The argument has been made repeatedly that California’s state housing laws are failing to generate housing. I continue to believe that California still needs another major piece of legislation dedicated to funding affordable housing at scale. But if we drill down beyond the headline claims, the picture that emerges is more complicated and far less pessimistic. Aggressive enforcement by the state is beginning to change local behavior, and the results are now visible in ways that crude scorekeeping fails to capture.
One of the most common counterarguments points to YIMBY Law’s Fair Housing Elements Tracker, which shows that a large majority of jurisdictions are not currently making sufficient progress toward their housing element goals. On its face, that seems damning. But it is also an overly blunt instrument that risks confusing pace with failure and timing with outcome.
To understand why, it helps to look closely at a single city: Davis.
According to the tracker, Davis has a housing element that is in compliance, but the city is described as “making slow progress” and “falling behind” on its housing targets. From that, the conclusion is drawn that the city “is not on track to meet its housing targets.” That framing sounds definitive, but it obscures more than it reveals.
For starters, Davis has already approved roughly 737 housing units toward a total obligation of about 2,100 units for this planning cycle. The tracker further notes that, “If Davis repeats its efforts from the previous cycle it will only meet 82% of the identified need.” Given the city’s long history of housing resistance, an 82 percent outcome would hardly constitute failure. It would represent a substantial shift from past practice.
More importantly, Davis still has time. The current Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycle runs through 2029. Judging success or failure at the midpoint of a planning cycle assumes that housing production is linear, when in reality it is lumpy and backloaded. Large projects do not arrive evenly; they tend to cluster once political, legal, and planning barriers are addressed.
In Davis, two major projects expected to go before voters in 2026 could account for roughly 3,000 housing units on their own. If approved, those projects would fundamentally alter the city’s housing trajectory and instantly erase the narrative that the city is “not on track.”
Beyond those individual projects, Davis is also grappling with deeper structural questions. The city is contemplating a General Plan update and, potentially, changes to Measure J, the voter-enacted growth-control measure that has effectively blocked peripheral housing development since 2000.
These discussions are not happening in a vacuum. They are driven by a growing local recognition of the severity of the housing crisis and by sustained pressure from the state.
That pressure has taken concrete form. Davis has seen its RHNA obligations nearly double. It has been required to adopt multiple housing element “cure” updates under close state scrutiny. And it faces the real possibility that the state could determine Measure J to be an unlawful constraint on housing production.
While the Builder’s Remedy is often portrayed as the ultimate enforcement stick, for Davis the far more powerful incentive is the prospect of losing local control over its signature land-use law.
Davis is not an outlier.
A central point we have made for months is that California’s housing framework is not failing in the way critics claim. RHNA is not collapsing under its own weight. Cities are either complying, adjusting their policies, or being sued. In that sense, the system is functioning precisely as intended.
To illustrate the scale of what is now in motion, we looked at the 20 largest proposed or master-planned housing developments in California and deliberately excluded California Forever, the highly controversial Solano County project, to avoid skewing the analysis. Even without it, the numbers are striking.
Across the state, jurisdictions are planning projects of unprecedented scale. Ontario Ranch in San Bernardino County alone contemplates more than 69,000 homes. Fresno’s Southeast Development Area Specific Plan envisions 45,000 units. Newhall Ranch in the Santa Clarita Valley plans 21,000 homes, while Centennial at Tejon Ranch adds another 19,333. River Islands in Lathrop proposes 15,000 units, and Rancho Mission Viejo in Orange County roughly 14,000.
Kern County’s Grapevine at Tejon Ranch accounts for 12,000 units, as does the Shipyard-Candlestick redevelopment in San Francisco. Redwood City’s Saltworks site allows for up to 12,000 homes. Sacramento’s Railyards plans 10,000 units, and Mountain View’s North Bayshore Precise Plan nearly 9,850.
San Francisco alone includes Parkmerced with 8,900 units, Treasure Island with up to 8,000, Stonestown with up to 3,500, Pier 70 with up to 2,150, India Basin with 1,575, and the Webster Street Safeway site with roughly 1,800 more. Oakland’s Howard Terminal district envisioned up to 3,000 homes before that proposal stalled. Anaheim’s OCVIBE adds another 1,500 units.
Taken together, these 20 developments represent more than 273,000 housing units. Many of these projects will be delayed. Some will be downsized. A few may not be built at all. But none of them would exist on paper without the state’s housing mandates forcing cities to rezone land, update plans, and confront long-deferred decisions.
That is the critical point. California’s housing requirements have not magically solved the housing crisis, but they have reshaped the political and planning landscape. They have moved projects from fantasy to formal proposal, from avoidance to negotiation, and from denial to grudging engagement.
It is far too early to declare failure when the planning cycles are still underway and the enforcement mechanisms are only now being fully tested. We do not yet know the outcome. What we do know is that the state has finally compelled cities to put housing on the map, and that alone marks a fundamental change from the paralysis of the past.
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.
Seems like this article is directed at me. Right off the bat, I noticed this.
From article: “The tracker further notes that, “If Davis repeats its efforts from the previous cycle it will only meet 82% of the identified need.” Given the city’s long history of housing resistance, an 82 percent outcome would hardly constitute failure. It would represent a substantial shift from past practice.”
Not seeing where the “tracker” includes statements like this, but the conclusion seems to contradict with the statement. More specifically, how would an 82 percent outcome (based on PREVIOUS cycles) be a “substantial shift from PAST practice?
And how are you concluding that Davis has a “long history of housing resistance”?
From article: “Taken together, these 20 developments represent more than 273,000 housing units. Many of these projects will be delayed. Some will be downsized. A few may not be built at all. But none of them would exist on paper without the state’s housing mandates forcing cities to rezone land, update plans, and confront long-deferred decisions.”
Well, there you go then. I never said that they didn’t exist “on paper”. And whatever the state “requires” in the next round (which will soon be here) will also exist “on paper” – and will be even more challenging – since the “easy spots” generally can’t be re-used “on paper”, I understand.
Reminds me of a great Seinfeld episode, when he challenges a clerk at a car rental place for not holding his reservation. After a brief confrontation regarding the meaning of the word “reservation”, he says, “anyone can take a reservation” (waving his hand around wildly, pretending to write reservations in air). Followed by – “the key is HOLDING the reservation”.
I think you should read the article more closely.
If Davis gets to 82% of 2100 that would be 1722 units, which is 50 percent more than they were targeted in the previous cycle.
O.K. – sounds like Davis doesn’t have a “long history of housing resistance”.
But why would you state that 737 (out of 2,100) is “on track” to result in an 82% outcome? (It’s more like 35% right now, and we’re getting pretty close to the end of the current cycle.)
A more useful (overall) comparison might consist of something like this, if you want to single-out Davis from the rest of the state. One column for “bad boy Davis” (in your view), vs. “good boy – the rest of the state”?
Units “required” in current round
Units “approved” in current round
Units “under construction” in current round
This type of analysis might show you a realistic percentage of “expected compliance” (e.g., actual units built or under construction) at the end of the current RHNA cycle for Davis, and the rest of the state. My guess is that Davis is doing “better than average” (in your view) than the rest of the state, but that the ENTIRE STATE is failing to meet fake requirements. And that’s just for the current round – wait until the next round, when it will have ZERO chance of resulting in the housing that’s being “required” – statewide.
By the way, do you know if there are circumstances where the fake plan from the previous round can be used to address the fake plan in the next round? I’ve never been clear regarding this.
Look at the 25 year data on housing built, I think it tells another story.
“But why would you state that 737 (out of 2,100) is “on track” to result in an 82% outcome?”
That was the database assessment. You keep posting the link to the YIMBY Law database, but it doesn’t appear that you ever drilled down into even the city of Davis.
You’re stating that the YIMBY Law database is not accurate- but you’re the one quoting it, and then suggesting that your readers “drill down” into whatever is contained in the city of Davis database?
And your point will either result in Davis being close to “on track” (and not resistant to housing), OR “not on track” – which means that Davis is as bad as the rest of the state?
How about if you just post the numbers you’re referring to, and then make whatever argument you’re attempting to make?
But more importantly, how about doing something like I suggested, above? Units “required”, units “approved”, units “under construction” for Davis and the state as a whole? Wouldn’t that tell you if things are on track?
Also, what percentage of these projects were approved PRIOR to the current round of RHNA “requirements”, but are being counted in the current round – for Davis, and statewide?
It seems rather difficult to determine cause/effect, when many of the housing proposals would be approved regardless of RHNA “requirements”.
Also, do you know if the current fake plans can be re-used for future fake plans in some manner – statewide? (In other words, for all of the fake housing proposals that will never be built?)
No, I’m stating that you need to drill down and look more closely at what the database says rather than just reading the top line.
Ah – o.k. I drilled down (such as it is), and Davis is apparently “doing worse” (by 6%) than nearby cities (which also aren’t on track). Whatever all of that means, in regard to approvals, construction, etc. Not sure that the state itself wants to require Davis to follow in the path of all of the other nearby cities which ACTIVELY pursue sprawl. (I don’t recall that as being one of the state’s “goals”.)
It would be interesting to know what that 6% is referring to, and how it compares statewide.
“Anyone can take a reservation – the key is HOLDING the reservation” (Seinfeld).