By Monica Rivera, Special for CalMatters
This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Working families across California are getting pushed further away from opportunity — from cities and job centers with schools, health care facilities and amenities. Nowhere is this more evident than where I live, Los Angeles, the nation’s second-largest metro area and one of the wealthiest regions in the world.
Thousands of Angelenos are stuck with costly, exhausting commutes because they can’t afford to live near their jobs, burning through more than $14,000 a year on transportation — much of it on car payments, gas and maintenance. This isn’t an accident. For decades, our cities have systematically banned apartments and condos, preventing working people from living near jobs and transit systems their taxes fund.
The solution is simple: reform land use and housing policies to allow more homes near transit.
I’ve spent my career helping people find homes — not just for the right square footage, but for homes that allow them to connect the rest of their lives. As a real estate sales manager, I’ve supported agents through over 1,000 home sales and seen the same struggle play out: families who want to live close to their jobs, childcare or aging parents — and can’t.
In L.A. County, families earning the median income of $88,000 can’t afford sky-high rent, much less a median home price approaching $1 million. They move farther out, sacrificing time, money and quality of life to keep a roof over their heads.
Meanwhile, taxpayers have spent billions expanding our transit network, adding stations in places like South Pasadena, Redondo Beach and East Long Beach. Yet red tape blocks housing near these stops, making it nearly impossible for working families to live near the infrastructure they’ve already paid for.
A bill in the state legislature, SB 79, offers a commonsense fix: requiring cities to allow more housing near transit — up to seven stories near subways and mid-rises near less frequent Metrolink stops. Projects that meet these standards would be streamlined for approval.
This approach puts money back in peoples’ pockets. Families not reliant on cars save thousands yearly, which is often the difference between barely getting by and putting money towards their dreams — a college education for their kids, a retirement plan or even a GED or vocational certificate to change their career path.
My nieces are a clear example of what’s at stake. My 19-year-old niece would wake at 3 a.m. to walk to the bus stop, transferring across four buses to make it to her 7 a.m. class at Rio Hondo College, often on little sleep. Her younger sister, working toward her degree at Cal State Long Beach, was balancing a part time job to afford $50-$60 each way on rideshares because of the lack of reliable transit near home.
We don’t always call this displacement, but that’s what it is. They weren’t just priced out of housing — they were nearly priced out of access to education, work and opportunity.
More homes near transit reduces the risk of displacement. California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that Bay Area neighborhoods adding the most housing experienced half the displacement rates of areas that blocked development.
It’s also critical for climate action. Cars and trucks account for 30% of the state’s climate pollution, a figure that remains stubbornly high because so many Californians are forced to drive long distances. Research shows people who live near reliable transit or in walkable neighborhoods, drive half as much as those in car-dependent areas, reducing traffic, commute times and air pollution.
I’m old enough to remember when teachers lived near schools and nurses near hospitals. That didn’t change because of their preferences — it changed because we banned the housing they could afford.
We’ve let perfect become the enemy of good, and working families pay the price. SB 79 is a step toward fairness: it lets people live near the infrastructure we’ve already built, and ensures good housing doesn’t die in endless meetings.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
So, there’s at least a few problems (in regard to assumptions) that I’m seeing regarding this effort.
First of all, just about every new “infill” (and sometimes every “sprawl”) proposal that’s near a transit line is ALSO right next to a freeway. (Sometimes, they’re so close you can almost touch them from the freeway.)
Leaving aside, for a moment, the impact that could have on future freeway plans (or having adequate shoulders for safety), what’s to prevent these same new residents from using those freeways, instead of public transit?
I’d also ask what impact this type of thing has in regard to commuters who travel to BART stations, for example, using vehicles for the first leg of their trip. If those parking lots are paved-over for housing, wouldn’t that discourage existing users (who would no longer have a place to park at stations)?
And what, exactly, is supposedly going to make “infill” housing prices so low that the long-distance commuters will choose that, instead of a more-distant locale that offers more “bang for the buck”?
Also wondering how the author explains the fact that (despite building VERY LITTLE new housing), prices had been dropping in places like San Francisco, while rising in places like Austin (which created a LOT of new housing). Isn’t this due to EMPLOYERS leaving areas where they were starting to cause problems for themselves on nearby residents? And what, exactly, is “wrong” with shifting the demand to other areas?
Of course, there’s also the fact that people aren’t having kids at anywhere near replacement levels anymore. What do you suppose THAT will do to housing demand going forward?
Also, public transit is ALREADY experiencing a severe decline in ridership, despite being designed for the population that already exists. Shouldn’t the question be – why that’s occurring, BEFORE you try “throwing more people in its general direction”? (No doubt, partly due to telecommuting.) Reminds me of the situation in Davis and elsewhere, in regard to a declining downtown that some people think should be solved by “throwing more people at it”, as well. (And as usual, without any actual analysis or consideration of why that’s occurring, the impact on current patrons of downtown as it becomes a semi-residential district, the impact on infrastructure and remaining businesses (including probable rent increases for those businesses, reduced parking for their existing customers, outright displacement of those businesses, etc.).
Build transit, not housing. And don’t let public employee unions destroy transit.
BART destroyed itself, now wants taxpayers to increase the sales tax to fund it’s core failings:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/bay-area-rapid-transit-system-bart-costs
How about build housing with transit – that seems to make the most sense to me.
How about neither one?
The population is essentially not even growing anymore. Why push it to do so?
That would be the extreme minority position.
I didn’t word that correctly. If the focus is on building transit, the housing will follow naturally, not forced. As in, parking maximums do not create transit that is usable, just parking shortages. We are short tens of billions (compared to Europe/Asia). State government must bust the public employee unions (not private) that are destroying systems like BART.
I don’t think a lot of these folks would be against that.
Higher population means more housing is needed.
California’s population increases — again
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/05/01/californias-population-increases-again/
What you need to know: For the second year in a row, California’s Department of Finance released data showing the Golden State’s population grew. In 2024, the state added more than 100,000 residents.
SACRAMENTO — Today, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that California’s population grew by 108,000 people in calendar year 2024, reaching 39,529,000 people as of January 1st, 2025 — according to new data from the California Department of Finance.
…
This increase marks the second consecutive calendar year of population growth. Additionally, this report reflects an upward revision of California’s January 2024 population, which saw a growth of 192,219 people (year over year) — up from the previously estimated increase of 67,104 people. And an upward revision of California’s January 2023 population, which saw a growth of 48,764 people (year over year) — up from the previously estimated decrease of 53,727 people.
Factors for growth
Higher 2024 K-8 enrollment by 13,890 compared to 2023.
An increase in the 65-and-older population of 25,298 people in 2024, up from 6,622,031 people reported last year.
Natural increase — the net result of births minus deaths — contributed 114,805 to overall population growth in 2024, largely in line with the growth of 105,550 in 2023.
More data sources to better estimate California’s share of recent increases in legal immigration to the U.S. from 2021 to 2024, showing 277,468 more immigrants to the state during this period than in the 2023 estimate. This data only includes legal immigration.
A look at city and county data
The report contains preliminary year-over-year January 2025 and revised January 2021 through January 2024 population data for California cities, counties, and the state. It’s important to note that these estimates are based on information as of January 1, 2025, and therefore do not include data for the Los Angeles County wildfires later that month.
California’s 58 counties range in size from Alpine County, with just over 1,170 residents, to Los Angeles County with 9.9 million residents.
The population increased in 35 counties, with most growth in the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, and coastal counties. Population gains reflect natural increase exceeding losses in net total migration.
The state’s ten largest counties remain Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, Alameda, Sacramento, Contra Costa, and Fresno, with each having more than one million residents. These ten counties represent 72 percent of California’s population.
Nine of the ten counties with one million or more people have positive population growth, leaving Contra Costa as the only county with a very small population loss of 24 people. Los Angeles led with an increase of 28,000 persons.
Population growth rates ranged from a high of 2.88 percent in Lassen County to a low of -1.58 percent in Mono County. The next five largest in percentage growth were Glenn (1.35 percent), Fresno (0.87 percent), Sutter (0.83 percent), Imperial (0.81 percent), and Tulare (0.73 percent).
Recent Census Bureau revisions
In addition to the report released by the Department of Finance, the U.S. Census Bureau (which measures on a fiscal calendar year versus DOF’s calendar year) released updated information showing California’s population increasing as well — with several key revisions upwards:
July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024, California’s population increased by more than 225,000 people.
July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023: California’s population increased by more than 50,000 people. NOTE: This was revised up from the originally reported 75,000+ decrease.
July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022: California’s population decreased by just 151 people. NOTE: This was revised up from the originally reported 100,000+ decrease.
Per The Chronicle, there is ONE group that is responsible for a slight uptake in California’s population.
Immigrants (as in, illegal immigrants). And from what I understand, Trump has a plan for them.
Honestly, the census bureau works with estimates, EVEN WHEN they knock on your door every 10 years (and you don’t answer, or provide them with incorrect information). Don’t know how they come up with estimates when they’re not even knocking on doors.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/population-growth-immigration-19994083.php
Personally – what I find most-interesting is that the birth rate (NATIONWIDE) is nowhere near replacement levels. You’d think that the folks in Utah, for example would “make up” for that – but no.
In case anyone doesn’t understand this, this is actually “Good News, Everyone” (reference to Professor Farnsworth on Futurama).
“Immigrants (as in, illegal immigrants).”
Illegal immigrants are not included in the data I posted.
Your assertion that “The population is essentially not even growing anymore” is not correct. California’s population is growing.
Is that right? I’ll (sort of) trust you, though it would be better if you included links.
Is “Google” requiring employees to report “in person”, again?
In any case (if true) – this would be an indication of people “immigrating” from other states – which also isn’t California’s “responsibility”.
It’s definitely not from births – the ONLY semi-logical “internal need”.
The truth (ultimately) is, “if you build it, they will come”. (And that’s true regarding economic development – even more than housing itself).
Last time I checked, there was NO growth in places where there is no economic development (unless it’s essentially a vacation town). Vast areas of desert in Nevada, and even California come to mind.
In any case, I’m seeing reports of some pretty massive layoffs in the Bay Area, combined with growth in the artificial intelligence industry. (Don’t know if one offsets the other – which are often in the same general field in the first place.)
“It’s definitely not from births ”
Why does this point matter to you?
Really? It’s not that it matters “to me” (other than being “good news, everyone”). But if births aren’t anywhere near replacement levels, what does that tell you (e.g., in regard to the need for housing going forward)?
Pretty sure you’re smart enough to know the answer to that.
You’re making an argument based on it, I want to know why it matters to you.
Really? What it means is that there will be less demand for housing. Probably already occurring, since the housing market is declining.
I’ve seen places for sale where I strongly suspect that some boomer has died.
Seems increasingly-likely (based on my own observations locally) that the days of the big growth in housing prices is permanently behind us.
So unless you have a time machine . . .
(I’ve witnessed this before in the Bay Area. “Normal” people like my family were once able to buy a house there, but that ended a long time ago. But prices aren’t rising as much or consistently as was the case “back in the day” – except perhaps for certain locales – mostly centered around the technology industry.)
In any case, housing is probably not the way to “make money” anywhere, these days. Perhaps it’s returning to its original purpose.
At some point that might be true. That’s not true today. And as John Maynard Keynes once said, “In the long run we are all dead” but in the short term, we need places to live that are near jobs and that we can afford.
Those who are low-paid will never earn enough to live near high-cost areas. Unless they’re robots, who can be housed in a closet.
Or unless they’re flexible regarding their living arrangements. (Some people are remarkably-adaptable, in some ways. Quite often, they are immigrants (both legal – and illegal).
Truth be told, they’re usually not from communities which are primarily occupied by the (American) black population. That’s not a “judgement” – it’s an observation.
All that because you don’t want more housing built for reasons that are not clear.
Ultimately, I’m coming from the perspective of someone who grew up in the Bay Area, and witnessed sprawl taking-out farmland and open space.
Not to mention the distant commutes that you refer to.
And since the population isn’t growing, I’m not seeing the need for it. The study you cited earlier shows that developers “overbuilt” in a prior decade (the “housing crisis” decade, as it was probably labeled then – in a completely opposite manner than it supposedly means today).
As far as I’m concerned, I’d work to preserve where YOU came from (San Luis Obispo area), as well.
I’m less concerned about density, but also don’t see the need for it given the relative lack of population growth.
Ultimately, I’m increasingly-seeing where things are stabilizing (the only “actual” alternative). So, I’m somewhat encouraged.
Unless you’re planning to get a ticket for Musk’s spaceship to Mars, the population itself can’t continue to grow indefinitely (nor is there any reason to pursue that as a goal).
I come from the perspective of someone who started out using a manual typewriter, that doesn’t mean that people can survive without computers and more today.
They can indeed survive without computers (I still don’t have a cell phone, but I increasingly have to “explain that” when someone asks for my phone number). It’s not that I’m totally-incompetent regarding that, but I just haven’t found enough need for it, nor do I want to carry around that thing and pay for the privilege of doing so).
But I’m failing to see any connection regarding the pursuit of population growth, in regard to your comment.
Technology (for what it’s worth) will continue to advance, even as the population does not.
And if you don’t “like that” reality, maybe you’d advocate for living as the “native” people once did (but don’t any longer – despite what they sometimes use as a justification for the continuing “land grab”).