Housing is expensive in California:

In 2021, San Jose had the least affordable housing among the 92 major US housing markets, with a median multiple of 12.6. San Francisco had a median multiple of 11.8, Los Angeles was at 10.7, followed by San Diego, at 10.1).7 Housing was severely unaffordable even in the interior markets, with Riverside-San Bernardino at 7.4 and Sacramento at 6.7.

And there are some explanations for why that is the case:

Dartmouth economist William Fischel published an early seminal review 9 of housing affordability in California (1970 to the 1990s). Fischel suggested that regulatory research should look for major changes that “are adopted in some places but not in others.”

Fischel examined the higher house price increases that occurred in California compared to the rest of the nation between the late 1960s and late 1980s. Fischel cites various possible causal factors. He found that the higher prices could not be explained by higher construction cost increases, demand, higher personal income growth, the quality of life, amenities, Proposition 13, land supply or water issues.

Instead Fischel cites stronger land use restrictions --- There were two principal issues, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local growth management restrictions.10

We have discussed this issue many times before on the blog, but Wendell Cox's article is helpful in pointing out that zoning in and of itself wasn't the problem. The problem arose, at least according to Fischel's research, when these policies went from "ordinary zoning" to something that became a tool to restrict growth.

The illustrate what "ordinary zoning" means, Cox uses the idiom, "a place for everything, but everything in its place." And I think this is an interesting way of putting it. Part of the reason why we have zoning is that it is a way to organize uses. It is a way of saying that sex shops and cannabis shops can't go here, but they can go over there.

But the key part of this idiom is its first part: a place for everything. What this implies is that the answer should never just be, "no, sorry, you can't build this." At most, it should be, "no, sorry, you can't build this here, but you can over there." There is a place for everything.

Of course, this is much harder to do when you flip from sprawl development to infill development. Because now there are fewer places "over there." You really have to figure out "here."

This Twitter thread by Richard Wittstock of Domus Homes (developer out in Vancouver) is a timely follow-on to yesterday's post about housing supply, land-use regulations, and specific policies such as inclusionary zoning. What Richard clearly describes in his thread is the economic impact of a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) that requires developers to provide 20% social housing.

The thread will walk you through all of the specific numbers, but I think there are three important takeaways:

1. Everything has a cost. It is entirely disingenuous for anyone to refer to inclusionary zoning or other similar policies as a mechanism for "no-cost" affordable housing. Even if you believe it is the right public policy approach, there is still a cost. Social housing doesn't just appear out of thin air.

2. In Richard's thread, the remaining market rate condominiums end up needing to be sold for $1,750 psf in order for the entire project to pencil. This is a significant number. But in this case, it is a result of these homes needing to shoulder the cost of the social housing. It is basically saying "housing is too expensive, so let's make it more expensive so that we can use some of the incremental proceeds to finance less expensive housing."

3. If the math doesn't work, developers will not build new housing.

P.S. Thank you Volodya Gusak for pointing out Richard's thread to me.