Housing affordability dominates California gubernatorial race

California has made significant efforts to address housing affordability through numerous new laws under Gov. Gavin Newsom. Candidates seeking to replace the term-limited Newsom, however, act as if little has been accomplished.

The laws lacked swift, decisive enforcement to push the affordable goal, according to California billionaire Tom Steyer, a former presidential candidate and the latest entrant.

“We are so overregulating,” Steyer said on a recent Brian Tyler Cohen podcast. “We’re regulating to the point of the perfect is the enemy of the good. We’ve got to change outdated zoning rules.”

With affordability firmly on the nationwide ballot, Steyer’s criticism aligns with a common theme among the nine other candidates.

Although similar, their messages display some nuance.

Democratic candidates mostly discuss regulation in terms of improving approval processes and fixing fragmented systems, not reducing the regulatory state overall. They usually advocate for smarter, faster procedures to boost housing production while still enforcing tenant, labor, environmental, and fair-housing protections.

Republican contenders argue that California’s high costs and housing shortages are caused by an overregulated, high-tax environment. They view regulation as the main issue and advocate for widespread rollbacks.

Progressive and left candidates also criticize regulation, but often mean how rules are applied, not just their existence. They argue that current regulatory and funding systems favor large developers and criminalize unhoused people.

For his part, Steyer has promised to build 1 million homes in his first four years if elected. However, that pledge is not the most ambitious.

Tony Thurmond, the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, has discussed a roughly $10 billion affordable housing bond and a clear goal of 2 million new units by 2030. His plan relies heavily on utilizing surplus public and school lands.

Affordability platforms come as California passed new laws

All candidate messages on affordability relate to a state that has reformed its housing laws over the past several years.

Newsom and supportive lawmakers embraced a book titled ‘Abundance’ by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, published in March, which argues that layers of regulation, institutional inertia, and political gridlock caused housing scarcity in Democratic states.

Democratic candidates have entered the landscape. Affordability has become the main focus for the majority party, not just a campaign slogan. Their agenda is generally correct, but the urgency, enforcement, and willingness to challenge corporate and local opposition have not matched the severity of the problem.

Laws have strengthened tenant protections, including statewide rent caps, local rent stabilization, and new security deposit and screening rules aimed at keeping renters secure. Other laws aim to accelerate approvals, streamline construction, and require local governments to stop slow-walking new housing projects.

This summer, Newsom signed a significant reform of the state’s 1970 California Environmental Quality Act into law. The changes allow some housing projects to bypass the strict environmental review that law previously mandated.

Environmentalists, competing developers, and neighborhood groups have used CEQA’s process to delay or block housing developments.

Lawmakers expanded “builder’s remedies” that allow developers to override local zoning if the municipality’s plans for housing do not meet future needs across all income levels. Another landmark law this year calls for increased housing density near public transit.

Senate Bill 9, passed four years ago, allowed single-family lots to be divided for increased housing density.

Despite all this, only a small portion of Californians can afford a median-priced home, and rents still consume disproportionate shares of income.

Families want changes to happen faster. Builders share this hope because they see a huge chance to add more housing easily if there are fewer regulations and rules.

Steyer wants to fix what he may have broken

Steyer entered the race in November with a campaign slogan that “Californians deserve a life they can afford.” It directly addresses the persistent gap between ambitious laws and everyday reality.

He says Sacramento passed tools but failed to use them quickly and assertively enough to influence the key metrics that matter to families. He argues that permitting timelines and local obstruction remain unacceptable.

A Wall Street Journal editorial challenges his broader stance on regulation with the headline “The Billionaire Who Made California Unaffordable.” Allysia Finley, a WSJ editorial board member, does not mention housing regulation. Instead, she focuses on his actions regarding climate laws and taxes, which indirectly impact housing.

“You have to smile at Mr. Steyer campaigning to solve the very problems that he helped cause,” Allysia Finley, a WSJ editorial board member, wrote.

Her position is that Steyer and his “wealthy liberal friends” were the ones who pushed “destructive climate, tax and regulatory policies that have made the state uninhabitable for most businesses and for people who live paycheck to paycheck.”

Too soon to see a clear winner

Campaign season has just started. Other rivals might step in. In any race, the current leader might not come out on top.

Republican Steve Hilton, a political commentator on Fox News, has performed well in early polling. He told a Sacramento news station that while lawmakers discussed solving the state’s crisis, “they really haven’t done it.”

Earlier polling can be disregarded because candidates have not yet been actively campaigning to increase name recognition, Jon Fleischman, a Republican strategist and former executive director of the California Republican Party, told a state political news publication.

“I don’t know how many points Hilton got because people think he owns hotels,” Fleischman said.

Still, by anchoring their campaigns in affordability during an era of constant affordability laws, each candidate invites voters to judge not just intentions but results.

California has followed nearly all of the recommendations from experts. It took years for the state to reach its housing crisis, so solutions might also take years to show results. Affordability could remain out of reach for some time.

Each candidate bets that a governor who sees that as a failure of execution rather than imagination can turn those paper reforms into places people can buy or rent more affordably, more quickly.

Whoever wins will face the same obstacles that have befuddled even the latest statewide housing affordability efforts.

Many local governments have proven stubborn, opposing what they view as state overreach. The ‘not in my backyard’ crowd, although often defeated recently, stays vocal and ready to oppose change.