Op-Ed: Deregulation Will Not Fix California’s Housing Crisis

Response to San Diego UT’s article “San Diego County Is On The Brink Of A Grim Telling Housing Milestone”

By Neighbors for a Better California (NFABC)

The Union-Tribune editorial board recently argued that California’s housing crisis is the result of too many regulations and not enough development. Their solution is to fast-track housing projects, limit public input, and remove environmental protections to let developers build faster. This may sound like a quick fix, but it ignores the real causes of our housing crisis and risks doing more harm than good.

At Neighbors for a Better California, we believe in building housing that is affordable, sustainable, and supported by local communities. That means looking honestly at what is causing the problem in the first place.

The crisis we face today did not start with red tape. It is the result of decades of decisions that weakened California’s economic foundation. The state lost much of its middle-income job base, saw major employers leave, and now has one of the highest poverty rates in the country. Nearly 200,000 people in California are unhoused, and more than 20 percent of our residents live in or near poverty. Faster market-rate development will not fix these deeper issues.

The editorial points out that people earning $100,000 in San Diego now qualify as “low income.” That is troubling, but it needs context. This threshold is based on 80 percent of the area’s median income, which is about $125,000. It is not tied to the actual cost of housing or living. While this does highlight affordability concerns, it also reflects the fact that San Diego has a relatively strong economy. A high “low income” threshold is not just a sign of failure. It is also a sign of regional prosperity.

Still, the reality is clear. Many San Diegans cannot afford to live where they work. Yet the “abundance agenda,” which the editorial promotes, offers no serious plan to create deeply affordable housing. It assumes that if we build enough expensive units, prices will eventually come down. That theory has not worked in practice, and California cannot rely on it alone.

The editorial also points to countries like Sweden and Japan as models for modular housing. But those examples do not apply here. Sweden has a national tax system built around income equality and a centralized approach to housing. Japan has a homogenous population and very different land use laws. California is far more diverse, both culturally and economically. What works in those countries does not automatically work here.

What California needs is local problem-solving. Communities understand their own needs better than anyone. When local residents are involved in planning, they create more thoughtful, lasting solutions. Giving up community control in the name of speed will only create more division and pushback.

We also recognize that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) needs improvement. It should not be used to block good projects. But CEQA is still one of the most important tools communities have to ensure development is safe, sustainable, and fair. Reform should improve the process, not remove protections.

At NFABC, we support smart reforms. We believe in building more housing, especially for low- and middle-income families. We believe in zoning updates that match real needs. And we believe public input should remain a core part of how our cities grow.

San Diego does not need a one-size-fits-all approach. It needs policies that respect both economic realities and community voices. We can build more housing, but we must do it in a way that works for everyone—not just for developers.