88
California is currently in the middle of a brutal war. If you don't fight this war, you will be a casualty. (lemmy.world)
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

California is facing the WORST housing crisis in the United States

Visible homelessness is out of control.

One of the reason California is in this mess? Most cities use zoning to require single family homes. Multi-story housing is significantly cheaper to build than single family homes. Yet most California cities ban multifamily housing.

Take for instance Los Angeles. The pink area is single-family homes ONLY:

That's right. The second biggest US city doesn't allow multi-story housing in a majority of its land.

Texas is run by a bunch of religious weirdos. Yet they don't have a housing crisis. You know why? Because these religious weirdos are building housing at over twice the rate of California:

In 2020, a California state senator named Senator Scott Wiener introduced a bill to change zoning rules

His bill would have automatically allowed multi-story housing near train stations, metro stations, bus lines and schools. This is not a radical proposal. This is common sense.

California politicians killed the bill.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/business/economy/sb50-california-housing.html

Today, he is trying again.

Bill SB-79 will make it legal to build more multi-family housing near rail stations and rapid bus lines, including in areas where such homes are currently illegal.

https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb79

Housing experts support the bill 🏘️

Transit agencies support the bill 🚍

Amtrak supports the bill 🚆

Yet some angry homeowners are now calling their politicians, urging them to kill this bill again 🤦

https://www.kqed.org/news/12042670/controversial-housing-near-transit-bill-advances-to-next-stop-in-legislature

Take for instance columnist Steve Williams:

https://redstate.com/steve-williams/2025/07/21/sb-79-sacramentos-plot-to-shove-high-rises-into-your-neighborhood-and-shut-you-up-about-it-n2191881

Recently, powerful Senator Josh Becker - who represents Menlo Park, Mountain View and Palo Alto - said he changed his mind. His constituents want to kill affordable housing:

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/housing/2025/06/11/despite-advancing-fate-of-housing-bill-sb-79-remains-uncertain/

Why is LA spending money to build metro stations in the middle of fucking nowhere 🤨?!

More housing near transit is a great idea.

If bill SB-79 is killed, this will be a huge defeat from the transit system and affordable housing.

https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/04/committee-chairs-housing-policy/

There is a fucking housing WAR happening right now. If you don't fight this war, young people, renters, transit users, and new home buyers will lose.

Please call your representatives. Tell them to support Bill-S79:

https://www.assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 19 points 6 days ago

I think the zoning is not the complete picture. Our houses also cost more because we have to design for seismic safety, energy efficiency, and fire mitigation. It’s the building code.

They built a big high rise apartment right next to the light rail station near my house. The commercial space on the ground floor is vacant, and so are half the units. It’s been like this six years… But it has a rooftop pool. The units are crazy expensive and it’s run by a corporation. It was allowed to be built but it’s not benefiting the neighborhood, nor is it reducing prices.

There’s only one thing we need to do to drastically change the housing market toward affordability: Only residents can own property in California - and only 1 property per taxpayer. The housing “problem” will disappear overnight. The only problem is greed and it is happening everywhere.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

The various corridors where it's illegal just so happen to be in more well-to-do areas.

As an aside, you can blame the zoning laws on why the fires spread as much as they did, since lack of condensed housing creates sprawl, which creates the Wildland-Urban Interface, which helped to form the 2 big fires earlier this year.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

There are many factors leading to destructive wildfires. Probably the biggest one is power lines through vegetated areas. Another might be allowing building on hills. But I don’t think people were pushed out into the hills by zoning. It’s all about the view.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

If such a law came into effect, you would remove all rental properties from the market overnight. Don’t you think that would lead to catastrophic homelessness? There must be a mechanism for people and companies to buy and offer rental accommodation. A LOT of people can’t afford to buy a house.

I think the solution is clear: the business case for rental property should be made worse. A comprehensive land value tax without exemption has been championed by notable economists for more than a century. It’s as close to a perfect tax as it gets. It aligns public and private interests, which are currently opposed. Owners are encouraged to use the space efficiently, so they build up and lobby for laws which make it easier for them to build. With less demand for land, prices drop, and land prices are tightly correlated with rental rates.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Thanks. I’m obviously not a lawmaker. I think older rentals (30+ yrs) should revert to public ownership - the profit has been made and all the rent needs to be reinvested to keep or replace the structure.

Anyway the idea is corporate and foreign ownership is the problem. I don’t think tax is enough - that may just raise rents even more. There needs to be actual blocks from ownership - not an open bid process. Otherwise the rich will out bid us every time - in rent and in ownership.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

The reason that governments don't seize assets is because it makes the country (or state) uninvestable. See what happened to Zimbabwe. Seizing assets always leads to very bad social outcomes across the board. It's much less destructive to tax things we want to happen less. A high tax on land ownership would reduce land ownership (and demand, and therefore price).

Some countries use some combination of only permitting residents to purchase certain types of property. Denmark, for example, requires non-EU non-citizens ask for permission to purchase property. Of course this then requires very strict immigration controls. If those aren't in place, then anyone can walk into the country and buy whatever they like, and the policy is meaningless.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

There's also labor costs which are higher in California.

Also land, especially in the cities, is more expensive in California. This is due to there just being less developable land in Californian cities due to geography. Look at a map of the bay area and half of it is water or mountains, compared to the mostly flat plains of Austin. This is also due to speculation , which would be better solved by something limiting housing hoarding like you said.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Also permit fees are ridiculous. I think mello roos is 30k a unit minimum in my town

[-] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago

Is this a weird kind of "war" where there are only two choices?

It seems like a lazy solution to pass a bill at the state level which overrides local zoning ordinances instead of actually handling city planning on a case by case basis.

Why wouldn't California just incentivize building homes in the central valley? Or inland from Los Angeles on all of the completely open land? What is keeping homeless people at the city center, and will that cause actually be changed if the buildings around them are 3 or more stories tall?

People who live near the areas affected by state-level bills like this will be pretty upset that their local layer of democracy was circumvented by voters from out of town.

Meanwhile, people who move into the new high rises are not necessarily going to come out of the pool if unhoused Californians who were sleeping on the streets nearby. Does the bill control who is allowed to live in these new units? Does the bill account for housing the unhoused during the multi-year period while high rise construction is underway?

[-] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago

Because nobody wants to live there.

You may as well say: why not move all these people to Nevada and live in all the nice open land there?

The housing crises has never been about total quantity of housing, it's about housing in the right places.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

Oh, if this is just about what people want and not about shelter for the unhoused, then that really changes things. I may have misunderstood, as that's a totally different spirit behind the bill.

If that's the case, then it just comes down to which group of people have the political power to mandate what they want.

The central valley does have some of the highest rates of housing expansion in the country though, so I wouldn't count it out. There's a lot of opportunity there, it's just not directly on the ocean.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

Perhaps, but that's still sprawl. California is really not-dense. There's a lot we can improve before having to shift to the farmlands. And the most in demand places are often the worst.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

I've been in California's central Valley frequently in the summer and no thanks. Trying to get a mobile out by the coast for the same price

[-] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yeah theres plenty of land, cost of materials went up and population is growing again by quite a bit. Supply and demand. Housing prices are going back up after a slump during covid in the bay, but in the central valley, there has been construction like crazy. As much as others complain, theres still more people that want to live in California than leave, hence driving up the prices.

Plus Cali has many social services that benefit the public (IE people are less likely to leave).

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

Infinite growth on a finite planet is suicide.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

California is one of those rich states that prefers to ignore people below a certain threshold

this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
88 points (100.0% liked)

California

1861 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to /c/California, an online haven that brings to life the unrivaled diversity and vibrancy of California! This engaging community offers a virtual exploration of the Golden State, taking you from the stunning Pacific coastline to the rugged Sierra Nevada, and every town, city, and landmark in between. Discover California's world-class wineries, stunning national parks, innovative tech scene, robust agricultural heartland, and culturally diverse metropolises.

Discussions span a wide range of topics—from travel tips and restaurant recommendations to local politics and environmental issues. Whether you're a lifelong resident, a recent transplant, or planning your dream visit, /c/California is your one-stop place to share experiences, ask questions, and celebrate all the things that make California truly unique.

Related Communities:

Nearby Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]