I Have Some Questions for the Democrats Who Want to Run California

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: This podcast centers on a California governor forum focused almost entirely on the state’s housing crisis: why construction is slow and expensive, how to speed approvals, whether labor and taxes should be reformed, and how to prevent and address homelessness. Candidates argued over modular housing, fees, CEQA, Prop 13, enforcement against resistant cities, and direct cash assistance versus shelter and supportive housing.

Main Topics: California housing construction costs and speed (Priority: 5/5): Candidates debated why building in California costs far more and takes much longer than in peer states. Speed, permitting delays, fees, and fragmented approvals were repeatedly cited as major cost drivers. Modular and housing innovation (Priority: 4/5): Tom Steyer and others promoted modular/off-site construction and housing innovation as a way to cut costs and unlock stalled permitted projects, while acknowledging past startup failures and the need for state orders and code changes. Local control, fees, and state enforcement (Priority: 5/5): A major theme was how Sacramento should pressure cities and counties that delay or block housing. Candidates discussed caps on local fees, builder’s remedy, lawsuits, incentives, and accountability mechanisms. Labor standards and affordability trade-offs (Priority: 4/5): Javier Becerra and Katie Porter sparred over prevailing wage, skilled-and-trained requirements, and whether stronger labor protections raise costs too much. The discussion centered on balancing worker pay with housing affordability. Homelessness policy and accountability (Priority: 5/5): Candidates debated why California’s huge homelessness spending has not reduced unsheltered homelessness. They discussed prevention, interim housing, mental health treatment, outcome-based funding, and coercion when people refuse help. Tax policy, Prop 13, and funding housing (Priority: 4/5): Antonio Villaraigosa and others argued that California’s tax system and Prop 13 distort city incentives, encourage commercial over residential development, and starve cities of resources needed to support housing. Rent stabilization and affordability protection (Priority: 3/5): The forum closed with discussion of the expiring Tenant Protection Act and how to protect renters from immediate shocks while increasing long-term supply.

Key Arguments: Construction is too expensive in California largely because of labor, materials, financing, and especially time-consuming approvals and layered local fees. Modular/off-site manufacturing could reduce costs by at least 20% if the state changes building codes and guarantees demand through orders and financing. Higher labor standards can coexist with lower housing costs if California streamlines approvals, reduces fees, and tackles other cost drivers. Local jurisdictions should not be allowed to block state housing goals; the state should use deadlines, builder’s remedy, funding incentives, and, if necessary, lawsuits. Prop 13 distorts city incentives by making cities prefer commercial development over housing; broader tax reform is needed to fund housing and reduce local resistance. Homelessness spending has failed because California focused on spending inputs instead of measurable outcomes and accountability. Direct cash assistance is the most effective way to prevent eviction or foreclosure when households face short-term shocks. Emergency interim housing is presented as a cheaper, faster alternative to permanent supportive housing, with privacy and services that may be more acceptable than shelters. The state should simplify its fragmented homelessness and income-support programs into fewer, more usable funding streams. Tenant protections are useful as a temporary measure, but long-term affordability requires more housing supply across market-rate, workforce, affordable, and homeless housing types.

Data Points: Cost per square foot: Over twice as high in California as in Texas - RAND study cited to explain why apartment construction is so expensive in California Project completion time: 49 months - RAND study figure for completing a multifamily housing project in California Project completion time: 27 months - RAND study figure for Texas Project completion time: 37 months - RAND study figure for Colorado Potential cost reduction from modular housing: 20% or more - Estimate discussed for off-site manufactured housing and modular methods Permitted but unbuilt units: 40,000 units - Steyer cited San Francisco-area units that are zoned/permitted but not built because costs are too high Prevailing wage impact: About $94,000 per unit - Turner Center analysis referenced in debate over labor standards Local fee burden: Up to 20% of the cost of a house - Steyer and Mahan described city/county fees as a major cost driver Housing bond proposal: $10 billion - Becerra referenced a housing bond backed by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks Housing spending: $24 billion - California homelessness spending from 2018 to 2023 referenced in the forum Affordable housing cost: $750,000 to $1 million per key - Steyer cited the cost of permanent supportive housing Permanent supportive housing cost: $850,000 per unit - Villaraigosa cited LA average cost for permanent supportive housing Permanent supportive housing cost: $1.2 million per unit - An even higher figure cited later in the exchange Tiny homes cost: About $100,000 - Villaraigosa contrasted tiny homes with expensive permanent supportive housing Interim housing unit cost: About $300,000 per unit - Mahan described modular interim housing units in San Jose State affordable-housing cost comparison: 30% higher than private market - Mahan said city-built affordable housing in San Jose costs substantially more than market-rate construction Prevention program success: Over 92% remained housed - Mahan described rental-assistance plus case-management outcomes in San Jose Reduction in inflow: 50% - Mahan said San Jose reduced inflow into homelessness by half through prevention efforts San Jose approvals: 22,000 homes approved - Mahan said many approved homes were not built because economics did not work San Jose built interim housing sites: 23 sites - Mahan described city efforts to convert motels and deploy modular units Local fee reduction impact: 2,000 homes started last year - Mahan said cutting fees helped unlock projects in San Jose Additional projects in financing: Another 2,000 - Mahan said this many homes were securing financing and expected to break ground LA housing drop after ULA: 84% drop in construction - Villaraigosa cited a RAND/UCLA study on Measure ULA Crime reduction in LA under Villaraigosa: 48% - He cited this as evidence tough governance can produce results Graduation rate increase in LA under Villaraigosa: 60% - He used this to support his record as mayor Downtown LA population growth: From 20,000 to 60,000 - Villaraigosa cited his tenure as mayor Bridge housing / cash aid example: $6,000 per family - Porter cited median cost of eviction/foreclosure prevention cash assistance Statewide tenant protection cap: 5% plus inflation - Referenced as the existing Tenant Protection Act limit Average down payment: $140,000 to $160,000 - Becerra cited this to explain why young families struggle to buy homes

Pivotal Quotes: "The study is very, very clear that the speed is the driver." — Katie Porter: Porter argued that permitting and approval timelines, not just raw costs, are the core reason California housing is expensive "We need to use every tool you have, and certainly litigation is one." — Javier Becerra: Becerra defended state lawsuits against cities and counties that resist housing mandates "The very most effective way to keep someone in their home or in their apartment is to give them direct cash assistance. Period." — Katie Porter: Porter explained her view on preventing eviction and foreclosure during financial shocks

Implications: The forum suggests California’s housing fight is shifting from broad pro-housing rhetoric to hard choices about speed, fees, enforcement, and funding. Future policy likely hinges on whether the state can align local incentives, simplify programs, and prove measurable results on housing production and homelessness.