Affordable housing is very scarce in most of California. This is an issue of huge economic importance to our state. If young families cannot afford to live in California, our state’s outward migration will be exacerbated, and our competitiveness diminished. From a personal viewpoint, it’s particularly distressing when parents see their children forced to move out of state, with the result often of denying the benefits of familial ties across the generations. We want to be close to our children and grand-children; the lack of affordable housing makes this more difficult.

The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office reported on this crisis in 2015:

“High Housing Costs Problematic for Households and the State’s Economy. Amid high housing costs, many households make serious trade-offs to afford living here. Households with low incomes, in particular, spend much more of their income on housing. High home prices here also push homeownership out of reach for many. Faced with expensive housing options, workers in California’s coastal communities commute 10 percent further each day than commuters elsewhere, largely because of limited housing options near major job centers. Californians are also four times more likely to live in crowded housing. And, finally, the state’s high housing costs make California a less attractive place to call home, making it more difficult for companies to hire and retain qualified employees, likely preventing the state’s economy from meeting its full potential.”

The LAO estimated that the rate of production of new housing would have to double to keep up with California’s expected population and economic growth.

Proposed solutions:

a) The construction of new affordable housing is impeded by the regulatory burdens in California that are not found in other states. Governor Brown proposed an expedited regulatory process for housing targeting lower incomes. His proposal should be revived, and passed—if the Legislature will not, then by initiative. Those regulations dealing with direct safety and health concerns should be preserved. Those that don’t qualify under that standard should be suspended for affordable housing.

b) “Prevailing wage” rules were demanded by some as a condition of supporting regulatory streamlining. This demand guarantees that housing will be less affordable. This condition should be resisted.

c) Affordable housing elements are required by state law as a condition of master plan approval, but some cities are built-out, so that the affordable-housing element has no practical effect. Affordable-housing obligations should be recast on regional bases, so that when built-out cities shift the need to build affordable housing to their neighboring cities, they help those neighboring cities financially.

d) The definition of what qualifies for the affordable-housing element should be adjusted to permit a broader array of solutions. For instance, single-room-occupancy units don’t qualify if each does not have its own kitchen facilities. However, some SRO’s share kitchen space, and that should qualify. The key is to increase the stock of available housing, not to make the requirements so stringent that less gets built.

e) The California Department of Housing and Community Development allocates the federal tax-exempt bonding authority, and overseas direct state grants, for competing projects. These resources should be directed toward the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing as a priority above all other uses.

f) Emergency responses for the homeless involve vouchers for motels for mothers with children and use of armories for single men during winter months. The use of available state facilities for temporary shelters should be expanded year-round, including property managed by Cal Trans and the California National Guard, consistent with no diminution in the primary use of those properties.