- “The human cost of this policy malpractice is measured in dreams deferred and families forced to leave the state they love.” – Chip Monaco, executive director of the Orange County Taxpayers Association
California lawmakers frequently declare housing affordability their top priority, but critics argue their policies are making the problem worse. A recent report by the California Tax Foundation found that during the first eight months of the 2025-26 legislative session, legislators considered raising annual taxes and fees by more than $16 billion. At the same time, homeownership remains increasingly unattainable for ordinary families across the state.
According to the Orange County Register, homebuying in California is now 7 percent below 2008 crash levels, with just 15 percent of households able to qualify for a single-family home. In June, the median selling price for a single-family home reached $1.4 million. That figure requires an annual income of more than $367,000 for a typical family to qualify for ownership, far out of reach for most households.
Despite these realities, critics say state leaders have doubled down on new fees and regulations that add to the cost of housing rather than reduce it. Among the proposals is SB 130, known as the Vehicle Miles Traveled Fee, which would impose added costs not only on homebuilders but also on every user of taxpayer-funded roads.
The Tax Foundation’s report identified 71 separate proposals for higher costs, including a $10 billion retroactive emissions liability on businesses, a $3.5 billion corporate tax increase, and a $1.5 billion digital advertising tax. Opponents argue those costs inevitably filter down to families in the form of higher home prices, steeper rents, and more expensive consumer goods.
“The disconnect is breathtaking,” wrote Chip Monaco, executive director of the Orange County Taxpayers Association, in a commentary for the Orange County Register. “On one hand, state officials declare housing their top priority. On the other hand, they systematically increase the costs of building, buying, and living in California through an endless parade of new taxes and fees.”
The affordability index confirms the decline. Three years ago, 16 percent of California households could afford homeownership. Today, that number has dropped to 15 percent, despite billions spent on housing programs designed to improve access. Meanwhile, mortgage rates have nearly doubled from their historic lows, and the median home price has climbed 39 percent in just three years.
Monaco argued that the state’s timing has made matters worse. The California Department of Finance recently reported that general fund revenue for the 2024-25 fiscal year came in $2.7 billion higher than projected. Rather than use the surplus to provide relief to families, lawmakers have pursued policies that increase financial burdens, while local governments such as Orange County cities contemplate raising sales taxes to balance their budgets.
“This isn’t just bad policy; it’s economic self-sabotage,” Monaco wrote. “When businesses face new taxes, those costs end up in the prices we pay. Fees for developers get added to the price of homes. Each new regulation puts another obstacle between families and homeownership.”
The consequences, Monaco argued, are clear in the lived experiences of families across the state. “The human cost of this policy malpractice is measured in dreams deferred and families forced to leave the state they love,” he wrote. “All while state policymakers pose for pictures with their crocodile tears for families and affordability.”
Critics say California’s policies are setting the stage for a two-tier society. With only one in seven households able to buy a home, the fear is that the state is effectively creating a divide between the wealthy who can absorb the costs and everyone else who cannot. “You can’t build a middle class while constantly imposing policies that create a greater divide between the two,” Monaco wrote.
Other states have taken a different approach, focusing on regulatory streamlining, reduced taxes, and policies that attract both businesses and families. Monaco pointed to companies such as In-N-Out moving operations away from California as a signal that the state’s direction is not sustainable.
“The solution isn’t complicated,” he wrote. “Stop making housing more expensive through unnecessary taxes and fees. Focus on removing regulatory barriers that slow construction. Use budget surpluses to provide meaningful tax relief rather than funding ever-larger government programs and find ways to save residents money…not new programs that cost money.”
Monaco concluded that until Sacramento leaders rethink their approach, affordability will continue to deteriorate. “Until Sacramento lawmakers recognize that you can’t tax and regulate your way to affordability, California’s housing crisis will continue to worsen,” he wrote. “Families deserve better than politicians who claim to care about housing while simultaneously making it less attainable.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
From article: “Despite these realities, critics say state leaders have doubled down on new fees and regulations that add to the cost of housing rather than reduce it. Among the proposals is SB 130, known as the Vehicle Miles Traveled Fee, which would impose added costs not only on homebuilders but also on every user of taxpayer-funded roads.”
From article: “The Tax Foundation’s report identified 71 separate proposals for higher costs, including a $10 billion retroactive emissions liability on businesses, a $3.5 billion corporate tax increase, and a $1.5 billion digital advertising tax.”
(Those don’t sound like housing costs. Sound a lot more like various interests desperately trying to make it SOUND like those are housing costs – probably because they think it will generate more pushback.)
From article: “In June, the median selling price for a single-family home reached $1.4 million.”
(No – it did not.)
Regarding the percentage of people living in the state who can afford to purchase a house, what percentage are actually seeking to do so? And does it include the people who already own a house?
It is true that a lot of homeowners wouldn’t be able to purchase their own house (again), these days. But those homeowners don’t live forever.
It does seem as though the fake housing shortage is being called-out a little more, these days. For example, there’s this from the Washington Post:
“The national housing shortage appears to be on its way out even as the issue heats up in Washington policy and media circles.”
“In other words, housing supply might not only catch up to demand — it is poised to overshoot.” (Gee, that sure sounds “familiar” from about 17 years ago, doesn’t it?)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/09/01/construction-housing-affordability-yimby-zoning/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F44808f9%2F68b5c68d83e69b319c70d33a%2F5d597d8aade4e21493df739d%2F19%2F67%2F68b5c68d83e69b319c70d33a
Ron likes to latch onto fringe theories… Here the argue is that demographic shifts and new construction will soon erase the U.S. housing shortage, but the vast majority of housing experts remain skeptical (it’s akin to citing one climate skeptic).
Meanwhile, analysts at Zillow, Moody’s, and the Urban Institute estimate deficits of 2 to 5 million units, particularly in high-demand regions where shortages persist.
Critics stress that affordability, not just supply, is the central problem, with very low-income renters facing the greatest challenges.
Structural barriers like high construction costs, labor shortages, and restrictive zoning laws further limit new housing.
Finally, most researchers conclude that without coordinated policy action, the affordability crisis will remain even if overall supply increases.
If you want to call the Washington Post article a “fringe theory”, have at it. They’re looking at demographics, along with the massive amount of housing that’s recently been built or is underway.
And we already know what the university study I cited states about this. And you’re citing Zillow? Really?
But you’re not even going to address my observation that the costs listed in this article apparently aren’t related to housing?
The fact is that there’s very little “preventing” developers from building housing. Do you ever even venture outside of Davis (where there’s also housing being built in Chiles Ranch, Pole Line Road, Bretton Woods, and soon – Wildhorse Ranch)?
Are you familiar with what’s going on in Woodland, Natomas, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Lagoon Valley/Vacaville, for example?
Do you ever look at what’s happening to housing prices in places like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee for example? (Why do you think that prices are dropping – including in the Sacramento region?)
It’s not a majority view of housing experts – doesn’t matter what publication publishes it.
Most of what we hear is from sources driven by self-interest. (Ever notice how we never even hear about “how” or “what” they’re basing their claims on? I guess they figure that if enough self-interested parties repeat the same claims, they don’t have to show where their numbers are coming from.)
Developers “overbuilt” in a previous decade. (That’s what the university study showed, among other things.)
There is no housing shortage. There are people who can’t afford housing, medical care, food, etc.
Now, if you want to talk about how “demand” is created, I’m all ears. It’s JOBS – more than what a given area actually needs for its own residents. And this is (also) the same reason that the housing activists have no credibility – they’re FUNDED by those interests. It’s also the same reason that the local “housing shortage people” had no credibility when they advocated for DISC.
To clarify, the local “housing shortage people”) aren’t directly funded by those interests (to my knowledge – other than perhaps a local PR firm and a former council member), though one of the other prominent “housing shortage people” is a business tenant of those same interests.