California’s broken housing framework

Building the Housing We Need Without Making Renters for Life. A pro ownership perspective on affordability, infrastructure, and California’s housing framework. There is no dispute that California, and especially communities like Glendale, Pasadena, La Cañada Flintridge, La Crescenta, Montrose, and Sunland Tujunga, face a serious housing affordability challenge. Rents are high, inventory is limited, and for many people the idea of homeownership feels increasingly out of reach. Where the debate breaks down is not whether we need more housing, but what kind of housing we are building, who benefits from it, and what kind of future it creates.

In a recent recent opinion piece by Chad Maisel How to Change the Politics Blocking the Housing We Need (Governing)

Chad argues that the solution lies in empowering renters, accelerating approvals, and dramatically expanding rental housing production. While that viewpoint raises valid concerns about affordability and speed, it ultimately reinforces a system that prioritizes lifelong tenancy over ownership, dependence over independence, and volume over responsible planning. Below are my views based on the above oppinion piece.

Yes, more housing needs to be built, and faster. But building more rentals alone is not a complete solution. The distinction between affordable rent and affordable ownership matters because the outcomes are fundamentally different. Paying rent, even at a reduced rate, builds no equity. Ownership, even modest ownership, does.

In California, the political and regulatory framework has shifted toward state level mandates that override local planning. Laws and enforcement tools that push ministerial approvals and limit local discretion have expanded the state’s role in what gets approved, and how quickly. In practice, that often means communities are required to accept projects that meet minimum thresholds, even when real world constraints like evacuation routes, water supply, and aging sewer systems are already strained. When residents raise these issues, they are too often labeled as the problem, instead of being treated as stakeholders asking responsible questions.

The permitting process is absolutely too slow, and it needs reform. But reforms should be honest about what is not working. A system can be faster on paper and still fail in practice when projects are delayed by financing gaps, construction costs, litigation risk, insurance pressures in fire zones, and infrastructure upgrades that are not funded. When Sacramento removes local discretion without pairing it with infrastructure funding and realistic safety planning, it creates friction, not progress.

Another missing piece of the conversation is how affordable housing is funded and who ultimately benefits. Billions of taxpayer dollars flow into affordable housing through state and federal programs, yet those funds overwhelmingly support rental production. That raises a reasonable question. If public dollars are involved, why are they not also being used to help people buy into these communities and build equity?

There is also a contradiction in the investor debate. National attention is increasingly focused on limiting large institutional investors from buying and dominating neighborhoods as rentals. The concern is concentration of ownership and the loss of opportunity for local buyers. But if we agree concentrated rental control is a problem, we should also scrutinize systems that use public funding to create the same end result, permanent tenancy, by assigning projects to select developers and nonprofits while residents remain renters indefinitely.

Housing affordability cannot be discussed through the narrow lens of traditional families alone. In Foothill communities like Glendale, Pasadena, La Cañada Flintridge, La Crescenta, Montrose, and Sunland Tujunga, the housing pressure spans generations. Seniors looking to scale down want to remain close to doctors, family, and community ties, but often cannot find something modest and affordable to buy locally. Younger residents in their 20s and 30s, many single or partnered without children, do not need large homes, yet routinely face one bedroom rents around $2,500 per month. Two and three bedroom rentals commonly range from $3,500 to $6,500 per month, payments that rival or exceed many mortgage obligations.

At the same time, many affordable housing developments are only partially affordable. A limited number of units receive rent reductions, while the majority lease at market rates. Public funds help build the projects, but ownership opportunities are rarely part of the equation.

If households can afford $2,500 to $6,500 per month in rent, why are we not working with major lenders like Chase or Wells Fargo to create practical first time buyer financing that converts those payments into ownership? Government backed programs, shared equity models, and resale restricted ownership units can be designed to keep homes affordable over time while still allowing households to build equity and stability. Unlike open ended rent subsidies, ownership support can be structured to revolve and be reused for the next buyer.

There is also a fiscal reality that is often ignored. In California, property tax reassessment largely occurs at the point of sale. For sale housing can increase the tax base over time in a way rental heavy production often does not, particularly when properties are held long term by entities that limit turnover. That distinction matters because property tax revenue supports fire protection, water systems, police services, libraries, schools, and road maintenance. In older communities with aging systems, building without strengthening the tax base can leave cities with more demand and fewer resources.

This matters deeply in Foothill communities where many neighborhoods sit in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and residents are painfully aware of how quickly conditions can change. Housing policy that ignores wildfire risk mitigation, evacuation planning, and infrastructure limits is not compassionate, it is reckless. If the long term goal is to build housing and the infrastructure needed to support it, then ownership housing should be part of the solution because it strengthens neighborhood stability and public funding capacity.

The real question is not whether we should build more housing. We should. The question is whether we are building a future where people can move forward, or one where they are permanently treading water.

For readers interested in the opposing viewpoint, the original opinion article linked above is worth reading alongside this perspective. The challenge ahead is not choosing between housing or no housing, but deciding whether affordability means lifelong tenancy or the opportunity to build something of one’s own.

Backlinks and resources

• Center for American Progress
• California HCD, accountability and enforcement
• California SB 9
• California SB 35
• California Density Bonus Law, Government Code 65915
• Crescenta Valley Weekly
• Montrose Shopping Park
• City of La Cañada Flintridge
• LA County Planning
• The House Agent website
• Google Business page
• Zillow profile

Foothill housing, Glendale housing, Pasadena housing, La Cañada Flintridge housing, La Crescenta housing, Montrose housing, Sunland housing, Tujunga housing, affordable for sale housing, first time buyers, downsizing seniors, wildfire zone housing, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, evacuation routes, infrastructure capacity, permitting reform, California housing laws, Housing Accountability Act, SB 9, SB 35, density bonus, local control, community planning, Los Angeles County Planning, Montrose Shopping Park