SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California’s 2026 gubernatorial race features a number of candidates that are strong on housing policy, with leading Democratic candidates competing to position themselves as the strongest advocate for housing abundance amid a statewide affordability crisis that has reshaped the state’s politics and economy.
In a lengthy analysis published by California YIMBY, the organization argued that the political landscape around housing has shifted dramatically over the past decade, with candidates now openly embracing aggressive pro-housing reforms that once were politically toxic.
“For the past decade, the fight to make it legal and feasible to build housing at scale in California felt Sisyphean,” wrote California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon. “California YIMBY and our allies pushed against exclusionary land use policies, and a political class content to blame the housing crisis on anything but its actual cause: an array of local and state policies that thwarted sufficient homebuilding.”
Hanlon argued that the movement has made substantial progress in reshaping the debate.
“But here’s one notable shift since our founding in 2017: we are winning the political argument,” Hanlon wrote. “And nowhere is that clearer than in the 2026 gubernatorial primary, where the four leading Democrats are competing with each other to win the YIMBY vote.”
The organization highlighted former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, businessman Tom Steyer, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan as the four leading Democratic candidates with credible pro-housing platforms.
Hanlon noted that “every leading Democratic candidate showed up” at a California YIMBY gubernatorial housing forum earlier this year and “they didn’t just show up, they competed.”
“They came armed with proposals, some with scribbled notes on their hands, invoked SB 79 as a touchstone, and tried to outflank each other on policies to boost housing supply,” Hanlon wrote.
California YIMBY credited years of organizing and legislative advocacy for the shift in political rhetoric around housing production.
“Ten years ago, you couldn’t get a city councilmember to say the word ‘zoning’ in public without flinching,” Hanlon wrote. “This year, candidates for the most powerful office in California promised how they’d be the most aggressive on local preemption, fee reform, and CEQA.”
The analysis emphasized that the organization is not endorsing a candidate but instead evaluating each contender’s strengths, weaknesses, and unresolved questions.
“We are not endorsing any of them, not because they don’t deserve your vote, but because each candidate can claim solid YIMBY bonafides,” Hanlon wrote. “Each has put forward credible, substantive pro-housing platforms.”
On Becerra, Hanlon praised the former attorney general’s role in enforcing state housing laws against local governments that blocked development.
“In 2020, then-Attorney General Becerra did something his predecessors had been unwilling to do: he sued a California city for violating state housing law and won,” Hanlon wrote.
The article referenced Becerra’s legal challenge against the City of San Mateo under the Housing Accountability Act after the city rejected a multifamily housing project that complied with local zoning.
“That ruling has since been cited in many subsequent cases,” Hanlon wrote. “It changed what cities could get away with.”
Hanlon argued that such enforcement would be critical for the next governor.
“That kind of willingness to take political heat for enforcing the law is exactly what we’ll need from the next governor,” he wrote. “Cities will continue to find creative ways to block housing they’re legally required to permit.”
California YIMBY also praised Becerra’s proposals to direct state agencies, including the California Coastal Commission, to prioritize housing production and his support for legislation such as SB 79 and SB 684.
However, the organization criticized Becerra’s proposal to freeze home insurance rates.
“His proposal to freeze home insurance rates is hard to square with market reality,” Hanlon wrote. “California is already in an insurance availability crisis driven by climate risk and prior price suppression.”
The group also questioned whether Becerra’s housing commitment developed too late in the campaign cycle.
“Becerra came to housing as a campaign priority later than the other top three candidates,” Hanlon wrote. “He released his full housing plan after ballots dropped.”
Hanlon added, “While YIMBYs welcome anyone to the pro-housing camp, we want to understand whether his pro-housing positioning reflects a deep commitment or a campaign-season conversion.”
Steyer received praise for publicly backing SB 79 during the legislative fight rather than after its passage.
“He showed up to argue the case publicly when it was politically costly to do so,” Hanlon wrote.
California YIMBY also highlighted Steyer’s focus on housing production as part of climate policy.
“His framing that California cannot meet its environmental targets without building more housing in cities is well-supported by the evidence and resonates with climate-aligned YIMBY voters,” Hanlon wrote.
Hanlon particularly emphasized Steyer’s proposal to build one million homes in four years and his willingness to revisit Proposition 13 protections for commercial property.
“This is a serious idea backed by serious analysis, and one that California YIMBY has championed before,” Hanlon wrote.
Still, the organization raised concerns about Steyer’s populist rhetoric around corporate ownership of housing.
“Policies in this area risk being symbolic rather than effective,” Hanlon wrote, “and risk feeding a populist politics that misidentifies the actual barriers to abundance: zoning, permitting, fees, and construction costs and productivity.”
The analysis also questioned how Steyer would balance competing political constituencies if elected governor.
“We want to know how Governor Steyer would adjudicate competing demands from interest groups whose stated priorities, like certain forms of inclusionary zoning, anti-demolition rules, or sweeping labor mandates, would make housing more expensive,” Hanlon wrote.
Porter, meanwhile, was praised for her willingness to publicly support controversial housing reforms and challenge political allies.
“She has demonstrated a rare combination of policy expertise and political courage,” Hanlon wrote.
California YIMBY highlighted Porter’s support for streamlining utility hookups and reforming the state building code.
“She has also called for changes to the state building code that align with the work we’ve been doing,” Hanlon wrote. “Porter has been clear that supply constraints are driving up costs for renters and first-time buyers alike.”
The organization particularly praised Porter’s willingness to resist expanding certain labor requirements that YIMBY groups argue can make housing financially infeasible.
“That kind of bold truth-telling is exactly what is needed to give Californians confidence that government is focused on solving problems rather than catering to interest groups,” Hanlon wrote.
But California YIMBY questioned Porter’s broader economic platform, warning that tax proposals targeting corporations and high earners could weaken the state’s fiscal stability and investment climate.
The organization also raised concerns about reports regarding Porter’s management style.
“Building and passing major housing legislation requires sustained collaboration with the Legislature and the ability to attract and retain top staff,” Hanlon wrote.
Mahan received perhaps the strongest praise from California YIMBY for his track record in San Jose.
“Mahan has the strongest track record of actually unlocking housing of any candidate in this race,” Hanlon wrote.
Hanlon credited Mahan with reducing development fees in San Jose after housing production stalled.
“After a year in which San Jose saw zero market-rate housing starts, his fee reform produced 2,000 ground-breakings the following year,” Hanlon wrote. “That is not a small thing.”
California YIMBY praised Mahan’s “fifteen-point plan” as the most detailed housing platform in the race and highlighted his proposals to align local fiscal incentives with housing production.
“This is exactly the kind of structural thinking that has been missing from California’s housing debate,” Hanlon wrote.
Still, the organization expressed concern about Mahan’s previous opposition to SB 9 and his past defense of single-family zoning.
“The concern is what his framing tells us about where he thinks housing should go,” Hanlon wrote.
California YIMBY framed the broader debate as moving beyond whether housing supply matters to how aggressively California leaders are willing to reform local land use systems and development barriers.
“The complete pro-housing agenda has to do both,” Hanlon wrote, referring to expanding zoning permissions and lowering construction costs.
The article sharply criticized Republican candidates Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, arguing they lacked serious housing agendas.
“Steve Hilton’s rhetoric about a ‘war on single-family homes’ is the kind of conspiratorial framing that produced California’s housing crisis in the first place,” Hanlon wrote.
A separate analysis published by journalist Ned Resnikoff on Public Comment similarly argued that housing policy has become central to the gubernatorial race.
Resnikoff attended a housing forum hosted by journalist Ezra Klein and described the candidates’ performances in detail.
On Steyer, Resnikoff praised his emphasis on financing multifamily housing projects but argued the candidate underestimated the importance of continued upzoning reforms.
“The problem, as Steyer and others correctly noted, is that many of the potential housing developments that are now legal thanks to state-mandated upzonings still don’t pencil out for builders,” Resnikoff wrote.
Resnikoff criticized Steyer’s comments about cities resisting housing because of education and health care costs.
“I say ‘bizarre’ because neither of these things are costs for cities,” Resnikoff wrote.
On Becerra, Resnikoff said he had initially been skeptical of the former cabinet secretary’s housing platform.
“The one housing-related idea he seemed committed to was a proposed statewide freeze on home insurance premiums,” Resnikoff wrote.
Resnikoff called the proposal “a disaster” in policy terms and argued it could worsen California’s insurance crisis.
Still, he acknowledged that Becerra’s later housing platform “made him worth a second look.”
Porter received especially strong praise from Resnikoff, who wrote that she “demonstrated a stronger command of the issue than nearly any of her opponents.”
Unlike some of the other candidates, Resnikoff wrote that Porter “was willing to acknowledge the existence of outright NIMBYism instead of trying to wave it away.”
Ultimately, Resnikoff said he voted for Steyer, though without full enthusiasm.
“I can’t really endorse any of the candidates without reservation,” Resnikoff wrote. “But Steyer has one of the better housing platforms, and the rest of his policy agenda mostly lacks the sort of catastrophically bad ideas that pepper his opponents’ agendas.”
As California continues grappling with severe housing shortages, rising home prices, and growing concerns about affordability, the 2026 governor’s race appears likely to test whether the state’s political system is prepared to move beyond rhetorical support for housing production and toward aggressive structural reform.
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.
“Still, the organization raised concerns about Steyer’s populist rhetoric around corporate ownership of housing.”
So apparently, California YIMBY takes credit for infiltrating the Democratic party, but doesn’t like it when one of the candidates says anything other than build, baby build. An example of a “shot across the bow” for going off-script.
“The article sharply criticized Republican candidates Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, arguing they lacked serious housing agendas.”
“Steve Hilton’s rhetoric about a ‘war on single-family homes’ is the kind of conspiratorial framing that produced California’s housing crisis in the first place,” Hanlon wrote.”
Though I’m sure that “my” vote never makes any difference, this is shaping up to be the first time I’ve considered voting for a Republican during my lifetime so far.
Note how California YIMBY never mentions who funds them and the reason they do so. The same business interests which created outrageous housing prices in Silicon Valley, for example, in the first place.
Ask California YIMBY if tenant groups turn to them, in regard to rent control (or gentrification – which forces them out).