An aerial view of housing density in a Los Angeles suburb. (Photo: trekandshoot, via Shutterstock)ANALYSIS: A new presidential panel aimed at easing the affordable housing crisis is top heavy with business and developer interests, and does little to get at the roots of the problem. President Trump’s executive order created the “White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing” in June.
An aerial view of a San Luis Obispo neighborhood. (Photo: Sundry Photography, via Shutterstock) The latest Berkeley IGS Poll finds a lack of consensus among Californians on a number of policy proposals relating to housing. But one issue that voters do agree on, at least in concept, is that limits should be imposed on new housing development in high-risk wildfire areas. Three in four voters statewide (74%) support this policy, while just 25% are opposed.
Densely packed housing in Long Beach, looking westward toward the harbor. (Photo: Sergey Novikov, via Shutterstock)OPINION: While there are many causes that have contributed to the state’s housing shortage, many people place at least part of the blame on a “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) philosophy. Everyone knows that more housing is needed, but they’d prefer that it was somewhere else.
A voter prepares to make a choice on the ballot. (Photo: Svanblar, via Shutterstock)California voters are being asked to approve $16.4 billion in bond financing, cut taxes and weigh in on such diverse topics as kidney dialysis prices and farm animal living conditions in the Nov. 6 election. The 11 initiatives on the ballots include requests for bond financing for housing, water and children’s hospitals. Other initiatives would approve huge property tax savings for seniors, repeal the controversial gas tax hike and open the way to expand rent control. In the long tradition of California ballot propositions, fights over the initiatives have prompted record spending.
A housing tract in San Jose, Calif. (Photo: PBK-PG, via Shutterstock)OPINION: When California residents in the Bay Area making over $100,000 per year are considered “low income” and thereby eligible for government subsidies for housing, something is seriously wrong. The issue of affordability is hitting critical mass in regions throughout the state.