California currently has very few tools available to enforce housing production. While the state successfully sued Huntington Beach to allow for more affordable housing, this is not a scalable strategy. After campaigning on a promise to withhold state funding from cities that don’t approve enough housing, the governor backtracked following the predictable backlash.

Every 8 years, cities must "plan" for population growth. There are no consequences for missing these targets. 98% of cities do not meet their stated goals.

"What I’m seeing here is an elaborate shell game, because we’re kind of lying. It’s the only word I can come up with. We have no intention of actually building the units." (Foster City city councilman Herb Perez)

By contrast, the initiative would immediately make it expensive for cities to restrict housing growth. Unlike RHNA, no city could rig the metric to their benefit; both local housing costs and area median income are determined by market forces.

There are dozens of local initiatives and housing programs that already do a commendable job at addressing some of the most acute symptoms of the housing crisis. The goal of this initiative is not to replace them, but to provide a tailwind such that their work becomes easier over time. Rather than getting buried under a constant stream of newly homeless, this initiative should turn the tide and allow for a higher rate of people leaving homelessness than entering.

A core tenet of this legislation is that it not be overly prescriptive and remain as simple as possible; while all Californians are burdened by the housing shortage, its effects manifest in different ways across each community. By focusing only on the realignment of financial incentives with respect to housing growth, we hope to be a force to permanently lighten the load.

It's undeniable that an onerous regulatory environment has contributed to high construction costs and the housing shortage we're experiencing today. Local zoning laws, environmental reviews, building codes, energy and water efficiency mandates, parking requirements, density restrictions, cumbersome permitting processes, complex labor requirements, historic preservation requirements, rent control ordinances, and developer impact fees have all combined to foster an environment inhospitable to growth.

However, while this local land use authority can be (and regularly is) used disingenuously to thwart new construction, it should not be the role of the State to override or supersede that authority. Municipalities are justified to be wary of legislation like SB 50 that would usurp local zoning control. There truly is no one-size-fits-all solution that fits the needs of each jurisdiction.

Rather, to the extent that misuse results in more expensive housing, this initiative aims to impose a cost on regulation. Our goal should not be to threaten bad actors, but to collectively align incentives to equitably account for negative externalities arising from the housing shortage.

Well-intentioned as it may have been, Prop 13 has resulted in massive economic distortions that continue to hamstring the state. It has artificially constrained the supply of houses available for sale by disincentivizing property turnover and keeping homeownership out of reach for younger Californians. It's a privileged tax break that predominately benefits wealthy homeowners and shifts the tax burden to more regressive sources like utility and sales taxes, as well as impact fees that effectively tax development itself. Most importantly for the housing crisis, Prop 13 has created disincentives for cities to approve housing developments, with the costs associated with population growth far outstripping the additional tax revenue available to support it.

At the same time, it's not the role of this legislation to strike down Prop 13's provisions. While repeal would surely help alleviate the tax burden associated with the Housing Dividend, our express goal is to leave control and accountability in the hands of local governments, means of tax assessment included.

Because this addresses only the symptoms, not the cause of the housing crisis. No matter how much we build, it will never be enough as long as rising prices continue to force more and more people from their homes. Only by directly confronting the underlying economic distortions that have created this crisis can we hope to fix it.

Build some affordable housing and you reduce homelessness for a day. Realign growth incentives and provide a universal housing dividend and you eliminate homelessness for good.

Rent control is a perfectly acceptable stopgap measure, but it should not be considered an adequate long-term solution to the housing crisis.

The goal of this legislation is to normalize market prices to the point that rent control is rendered obsolete and is no longer necessary to prevent displacement.