My View: Housing Is Not Just a California Problem Anymore

Photo by Marcus Lenk on Unsplash

By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor

The anti-housing advocates can breathe a sigh of relief—it turns out that not only is housing not just a Davis problem, it’s also not just a California problem.  Unfortunately for them, that doesn’t mean we don’t have to do anything about it locally—it just means that we can’t rely on the rest of the country to pick up our slack anymore.

Those voters of Davis who were surveyed selected the lack of affordable housing as by far the most important problem facing the city of Davis.

This week the NY Times reported, “San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York and Washington have long failed to build enough housing to keep up with everyone trying to live there. And for nearly as long, other parts of the country have mostly been able to shrug off the housing shortage as a condition particular to big coastal cities.”

Instead they found it to be “an increasingly national problem” that “has consequences for the quality of American family life, the economy and the future of housing politics.”

In 2012, much of populated California had housing surpluses.  Now only extremely rural and remote counties have them and much of coastal and the southern part of the Central Valley from Sutter County down to Kern have housing shortages—some of them severe.

But it’s not just California.

The Times reports, “What once seemed a blue-state coastal problem has increasingly become a national one, with consequences for the quality of life of American families, the health of the national economy and the politics of housing construction.”

They add, “Today more families in the middle of America who could once count on becoming homeowners can’t be so confident anymore. And communities that long relied on their relatively affordable housing to draw new residents can no longer be so sure of that advantage.”

Freddie Mac now estimates that the nation has about a 3.8 million housing unit shortfall.

Up For Growth, a Washington-based policy and research group focused on the housing shortage, claims that deficit doubled from 2012 to 2019.

Their just released report found that 47 states and the District of Columbia had worsening supply.  Of the 310 metro areas across the country, “supply was dwindling or shortages were growing worse in three-quarters of them heading into the pandemic.”

“Our nation faces a severe housing affordability crisis that urgently requires investment in housing supply with an eye toward eliminating longstanding barriers to housing opportunity for underserved communities,” said Julian Castro, the former Secretary of HUD from 2014 to 2017.

The report found even in Texas, the deficit rose nearly threefold from 2012 and 2019, to 322,000 homes.

In places like Arizona and Georgia where there was almost no housing shortage in 2012, the shortage has surged 14 and 27 times, respectively.

“If we don’t solve this deficit, particularly now with other headwinds, America’s housing underproduction is likely to get worse,” said Mike Kingsella, chief executive officer of Up for Growth. “More and more folks will have to drive farther and farther to find housing that they can afford.”

The reasons for this problem vary.

For example, as we are familiar, in places like Sacramento, the problem is underbuilding—as it is in much of California.

“In Los Angeles, for instance, which is the most underproduced metro in the country, it’s lacking 8.4% — nearly 400,000 homes missing across the region,” Kingsella told NPR this week.  “It doesn’t have to be this way, is a key message coming out of this report.”

But in St. Louis, restrictive zoning has prohibited the construction of more homes.  Kingsella said that many cities need to change their zoning laws.

In Detroit, the problem is a huge stock of housing is not inhabitable.

NPR interviewed Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody’s Analytics.  He estimated the shortfall to be closer to 1.6 million homes.

“It’s very difficult to know precisely what the shortage is,” Zandi says. “But the bottom line is, no matter what the estimate is, it’s a lot of homes that we’re undersupplied.”

He further added that “there’s no doubt that many more homes need to be built to ensure that housing becomes more affordable, whether it’s rental housing or homeownership.”

One of the interesting and sometimes frustrating discussions is what it means to have a housing shortfall.

The Times points out, “There are not, for instance, 400,000 households’ worth of homeless people on the streets of metro Los Angeles.”

Instead, “many people in need of housing there are doubled up with family or living in makeshift garages. A healthier housing market looks like a place where those people would be able to find and afford a home of their own.”

“It looks like the ability to live where you want to work,” said Mike Kingsella. “It looks like not having to worry about housing instability. It looks like a reasonable chance of eventually buying your own home.”

But these estimates are probably the tip of the iceberg.

For instance, “The cost of housing in the highest-paying, most productive parts of the country deters people from moving there (or forces existing residents to move away).”  So, “If Los Angeles had built an extra 400,000 homes over the past decade, it would be more affordable today. And that might lure more people there, driving demand for even more housing.”

As we know, that feeds the anti-housing advocates to discourage housing because it might encourage more housing.

On the other hand, it’s not just supply that’s a problem.

The Times noted, “Other forces like widening income inequality also worsen housing affordability, said Chris Herbert, managing director of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. That’s because more higher-income households compete for limited housing (prompting builders to build high-end homes).”

“That’s not to say that the supply story isn’t important,” Mr. Herbert said. “But it’s intersecting with other factors that are driving housing prices up.”

Bottom line is we need more housing—but housing is both a cause of and symptom of larger problems.

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

13 Comments

  1. Ron Oertel

    One has to carefully examine the sources of those claiming “housing shortage”.  For example,

    Up For Growth, a Washington-based policy and research group focused on the housing shortage, claims that deficit doubled from 2012 to 2019.

    What the heck is “Up for Growth”, how/when did it arise, and how is it supported (source of funds)?

    And, is the so-called “shortage” evenly-distributed across the country?  Does Des Moines, Detroit, Pittsburgh, etc. have housing shortages?  If not, that would indicate that there is not an actual shortage of buildings in the country, to house the population.

    As I recall, overall density per household is not increasing in this country – another sign that there is no housing shortage (in terms of actually housing the population).  The U.S. population is not growing very quickly, anymore.

    And as housing prices and interest rates rise, doesn’t demand then go down?  In fact, that’s exactly what’s occurring, now.  That’s how supply-and-demand works.  Demand is not “fixed”.

    Per the most recent data, San Francisco’s population has dropped by more than 6%.  Shouldn’t this logically mean that they need 6% less housing, than before?  I believe the population has also dropped in Los Angeles, which would bring up the same question.

    (Same thing is true to a lesser degree, statewide.  The state’s population has been slightly declining.)

    These organizations are not presenting the full picture, including how they’re defining demand, and how they came up with these numbers.

    Builders are drastically slowing production, and are cutting prices.  How does this correspond with a so-called “housing shortage”?  If there’s a shortage, why are sales crashing?

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/scary-times-builders-cut-home-prices-and-slow-construction-as-buyers-pull-back-survey-shows-11657567086

     

     

     

     

     

  2. David Greenwald

    The housing market is going to start declining because of interest rates and a likely economic slowdown along with inflation and other factors.  That doesn’t mean that we don’t still have a housing crisis or a shortage of affordable housing, it means that the economy is going to make so that even more people cannot purchase homes and that is going to exacerbate the problem when the market turns around.  The problem is going to get worse not better because of the economy.

    1. Ron Oertel

      What you’re referring to is not a “housing shortage”.  You’re referring to the fact that a segment of the population is having an “affordability” problem.

      Differences in wealth.  (The same reason that places like Tahoe are full of homes that are empty for a large portion of the year.  That’s apparently even true in San Francisco – wealthy people who own homes there, don’t necessarily live there.  Sometimes, they’re not even citizens of this country.)

      Sacramento’s housing market is cooling off (prices dropping) faster than almost every other place in the country.

      https://sfist.com/2022/07/14/bay-area-home-prices-actually-dropping-cities-here-dominate-the-fastest-cooling-housing-markets-list/

      Again, “demand” is not fixed.  If there was an actual housing shortage (as you and others seem to define it), builders wouldn’t be shutting-down production, and dropping prices.

      And again, there’s vast differences in wealth in this country, and in every other market-based economy. I guarantee you that no wealthy person experiences a “housing shortage”.

  3. Ron Oertel

    The anti-housing advocates

    I think I’ve seen those people, out “deconstructing” housing in the middle of the night.  (They work methodically and quietly, so as to not wake up the people sleeping inside. If they’re successful, the occupants wake-up and discover that they’re suddenly outside.)

    Up For Growth, a Washington-based policy and research group focused on the housing shortage, 

    Is this what’s become of “Up with People”?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_with_People

    Man – check out who “sponsored” that group.

    Now, if we can only find out who sponsored Up for Growth. (That information does not seem to be provided on their website.)

    https://www.upforgrowth.org/

  4. Richard_McCann

    Ron O

    So it’s OK for you to call  into question analysis presented from outside by a “biased” source in your viewpoint, but when your bias is called out you object that its unfair? (And BTW, it’s not just one source noting the housing shortage–Moody’s, the bond rating agency to the stars, also said this. Cherry picking a single source among many is typical of a disinformation campaign.)

    Since you’re not an economist you probably wouldn’t be able to track the analysis that they go through to develop demand numbers. It’s not simply about how many people live in a location. You can read about it if you go into the housing economics literature.

    Sales are crashing not because of a shortfall in households looking to move out of their current situations–it’s all about rapidly rising mortgage rates coupled with the huge price spike in house prices over the last 2 years. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPINSA

    An affordability problem is created by two factors in the market–excessive demand and/or supply shortage. And the current affordability problem is caused by both. We have a divergence in the income distribution so that high income households drive up prices and we have a shortfall in supply that is reflected in the growing size of the average household. (I’ve already posted the data showing that trend before.) Lower income households aren’t able to afford the rising prices in the market squeeze.

    1. Ron Oertel

      So it’s OK for you to call into question analysis presented from outside by a “biased” source in your viewpoint, but when your bias is called out you object that its unfair?

      Cherry picking a single source among many is typical of a disinformation campaign.

      Big fan of “Up with People”, are we? It wasn’t my choice to make them the centerpiece of an article.

      Since you’re not an economist you probably wouldn’t be able to track the analysis that they go through to develop demand numbers. It’s not simply about how many people live in a location. You can read about it if you go into the housing economics literature.

      You’re an environmental consultant, not a housing economist.

      I have yet to see anyone put forth anything meaningful regarding “demand”. Demand is elastic, depending upon price. Didn’t they teach you anything, assuming that you have any training in economics at all? (Actually, you don’t need a degree in anything to understand this.)

      Elitists always believe that they know more than anyone else.

      reflected in the growing size of the average household. (I’ve already posted the data showing that trend before.)

      I don’t believe you have, and I don’t believe this is true. In fact, I’ve read that the opposite is true, and I believe I posted that on here.

  5. Richard_McCann

    Ron O

    Many more organizations than Up for Growth have highlighted this issue and the Vanguard has carried references to those other studies.

    I am a professional in the economics field. We wouldn’t have arguments about medical treatments with a doctor or about legal interpretations with an attorney who works in those specific areas. You don’t really have an understanding of the comprehensive nature of my professional experience.

    And yes, demand is price elastic but only to a certain degree, and it’s also income elastic, usually much more so. And underlying both of those is inherent demand for the commodity or service. I don’t know what you are expecting to be put forth as “meaningful.” The study referenced here is but one example of the housing demand in the region, and the excessive price levels for housing reflects the combination of demand and supply. That so few of the households can afford this price indicates that we have a significant distributional problem that is disrupting our social fabric.

    Yes, I have posted the data, and I’ve repeatedly shown that you fail to read the links and accept the facts that I put forward. I’m tired of your unwillingness to accept that your wrong about a set of facts, even when you do your math incorrectly. Here’s a better graphic that shows the falling number of houses per household, which may be the best measure for the supply-demand imbalance: https://www.counties.org/post/housing-supply-historic-low

      1. Ron Oertel

        Not seeing it in your citation. And I’m not going to do “research” regarding something that you post.

        But even if it’s true, I would ask questions such as, did the size of the average house (square footage) increase during that time?

        Did the housing crash (which was in full-force, in 2010) have anything to do with that?  (Lots of empty houses).

        Does this include vacant houses in the first place?

        Did more people have children by 2020, compared to 2010?

        Does this include illegal immigrants, packing more people into a unit than what it’s designed for?

        But perhaps most-important of all, why is 3 people (up from 2.8) per household a “problem”?

        In any case, this is NOT EVIDENCE of a “housing crisis”.

         

        1. Bill Marshall

          Did the housing crash (which was in full-force, in 2010)

          “Crash”?  Really?  Or just a downturn/adjustment of ‘values’?   Tread carefully…

          1929 was a “crash”… 2008-2010 was an adjustment, depending on where you had ‘invested’… followed a big “run-up”

          In 2022 there is no “crash”… housing values are still above 2-3 years ago… do you mean a “crash” in the upward trend line?  I wonder what you mean…

          You and another, keep talking about “crashes”… yes, the ‘markets’ in the recent 6 months have off-set gains the previous year (based on our investments)… but NOTHING LIKE 1929!

          The only ‘crash’ I see is “inflation”… for retirees, and it is minor for many…

          SS recipients have full “inflation protection” (as long as the funds permit),,, CALSTRS/CALPERS only protect up to 2-3%… but am pretty sure you’re good with that as they are “grossly over-compensated” compared to you and others… in your opinion/view..

           

           

           

        2. Ron Oertel

          Crash”?  Really?  Or just a downturn/adjustment of ‘values’?   Tread carefully…

          What?  You actually want to describe what happened starting around 2008 as a “downturn/adjustment of values”?

          I don’t think most people would describe it your way. You must have been watching a different news channel than everyone else in the country.

          In 2022 there is no “crash”… housing values are still above 2-3 years ago… do you mean a “crash” in the upward trend line?  I wonder what you mean…

          You don’t have to “wonder”.  Did you not see the article I just posted showing home values going DOWN? That would be an opposite direction of the “upward trend line”, for sure.

          Sacramento is ground zero, for that.

          You must have been a real estate agent in your past life, selling “pre-owned” houses. One of those people who can describe a loss in the tens of thousands as nothing more than a “cup of coffee each day”. (Or maybe, an avocado toast.)

          Housing downturns are not usually “over” within a one year period.  This is the beginning. It is true that massive foreclosures throughout the region and beyond are not expected, this time. (Then again, I don’t recall the experts warning of the last housing crash in advance, either.)
           

    1. Ron Oertel

      I am a professional in the economics field. We wouldn’t have arguments about medical treatments with a doctor or about legal interpretations with an attorney who works in those specific areas. You don’t really have an understanding of the comprehensive nature of my professional experience.

      You’re an environmental consultant.

      In any case, it’s not that I don’t doubt that you have education/experience regarding economic issues.  For that matter, so do I, though you seem to have discounted that possibility, in advance.  The difference is that I don’t try to “win arguments” based upon elitist claims about myself. It’s ultimately irrelevant (and off-putting, to boot).

      It’s more accurate to state that I simply don’t care what your personal background is, and it’s unrelated to anything you put forth on here in the first place.  You’re not a housing market expert, any more than any other commenter on here.

      If you want to convince anyone of anything, usually the best place to start is NOT, “I’m an expert, and you’re not”.

      As I recall, you claim a lot of things, including sole responsibility for working out “deals” in which you consider the point of view of those you’re engaging with. Based upon your behavior on here, I find that more than difficult to believe.

      Maybe try some humility, rather than your elitist attitude if you want to actually convince anyone of anything. And put forth arguments and data which actually support what you’re claiming in the first place.

      And maybe stop attacking me, personally.

  6. Ron Oertel

    So, I thought I’d do a little research regarding average household size, myself.  This took me all of about 30 seconds to find:

    Average household size has declined over the past century, from 4.6 persons in 1900 to 3.68 persons in 1940 to only 2.58 persons by 2010. This decline is due to decreases in the share of households with three or more persons and increases in the share with only one or two persons. In 1940, for example, more than one in four households (27 percent) had at least five persons and less than one in 10 (8 percent) had only one person.  By 2010, these shares had nearly reversed, with more than one-fourth of all households (27 percent) having only one person and slightly more than one-tenth (11 percent) having five or more persons.

    However, there are signs of a reversal in the decline in average household size. Although the trend away from large households has continued since 2010, average household size actually increased between 2010 and 2017 from 2.58 to 2.65 persons.  If average household size remains larger than 2.58 in 2020, it will be the first such intercensal increase since the 1900 Census. The increase in average household size since 2010 appears to be driven by growth in the share of households with two persons—from 33 percent to 34 percent—and a decline from 40 percent to 38 percent in the share with three or more persons. Changes in household composition help explain these trends in household size.
     

    https://www.prb.org/resources/u-s-household-composition-shifts-as-the-population-grows-older-more-young-adults-live-with-parents/#:~:text=Although%20the%20trend%20away%20from,increase%20since%20the%201900%20Census.

    So, there’s been a recent change from 2.58 to 2.65 people per household over a 7-year period, due to the changing nature of household composition.

    What a crisis!  Call the cops!

    And unlike Richard’s citation (which I didn’t even bother trying to manipulate), the citation above is presented in plain site for anyone to see.

    It would be interesting to see if this number dropped down below 2.65 as a result of the pandemic (and resulting move away from dense cities).

    And again, these numbers are apparently “per unit”, with no consideration of increasing square footage in newer houses. Let’s see a “square footage per person” comparison, if you’re going to cry “housing crisis”. (And just to give you a head start, go ahead and include illegal immigrants cramming into small quarters in that calculation, if you want.)

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for