by 
The
Palisades
and
Eaton
fires
represent
thousands
of
personal
tragedies,
but
they
also
constitute
a
collective
disaster,
adding
new
housing
shortages
to
California’s
already
massive
shortfall
—
a
catastrophe
that
stems
not
from
acts
of
nature
but
from
human
policy
blunders.
Gov.
Gavin
Newsom
bought
a
new
$9-million
house
in
November,
but
too
many
of
his
fellow
Californians
may
never
own
a
home
or
find
an
affordable
rental.
Under
Newsom,
the
state
has
tried
reforms
designed
to
increase
building
and
affordability,
but
precious
little
has
changed.
Home
prices
in
coastal
California
are
nearly
400%
above
the
national
average,
and
statewide,
the
median
cost
of
a
home
is
2.5
times
higher
than
in
the
rest
of
country.
California
has
the
second
lowest
homeownership
rate
in
the
nation,
56%
(New
York’s
is
lowest,
54%).
As
for
renting,
the
average
cost
of
a
two-bedroom
apartment
in
Los
Angeles
is
just
shy
of
$3,000
a
month,
according
to
apartments.com,
about
$1,000
more
than
the
national
average.
Of
course,
these
statistics
aren’t
bad
news
for
everyone.
Many
California
baby
boomers
—
who
bought
into
their
neighborhoods
long
ago
—
have
made
out
like
bandits
through
escalating
home
prices.
Along
with
Gen
Xers,
they
have
home
ownership
rates
similar
to
those
in
the
rest
of
the
country.
But
the
rate
is
half
the
national
level
for
Californians
under
35,
and
they
are
precisely
the
group
that
is
deserting
the
West
Coast
for
“cost
of
living”
reasons.
The
state’s
housing
crisis
has
its
roots
in
excessive
construction
regulations
and
litigation
aimed
at
developers
—
for
decades,
too
few
residential
units
were
built.
Unfortunately,
the
cure
Sacramento
is
pushing
—
policies
that
favor
dense,
apartment
development
near
transit
corridors
in
the
state’s
biggest
cities
—
isn’t
helping.
For
starters,
high-density
“infill”
construction
in
cities
—
some
call
it
YIMBY
(“yes
in
my
backyard”)
development
—
is
costly.
City
land
is
expensive,
materials
costs
are
high,
“prevailing
wage”
labor
rates
and
onerous
permitting,
zoning
and
planning
processes
and
fees
add
to
the
bottom
line.
New
multistory
apartment
buildings
packed
in
along
Sunset
Boulevard
or
the
Wilshire
corridor
may
add
to
L.A.’s
total
housing
stock,
but
even
when
affordable
rental
units
are
required
in
these
buildings,
the
trickle-down
benefit
is
minimal.
As
UCLA
and
London
School
of
Economics
professor
Michael
Storper’s
research
shows,
forced
densification
is
a
“blunt
instrument”
that
brings
little
in
the
way
of
substantial
cost
savings
for
housing.
Renting
and
high-density
living
is
also
out
of
sync
with
what
most
people
in
California
want.
A
recent
Public
Policy
Institute
of
California
survey
found
that
70%
of
the
state’s
adults
preferred
single-family
residences.
Not
surprisingly,
a
large
majority
of
Californians,
according
to
a
poll
by
former
Obama
campaign
pollster
David
Binder,
opposed
legislation
signed
by
Newsom
in
2021
that
in
effect
banned
single-family
zoning
in
much
of
the
state.
(The
law,
Senate
Bill
9,
was
overturned
in
L.A.
County
court
last
year,
and
that
ruling
is
on
appeal.)
Climate
goals
have
been
a
big
part
of
the
reason
California
policies
favor
multistory,
multiunit
new
construction
in
cities.
The
idea
is
that
housing
more
people
in,
say,
taller
buildings
will
be
more
energy
efficient.
And
encouraging
dense
developments
near
transit
is
supposed
to
lower
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
But
new
studies
show
that
the
size
of
buildings
doesn’t
necessarily
correlate
with
more
sustainability,
and
many
Californians
are
choosing
to
endure
longer
and
longer
commutes
to
buy
a
home
rather
than
rent
in
town.
Or
leaving
altogether.
According
to
a
new
study
by
land
use
attorney
Jennifer
L.
Hernandez,
climate-based
housing
rules
have
contributed
to
too
few
houses
being
built
at
too
high
a
cost.
What
should
the
state
do?
Some
may
wish
that
we
could
subsidize
an
expansion
of
public
housing,
adding
more
projects
such
as
the
ambitious
renewal
of
Jordan
Downs
in
South
L.A.,
but
this
will
be
difficult
in
a
nearly
broke
city
and
a
state
with
budget
problems
as
well,
and
again
it
won’t
match
the
aspirations
of
most
Californians.
One
way
out
of
this
crisis
would
be
to
expand
the
streamlined
permitting
and
regulatory
processes
that
Newsom
and
local
leaders
are
fast-tracking
for
fire
reconstruction,
incentivizing
rather
than
punishing
townhome
and
single-family
home
construction.
Instead
of
laws
all
but
mandating
high-density
units,
usually
rentals,
in
the
state’s
biggest
metros,
Sacramento
needs
to
encourage
market-driven
projects
based
on
consumer
preferences.
Peripheral
development,
away
from
the
high-cost
coast,
could
open
opportunities
for
first-time
home
buyers.
The
state
could
take
advantage
of
technological
trends
—
remote
work,
for
example
—
to
allow
for
more
population
dispersion.
Master
planned
communities
in
inland
Southern
California
or
the
Central
Valley,
with
local
employers,
can
be
part
of
the
solution.
California’s
mounting
housing
problem
requires
more
alternatives,
especially
for
people
seeking
lower
rents
and
affordable
single-family
houses.
If
the
state
wants
to
maintain
its
upwardly
mobile
chops,
it
must
refashion
its
housing
policies.
This
piece
first
appeared
at
Los
Angeles
Times.
Joel
Kotkin
is
the
author
of
The
Coming
of
Neo-Feudalism:
A
Warning
to
the
Global
Middle
Class.
He
is
the
Roger
Hobbs
Presidential
Fellow
in
Urban
Futures
at
Chapman
University
and
and
directs
the
Center
for
Demographics
and
Policy
there.
He
is
Senior
Research
Fellow
at
the
Civitas
Institute
at
the
University
of
Texas
in
Austin.
Learn
more
at
joelkotkin.com
and
follow
him
on
Twitter
@joelkotkin.
Image:
Multiunit
housing
is
under
construction
by
the
Metro
light
rail
station
at
Jefferson
and
La
Cienega
boulevards
in
Los
Angeles.
Source:
Mel
Melcon,
Los
Angeles
Times.
Go to Source
Author: Joel Kotkin
