When the CEQA reforms passed last week, I was asked by multiple people whether I believe these changes will actually move the ball forward in terms of housing production.
The honest answer is: it depends.
From what I’ve seen, CEQA—the California Environmental Quality Act—tends more often to delay housing projects than block them outright. That’s still a serious problem. Delay adds uncertainty, drives up costs, and makes it harder for housing developers, especially affordable housing developers, to plan and execute projects.
It allows opponents of housing—often acting in bad faith—to weaponize the process against even modest developments.
That’s why it makes sense that the state has also worked to streamline project approvals through legislation like SB 35 and other pro-housing measures.
But let’s not kid ourselves: CEQA abuse is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. Even with reforms to reduce frivolous lawsuits and fast-track infill housing, we still face enormous structural barriers.
I think the point State Senator Scott Wiener recently made is important .
In an interview with The San Francisco Standard and later in a podcast conversation with Derek Thompson—who coauthored the book Abundance with Ezra Klein—Wiener was asked how success should be measured, given that the Legislature has passed a number of pro-housing bills over the last five years but new housing construction remains sluggish.
“We’re very aware that the last five years have been rough,” Wiener said, pointing to supply chain disruptions and high interest rates. “My view is that we need to get the rules right and in place so that when the economic stars align again, we can build a ton of housing.”
That’s exactly right. This moment may not deliver immediate results, but it is about laying the groundwork. When financing becomes easier and the construction environment improves, developers need to be able to build without navigating a minefield of outdated rules and politically motivated lawsuits.
Still, even with that long-term optimism, I see major barriers standing in the way—barriers that CEQA reform alone won’t solve.
Start with Davis, where I live.
Locally, Measure J/R/D has put the city in a difficult position. Intended to give residents a say in peripheral development, the law now effectively blocks all new growth outside the existing city footprint unless it’s approved by voters—something that has happened just three times in nearly a quarter-century.
In the meantime, state housing mandates have forced Davis to comply by rezoning for infill. But infill has limits.
The city has already used many of the most viable sites, and what’s left is harder, more expensive, and more politically fraught. That means the city will increasingly rely on peripheral housing to meet future obligations—but those projects are, for all practical purposes, dead on arrival unless voters change course.
This creates a legal and political contradiction: the state says we must build; the voters have erected a near-absolute barrier to building. At some point, that contradiction will become unsustainable.
Either Davis will be compelled to revise Measure J/R/D, or it will face increasing legal pressure from the state. We are already seeing HCD (California’s Department of Housing and Community Development) taking a more aggressive stance with cities that fail to comply with state law. Davis may not remain immune for long.
Second, there’s the escalating cost of construction—especially for affordable housing. Building housing in California is expensive under the best of circumstances. When land costs, labor, materials, and regulatory delays are factored in, projects become nearly impossible to finance without heavy subsidies. And the irony is that affordable housing, by definition, can’t raise rents to cover those costs. That means fewer units get built, and the ones that do require years of complex financing and public support.
The situation is only made worse by federal policy. The proposed tariffs under the Trump administration—especially those targeting construction materials like steel, aluminum, and lumber—are poised to raise costs even higher. As The New York Times and other outlets have reported, these tariffs are designed to appeal to a political base rather than solve real economic problems. But their consequences will be real: higher construction costs, fewer affordable housing starts, and longer delays. It’s the exact opposite of what we need.
Third, we lack a meaningful replacement for redevelopment funding. Before it was eliminated in 2011, redevelopment tax increment financing was the single most important tool cities had to finance affordable housing and community revitalization.
Since then, the state has offered one-off bond programs and limited tax credits, but there’s no consistent mechanism to support local governments that want to build. Some promising ideas have been floated—new tax increment tools, enhanced infrastructure financing districts, even a potential constitutional amendment—but none have scaled to meet the moment.
Without serious and sustained investment, California will not meet its affordable housing targets, no matter how many zoning laws it rewrites.
And this brings us to the broader point: the housing crisis is no longer just a California problem.
As The Atlantic recently reported, housing prices are rising fastest in red and purple states that were once thought of as havens for affordable living. In cities across the Sunbelt—from Phoenix to Austin to Nashville—demand has outpaced supply, and the same forces that plague California are beginning to show up elsewhere: exclusionary zoning, neighborhood opposition, infrastructure bottlenecks, and political paralysis.
The article put it bluntly: “Housing prices are rising fast in red and purple states known for being easy places to build.” That should be a wake-up call to anyone who thinks this crisis is about state mismanagement or liberal overreach. It’s not. It’s about the structural failure of our entire housing system—across the country.
So yes, CEQA reform was necessary. It won’t solve everything, and it won’t immediately produce a surge in housing starts. But it removes one of the tools that has been routinely misused to stop even the most sensible development. Combined with recent streamlining laws and accountability measures, it helps lay a foundation for a better, more responsive housing system.
But make no mistake: the real solutions require more than legal reform. We need political courage to revisit exclusionary local policies like Measure J. We need financial tools to support affordable housing at scale. And we need federal leadership that doesn’t kneecap the very projects it claims to support.
We’ve taken some good steps. But we still have a long way to go.
Categories:
Breaking News City of Davis Housing Land Use/Open Space Opinion State of California
Tags:
CEQA reforms Davis Donald Trump Ezra Klein Measure J/R/D State Senator Scott Wiener The Atlantic The New York Times The San Francisco Standard