when there’s no government-owned building involved, and is entirely dependent upon an owner/manager).
Not even seeing how this would be overseen, assuming there’s some kind of undefined, indefinite-period reporting requirement for owners/managers (which would presumably be provided to some agency assigned to receive and analyze those reports?) I’m no “creative thinker” regarding legal challenges, but I suspect this is another area of vulnerability, work and cost – one way or another.
Even more complicated when some “percentage” of a building is reserved indefinitely for “Affordable” housing, while the remaining percentage of a building is market-rate.
You implied that a court (usually it would need to be appellate or Supreme Court but in this it was a trial court) had found the law unconstitutional for charter cities – that’s untrue- most charter cities are completely unaffected by the ruling because again it was a trial court ruling. I didn’t comment on anything other than this.
You’re using words that I didn’t write.
But it would be interesting if, for example, someone (or some entity) attempted to overturn ALL of the housing laws, based upon no evidence of the claimed purpose of the state’s laws (“increased affordability”). I’m not going to put forth any claims (or take legal advice) on a blog regarding that. (But that is the reason that SB 9 was overturned for the cities we noted, at least. No evidence that it would result in “increased affordability”, as I recall.)
But again, it could be the long-term “Affordable” component (within a private, “for-profit” ownership for a given building) which might be the biggest cause of concern for developers/owners. Sounds like (at the very least) a hassle to run (and with a hope that they don’t get sued at some point going forward, one way or another). (I don’t have much faith in the state government imposing any meaningful fine, however.)
Honestly, it’s yet another aspect of the state’s laws which sound downright unworkable, in the long run.