For decades, America’s housing crisis was viewed as a uniquely Californian phenomenon. Coastal cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles were ground zero for soaring prices, endless environmental review, and the political stalemate that kept housing production far behind population growth. But that perception is now dangerously outdated. The problem has metastasized. From Phoenix to Miami, Dallas to Atlanta, housing costs are rising sharply—even faster than in many California cities. What was once seen as a localized policy failure is now revealing itself as a nationwide structural issue. And that shift should upend how we think about housing policy—both outside California and within it.
According to new analysis highlighted in The Atlantic by Rogé Karma, the past decade has flipped the housing script. Phoenix has seen home prices rise by 134 percent since 2012. Atlanta? 129 percent. Miami? 133 percent. Dallas? 99 percent. These cities were once the great release valve for Americans fleeing high-cost coastal cities. They represented the promise that even if you were priced out of San Francisco, you could still afford a home in Texas or Arizona. That promise is fading fast.
The rise of housing costs in the Sun Belt presents an important challenge to the narrative that this crisis was caused solely by progressive overregulation. For years, housing reformers pointed to the dense tangle of rules in blue states—zoning restrictions, CEQA, historic preservation overlays—as the villains blocking badly needed development. California’s version of environmental review became a shorthand for dysfunction. But what Karma’s reporting reveals is something more disturbing: housing dysfunction isn’t ideological. It’s institutional and psychological. And it’s spreading.
The Sun Belt once held the illusion of pro-growth governance, the land of minimal regulation and maximum freedom to build. But today, many of these cities look increasingly like their coastal counterparts—not just in price, but in process. Glaeser and Gyourko, two of the country’s leading urban economists, show that even though Sun Belt cities still build more in absolute terms, the rate of new housing production has plummeted by more than half over the past 25 years. That collapse began before the 2008 recession and before remote work shifted demand. The truth is that many of these supposedly low-regulation cities have quietly adopted land-use codes and zoning maps that rival California’s in complexity—and in consequence.
One reason? These cities are running out of room to sprawl. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Phoenix and Dallas could accommodate growth by flinging subdivisions ever outward. But now they’re hitting natural and logistical barriers: tribal lands, environmental limits, unmanageable commute distances. The next phase of growth has to happen inwards—infill housing, duplexes, apartments near transit. And that’s where the real resistance kicks in.
Just like in California, the enemies of infill development in the Sun Belt aren’t Republican state legislators or liberal bureaucrats—they’re neighborhood associations, affluent homeowners, and planning processes that give extraordinary power to local objectors. In Texas, a nearly 100-year-old zoning tool known as the “valid petition” allows a handful of neighbors to trigger a supermajority requirement on city councils, effectively killing projects with a whisper of opposition. In Arizona, longtime developers now report that what used to take hours to approve now takes years. In Atlanta, zoning codes look eerily similar to 1990s Los Angeles.
This is not a red-state or blue-state story. This is a human story—a political story about what happens when the last people through the door pull it shut behind them.
The implications for California are profound. For years, the state’s exceptionalism—in cost, in dysfunction, in regulatory convolution—allowed other states to deflect responsibility. Texas could brag about freedom to build. Arizona could mock San Francisco’s permitting delays. But no more. With prices spiking across the Sun Belt, the myth that California’s housing woes were purely self-inflicted falls apart. If cities that prided themselves on being the anti-California are starting to become California, then it’s time to reckon with deeper forces: the politics of land use, the privilege of homeownership, and the deep structural incentives that make it easier to block housing than to build it.
This isn’t a story of ideology—it’s a story of political economy. As cities grow more affluent, they often grow more exclusionary. The data show that housing production slows as the share of college-educated residents rises. NIMBYism is not an accident—it’s a reaction. It’s the result of people trying to preserve their own slice of stability by denying it to others. And the tools to do that—valid petitions, discretionary review, convoluted zoning—exist almost everywhere.
California’s struggle to fix its housing crisis has been long and fraught. But it may now offer an unexpected kind of leadership. The state has passed several landmark reforms in recent years—limiting single-family zoning, streamlining CEQA for infill development, and expanding by-right approval in transit corridors. These aren’t perfect, and the politics remain brutal. But they’re a recognition that the status quo is unsustainable.
States like Texas and Florida are now facing that same reckoning. They have a choice: follow California into paralysis, or learn from its hard-won lessons and act before it’s too late. Some already are. Raleigh, North Carolina, significantly increased its housing supply after reforming zoning. The Texas legislature recently passed laws limiting local vetoes and reducing minimum lot sizes. These are promising steps, but the resistance is real, and time is short.
For Californians, this shift offers two important takeaways. First, it’s a vindication. For years, we were told the crisis was our fault, a symptom of blue-state decadence. But now it’s clear the problem is national—and that California was simply ahead of the curve. Second, it’s a warning: even with reforms, without constant pressure, the forces of obstruction will regroup. The lesson isn’t to stop. It’s to go faster, push harder, and build coalitions beyond the coasts.
And for the rest of the country, the message is simple: you’re not immune. You’re just next.
You mentioned Phoenix, so I thought I’d pick that one city (since values tend to plummet in places like that, during housing downturns like the one we’re now witnessing). Here’s what AI has to say about Phoenix:
“In Phoenix, home prices have experienced a notable drop, with some reports indicating a decrease of around 2.8% to 7.4% compared to their peak in 2022. Specifically, median home prices have fallen, and the number of listings with price reductions has increased.”
The script has indeed “flipped” from what the Atlantic continues to put forth.
In any case, the photos you’ve selected are the opposite of “infill”. If the infill people had their way, the “painted ladies” in San Francisco, for example, would have been bulldozed 60 years ago.
For reference…
The painted ladies work out to 18 units per acre. … In case anyone thinks that dense housing cant be beautiful.
I found that difficult to believe, but I now think you’re essentially correct regarding that. (Average lot size = 2,500 square feet, per AI. (25 X 100 feet).
43,560 square feet per acre / 2,500 square feet = 17.4 units per acre.
Of course, they’re pretty expensive regardless of density. And most infill requires tearing something down, first. I suspect that the painted ladies were constructed on land that didn’t previously have any buildings on them.
In any case, I’m all for having more techies dominate the San Francisco housing market on 2,500 square foot lots (after tearing down whatever currently occupies it), so have at it I guess. After all, the YIMBYs are funded by the technology industry in the first place.
(Gotta construct more housing for talented immigrants to take jobs that no Americans are QUALIFIED for, while earning obscene compensation packages.)
A link to access the article mentioned in this blog post: The Whole Country Is Starting to Look Like California
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/the-whole-country-is-starting-to-look-like-california/ar-AA1HGyEy
David says: “Second, it’s a warning: even with reforms, without constant pressure, the forces of obstruction will regroup.”
Stop it – I know you’re just trying to cheer me up (although you’re probably right). :-)
But overall, my reaction to the elimination of CEQA in already-developed areas isn’t causing me a lot of concern so far. Perhaps because I don’t know what the effect will be, nor do I know what the concerns are that some environmental groups have.
Infill is expensive, regardless.
Also, this entire exercise shows that the state’s leaders want the state to continue GROWING, despite the fact that population isn’t doing so, anymore. (Young people aren’t having kids at anywhere near replacement levels, and Trump has clamped down on immigration.) This obviously isn’t about housing the existing population, despite the claims put forth.
There is no housing shortage, and there’s a university study which shows that.
Nor have I seen where CEQA actually stopped any proposal. As Bill Marshall used to note, CEQA is only/essentially an analysis/notification of impacts. It does not “prevent” ANY proposal from going forward.
In any case, perhaps this will distract the YIMBYs for awhile, so that they stop pushing for sprawl.
Have at it – go ahead and knock down/replace the painted ladies in the photo (or the single-family housing in the other photo). Otherwise, those occupying those houses will “regroup” as David suggests. You’ve got to destroy their nest, to truly get rid of them.
“Also, this entire exercise shows that the state’s leaders want the state to continue GROWING, despite the fact that population isn’t doing so, anymore.”
Ron, can’t lose that House seat. It’s more important to keep bringing people into California to keep those House seats even though we’re constantly told we don’t have housing for them. Then there’s the water…
That’s right, Keith. Can’t trust those in other states (even if they ARE ex-Californians).
On a brighter note, I’m thankful for the handful of Republicans from other states who helped kill the massive public land sell-off in the “big beautiful bill”. A much more-important outcome than the one that Newsom forced.
“In Phoenix, home prices have experienced a notable drop, with some reports indicating a decrease of around 2.8% to 7.4% compared to their peak in 2022. Specifically, median home prices have fallen, and the number of listings with price reductions has increased.”
Dude you are looking at the wrong metric by looking solely at price. You forgot that interest rates doubled in the same time period. The correct metric is affordability and it goes down as interest rates rise.
Tell THAT to the YIMBYs, not me. They’re the ones who only focus on sales price (while leaving out a bunch of other costs, some of which are permanent and increasing over time).
But it is true that as interest rates rise, sales price generally goes down or levels-off.
“Date the rate, marry the house”. (And don’t move or sell anytime soon after that – or preferably – not at all.)
However, that’s also the main problem with buying a house – it becomes MORE important than pursuing jobs wherever they arise. So I’m not sure if a societal goal is achieved by encouraging people to buy houses.)
“I suspect that the painted ladies were constructed on land that didn’t previously have any buildings on them.”
They probably replaced houses destroyed by the 1906 earthquake and fire.
“Probably” isn’t really anything other than speculation, is it?
But if so – they should be “cheap” to buy at this point. No CEQA or NIMBYs back then, right? (All 48,000 of them, per the link below.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_ladies
(For sure, this was prior to the time that they started digging up and displacing cemeteries a little west of this location, in the name of progress. (Which at this point, I’m sure that some would prefer to dig up again.)
Thought I’d look it up, since Victorian houses generally predate the earthquake. Here’s what AI has to say about it:
“Yes, the Painted Ladies of San Francisco did survive the 1906 earthquake. While many grander mansions in the city were destroyed, the row of Victorian houses on Steiner Street, known as the Painted Ladies, survived both the earthquake and the subsequent fires. These homes, built between 1892 and 1896, are a well-known example of Victorian architecture in San Francisco and have become iconic symbols of the city.”
(But seems to me that they could be knocked down, and something even denser built on those 2,500 square foot lots. Something that would accommodate someone other than a tech company owner, for example.
“One of the famed Postcard Row homes on San Francisco’s Alamo Square is back on the market. Available for $3.55 million, the Pink Painted Lady has been featured in millions of photographs.”
https://www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/san-francisco-pink-painted-lady-for-sale/
From link: “Leah Culver, a senior engineer at Twitter, purchased the historic house in January 2020 with hopes of returning the grande dame to her former glory. But now, she’s decided to sell rather than go forward with a multiyear, multimillion-dollar construction project.”
Uh, huh – must have been all of those “CEQA” analyses that she wasn’t required to perform in the first place.
From link: “The listing photos show the home presents a formidable renovation project. In fact, the enthusiastic owner told us at the time of her purchase that this project would be her first-ever renovation.”
Yeah, I suspect that she’s not so-enthusiastic, now. (I’m not seeing where this place actually sold, and Redfin values it at some $1 million less than she paid.)
https://www.sfgate.com/places/article/renovating-painted-lady-sf-leah-culver-15051370.php
https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/714-Steiner-St-94117/home/1811732
(But hey, it still looks good from across the street, regardless. The funny thing is that this isn’t actually in a very good neighborhood, though I’m sure it was worse before the Western addition to the city was bulldozed.)
Truly wealthy people (beyond someone who can pay $6 million to purchase and renovate a house) don’t select places like this in the first place. They don’t even select San Francisco, unless they purchase neighboring properties like Zuckerberg did, as I recall. (While also purchasing an 1,300 acres in Kauai, and wherever else he might own property.)
With apologies to Winston Churchill, Ron O can best be described as one of those writers who before he starts, doesn’t know what he is going to say, when he is writing, he doesn’t know what he is writing, and when he’s done, he doesn’t know what he said.
And Alan Miller is looking up who Winston Churchill was….
You’re right, David – I meant to say $6.5 million to purchase and renovate that place on Steiner Street. (Apparently, that woman isn’t in the big leagues.)
And as far as where else Zuckerberg owns property (in addition to SF and Kauai), it apparently includes two estates in Tahoe and an estate in Palo Alto.
We could talk about the properties that Newsom himself owns (while pushing for more growth), but it gets kind of redundant at some point.
https://robbreport.com/shelter/celebrity-homes/mark-zuckerberg-property-portfolio-1236712447/
What we’re referring to is differences in wealth, not a housing shortage.
What I’ve increasingly noticed is a fake war between the poor and middle class (with the actual wealthy people untouched by it).
See what I mean!
I do see it – but (sadly), you apparently don’t.
You’ve bought into it “hook, line and sinker”, as they say.
There was a time that the social justice warriors went after the wealthy, but that target is apparently too-elusive (and well-protected) for them. So, they’ve moved down the ladder to attack the middle class, instead.
That’s why they’re now friends with those whom they previously attacked (e.g., the guy who purchased Chiles Ranch, and made a killing on it). Same thing with the guy who owns Village Farms, . . .
They figure that they might as well be friends (with those that they used to criticize) so that they can at least get SOMEONE as a result of their combined efforts. A deal with the devil, as it were.
Just happened-across the video below. Can’t even imagine the “nerve” it takes to suggest that the government “owes” developers more public land (or to essentially report it that way, via that local news station). As if Las Vegas, for example, doesn’t already have enough sprawl from PREVIOUS sale of public land.
Can you imagine that – already “calculating” rising costs as a result of not turning over PUBLIC land? What kind of assumption is built into that, and why doesn’t that local media station ask THAT question?
“Tragedy of the Commons”, in action.
However, at least the Mike Lee (senator from Utah) apparently failed in his effort to force massive sale of public land across the entire West.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/other/homebuilders-lament-federal-control-of-land-driving-up-costs/vi-AA1HRw7L?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=NMTS&cvid=ee29719ab87845ec950e5eb68ce53b66&ei=11
“Same thing with the guy who owns Village Farms, . . .”
There you go again saying things without any foundation that are wildly inaccurate and have already been rebuked.
It does seem though that you think people shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit on an investment or maybe you are simply resentful of other people having financial success. Poor Ron O.
What, exactly, am I saying that’s “wildly inaccurate”?
As far as profit is concerned, it’s the corruptive power that it has which is the problem (in politics, media, business influence, etc.). Essentially summed up as, “follow the money”.
That is, unless you think someone like Elon Musk and Donald Trump is on the same footing as you and me.
For that matter, Gavin Newsom falls into that category as well. Has way more money/assets than you or me (e.g., the multi-acre compound he kept east of Sacramento, his new place in Marin).
NY Times interviewed mayors from all around the nation, from red and blue cities. They all seem to say the same thing:
https://www.instagram.com/nytimes/p/DLvInAUuEv-/