California’s housing crisis is even worse than we thought

The California housing crisis is even worse than we thought.

According to a recent analyst report from Bankrate.com, California is the hardest state in the nation for people to buy their first home.

Since first-time home buyers are overwhelmingly younger people, the long-term results will have an enormous impact on the economic prospects of the next generation — and possibly even the future demographics of the state.

Author Claes Bell looked at the following five factors: housing affordability, credit availability, the tightness of the housing market, job opportunities for younger people, and homeownership rates among people aged 18-34.

California came in dead last among the 50 states.

“Would-be home buyers in expensive markets are caught in a bind,” wrote Bell. “The only way to get away from surging rents is to save up a down payment, but the rising rents keep them from saving.”

What will happen to California if the current generation of young people can’t afford to put down roots here?

The potential prospects are grim: an aging population, fewer workers, less economic growth, lower tax receipts, and less of the social dynamism that comes from having a variety of ages participating in the California dream.

Bell’s report is only one of several that underscores the need for California to untie the Gordian knot of our housing crisis.

Last week, a new UC Berkeley study pointed out that building the right kind of new housing — denser housing in urbanized areas near transit — would be one of the best ways for California to meet our 2030 climate goals without sacrificing economic growth.

“An infill-focused housing growth scenario provides the best outcomes for meting the state’s climate goals while also producing economic benefits,” wrote the authors of the study, who are scholars at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation and the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment.

The “target” California officials should aim for, according to the study’s authors, is a scenario by which all new development occurs in infill areas of California and far more of the development is multifamily housing. This strategy could avert at least 1.79 million metric tons of greenhouse gases annually compared to California’s development patterns of 2000-15.

That is a whopping amount of improvement for an environmental fix that doesn’t require Californians to adopt radical new technologies or lifestyles (like giving up flying on airplanes, for example).

As a bonus, the study notes that the average household would see lower overall monthly costs — and renters would see the most cost benefit.

Renters would be able to save money — for say, a down payment — and the development of more multifamily housing would create more market opportunities for first-time home buyers.

In the long run, this would be a winning strategy for younger people and for the state of California as a whole. But there are a variety of entrenched interests responsible for California’s current building patterns, and it won’t be easy to disrupt them.

Still, we have to try. One strong possibility is SB35, a bill from state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco. SB35 would create a streamlined housing approval process for cities that aren’t meeting their regional housing creation goals.

The Legislature is considering some 130 bills related to the housing crisis this session. What distinguishes SB35 is that it’s based on the same principle as Gov. Jerry Brown’s “by-right” proposal from last year: Since local governments have too often said no to new housing development, the state has to help them find ways to say yes.

“Adding more infill housing is absolutely essential to combatting climate change and keeping our middle class housed,” Wiener said.

He’s right.

if needed