How did we get in the mess we are in?
And, how do we get out?
The facts are straightforward. Sacramento politicians proclaimed a housing crisis exists and passed laws taking power away from citizens and local governments to restrict home building. After that, there are a lot of questions.
❶ Why is it hard to get a home?
❷ Housing crisis questions
❸ Why won’t seniors downsize?
❹ What is the impact of YIMBYs?
❺ What are the state’s solutions?
❻ What are NFABC’s solutions?
SD house payments
1
SD rental prices
Why is it hard to get a home in San Diego?
Let’s focus on millennials (ages 28-43). If you are a millennial, you are facing more challenges to rent or buy a home than supply issues. The title of the ABBA song “Money, Money, Money” pretty much nails the challenges.
According to financial website The Motley Fool, 67% of millennials have no - zero - savings for a down payment on a house. Yikes! However, considering inflation, student debt, etc., it’s more understandable than the statistic first suggests.
Despite those challenges, about 52% of millennials are currently homeowners, according to The Motley Fool. But, they reached this milestone later than previous generations did. Just 42% owned a home by age 30 compared to 51% of baby boomers.
Many more millennials would like to own homes, according to surveys from The Motley Fool and other groups. But, they feel they can’t do it financially. Roughly 3 in 4 millennials who said they didn't currently own a home indicated that it was simply too expensive for them. In essence, they’ve given up the dream of owning a home, with some holding out hopes of getting a home via inheritance.
While the focus of this snapshot is on millennials, the financial challenges of owning a home in San Diego apply to every age group. According to a recent study by Zillow, people looking to buy a home in San Diego need to have an income of at least $273,613.
California insurance - the next factor in pricey housing market?
In the wake of the fires in Los Angeles, State Farm has come under heavy criticism for seeking a 22 percent rate hike, with a 38 percent increase for renters for home insurance. Buying or renting would get even harder.
2
“As Americans face a housing shortage and pay soaring rents, it’s vital to understand the role played by large institutional investors. This proposed study would shed much-needed light on the mega-investors that have amassed huge portfolios of single-family rental units and potentially contributed to the housing challenges that Americans face.”
Housing crisis with a flat population?
Citing the U.S. Census Bureau, Axios San Diego reports San Diego County lost more than 25,000 residents from 2020 to 2023 — an 0.8% drop in population. Meanwhile, elected officials tell us we must “build, baby, build” because we have a housing crisis.
Huh? What gives? NFABC said housing is complex. This seeming contradiction proves it.
High prices are driving more people out of San Diego than the positive number of births over deaths is producing. But even with a flat population people can’t get homes for several reasons, among them:
San Diego didn’t build enough housing from 2010-2020.
Deep-pocketed investors are buying existing rentals. This has become such an acute problem nationally that the Federal Trade Commission has launched a campaign to get public comment before taking action.
Senior homeowners are staying in their homes and not downsizing (see next section below).
Whole-home vacation rentals (STRs) have removed from the market a significant number of long-term rentals in San Diego, as well as homes for sale.
Working from home has changed home buying patterns.
The last bullet may seem insignificant, but consider this. At least 14 states - including Alabama, Michigan and Oklahoma - will pay people to live there. But demand is part of the housing picture. People want to live on the coast, if they can.
Here’s another housing stat that is surprising. According to Realtor.com, in 2022 fewer than 350,000 houses were on the market in the U.S. In 2024, that number has nearly tripled, with close to 910,000 homes for sale. So are we in a housing crisis, an affordable housing crisis, or just in a crisis in locations where virtually everyone wants to live?
Links for more information:
Boom, boomers:
We have a problem
Baby boomer empty nesters own twice as many of the country's three-bedroom-or-larger homes, compared with millennials with kids, according to a recent analysis from Redfin. That means those larger homes aren't hitting the market, one factor limiting the supply for the younger generations who could use those extra bedrooms.
Why aren’t seniors in the 60-78 age group following the pattern of seniors before them? The impact of capital gains taxes is the main culprit. Here’s why:
Many baby boomers bought homes decades ago. Housing prices have skyrocketed since, especially in coastal cities like San Diego. That means seniors who might want to sell big homes with rooms they don’t need will get clobbered by capital gains taxes.
CNN business offered the following example. A couple bought a home 37 years ago for $100,000. Today it is worth $2 million. That’s nearly $1.9 million in profit, of which only $500,000 is excluded from taxes. The taxable gain of $1.4 million at 20% would mean those homeowners are facing a $280,000 tax bill. In a state like California with additional tax, the overall payment would be $450,000+. Ouch, say seniors. We’re staying put.
Legislation was introduced in Congress last year to address the issue. Despite being sponsored by a bipartisan mix of nearly three dozen lawmakers, it is currently going nowhere in Congress.
Add in a lack of attractive senior housing options to move to and you’ve got a real problem. It is fixable, but it will take political leadership at all levels of government to solve.
Welcome to the world of YIMBYism and its housing mandates
“We have a housing crisis.” “We need to ‘build, baby, build.’” “We need ‘more please.’”
Born of the legitimate frustration of young people not being able to buy homes in California, the YIMBY movement was launched in the high-priced housing world of San Francisco between 2010-2013. It has accomplished much - some good, some bad - depending on your perspective.
For those not paying attention to California housing and just waking up to what has, and is, happening - welcome to the YIMBY-influenced world of 23-story towers proposed in coastal zones like Pacific Beach, ADUs crowding into single-family neighborhoods, parking requirements for housing discarded, neighborhood planning groups rendered virtually meaningless, local citizen initiatives superseded, state mandates to build thousands of housing units in Paradise (where the 2018 Camp Fire killed 150 people) … the list goes on.
Now, the opposition to this brave new world is starting to fight back. And the pushback is not coming from those the YIMBYs have for years branded as being NIMBYs (not in my backyard). It is coming from groups like Neighbors for a Better California, whose members have long and actively approved housing projects. They want housing, but housing planned in a responsible way.
These are RIMBY’s - responsible planning in my backyard. They are aligned with the goals of YIMBYs, wanting more housing, particularly affordable housing. But the RIMBYs are staunchly opposed to the developer-friendly, extreme, and out-of-touch-with-community-concerns solutions YIMBYs and their political allies in Sacramento have enacted.
To better understand the emerging battle over housing in California, NFABC looks at the poster child of extreme YIMBYism - State Senator Scott Wiener.
Scott Wiener: Poster child
for influence of ‘YIMBYism’
The all aspect report is a blog featuring “occasional & unconventional opinions & investigations” written by “recovering” lawyer and writer Christopher LaGras. On August 16, LaGras posted an unconventionally scathing blog about State Senator Scott Wiener titled “YIMBYs to California: Drop Dead.”
LeGras begins by painting Wiener thusly: “He’s not a public servant, he’s an indentured servant to California’s monied elite. Thanks to his efforts and those of his YIMBY allies in Sacramento, California’s neighborhoods are now available to the highest bidders.”
Those are among LeGras’ kindest remarks. His most scorching remarks in “YIMBYS to California: Drop Dead” involved Wiener’s SB 610 - which sought to make it easier for developers to build in high fire danger severity zones (HFDSZs). In fact, LeGras wrote, “he (Wiener) wants to get rid of cities’ authority to identify and designate HFDSZs altogether.”
Given this month’s Los Angeles fires - in which 29 people are known to have died - it makes LeGras’ writing, and certainly his headline, look almost prescient.
Fortunately, Wiener’s SB 610 did not become law. But Wiener, writes LeGras, is not done.
An assault on the California Coastal Act?
Writes LeGras: “(Wiener is) leading an assault on the California Coastal Act, which limits new development along the state’s sensitive coastline. … He introduced SB 951, which would — wait for it — exempt San Francisco’s Pacific coastline from both local and Coastal Commission oversight. Almost incomprehensibly, the affected land includes about 20% of Golden Gate Park. That’s right — along with encouraging speculators to build in fire zones, Wiener and the YIMBYs want to give away part of a public park to developers.”
Neighbors for a Better California believes this is neither responsible planning nor supported by citizens. This isn’t what building housing - particularly affordable housing - is all about. This is about what launched Prop D in Pacific Beach some 53 years ago - fighting against unbridled greed and power.
State Senator Scott Wiener at a joint press conference with Gov. Gavin Newsom
More from the all aspect report:
LeGras writes: “According to public records maintained by the California Secretary of State, his (Wiener’s) donor list is a who’s who of real estate interests, tech behemouths, venture capital, organized labor, and big law — that is, the heart and soul of the YIMBY movement. Real estate developers, lenders, managers, and consultants have contributed $475,243 to his two campaigns. The California Real Estate PAC has donated $36,200 directly and spent more than $565,600 in independent expenditure support. Big law has donated $198,075. Other major sources are corporate and individual employee donations from Google/Alphabet ($79,550), Facebook/Meta ($62,385), the Silicon Valley venture capital community ($58,550), Airbnb ($48,500), Yelp ($36,700), Stripe ($33,950), Salesforce ($33,300), Netflix ($23,100), Lyft ($16,025), Uber ($14,160), Apple ($13,538), Microsoft ($13,350), and Tesla ($12,000). California YIMBY has ponied up $16,150.”
State’s solution:
Declare a housing crisis,
pass laws to gut the rights
of cities, citizens
The accompanying chart details the history of housing laws passed by the California Legislature from 1969 through 2024. The theme and language of these laws make one thing clear:
The Legislature believes it - not local government or citizens - is the only body capable of making wise housing decisions in California.
That sounds harsh, but consider the language in the bills:
“The Legislature finds and declares that facilitating the development of housing to combat the state’s housing crisis is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair.”
Or this:
“Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from applying any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development. … This bill would specify that “development standard” for these purposes includes … standards adopted by the local government or enacted by the local government’s electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, whether that power is derived from the California Constitution, statute, or the charter or ordinances of the local government.”
In other words, cities from San Diego to Oceanside and beyond can’t stand in the way of mandates in state laws. Nor can legally passed local citizen initiatives stand in the way of these dictates.
So, say goodbye to local planning for neighborhoods. And give a good-bye wave to your right as a citizen to pass local initiatives in the cherished tradition of Direct Democracy. These now can be “voided.”
What you can say hello to are the inevitable “unintended consequences” of state dictated, developer-friendly projects. The 23-story Turquoise Tower in Pacific Beach and a 50-story skyscraper briefly proposed for a coastal community near San Francisco are awful examples of these “unintended consequences.” No one wants them, except the developers, but they keep popping up.
Neighbors for a Better California, as well as citizens protesting in cities across California, don’t believe this is the right solution. Yes, housing is needed, particularly affordable housing. But the state’s remedy is simply too extreme and heavy handed. NFABC is in this fight because we know there are better ways to get needed housing.
Taking rights away is never the right way. ©
“SUMMARY OF DENSITY BONUS LAWS IN CALIFORNIA. The chart above lists only ‘highlights’ of state housing laws from 1968 to 2024. For many more details, take a look at the full SUMMARY of the alarming history of recent state housing legislation.”
“The city normally has the developer do these studies (traffic, health and safety impacts, etc.), but state law says the burden of doing the study and paying for the study is on the city. … It’s ridiculous that we have to do the studies to prove that a hotel doesn’t need to be built for five very low-income units.”
State’s extreme solution
isn’t working; Change needed
Neighbors for a Better California has had an easy-to-understand, unchanging mission since it was formed in the chaos following the discovery last fall of the proposal for the Turquoise Tower, one of the “unintended consequences” of the State’s dictatorial housing laws.
Its mission statement reads: “To advocate for responsible housing development that promotes sustainable growth and improves the quality of life for all Californians.”
The key word is “responsible.”
NFABC is a RIMBY (Responsible Planning In Our Backyard) group. NFABC’s board of directors includes three former or current chairs of the Pacific Beach Planning Group, as well as the former city planner for the city of Riverside. They not only talk the happy talk about adding affordable housing, they also have a proven track record of approving needed housing projects.
If they hadn’t been shut out by the State’s secretive “ministerial” policy adopted by law for developments, they would have rejected the Turquoise Tower in a heartbeat.
As a better alternative, they would have pointed to the PB General Plan approved more than a decade ago that calls for a series of Prop D-respecting, mixed-use developments along Garnet Avenue. Following those local recommendations would result in far more truly affordable housing opportunities for middle class families than the five units of very low income housing the Turquoise Tower would provide, if the project somehow gets approved (please see table explaining very low income and moderate income housing).
Responsible planning prevents “unintended consequences”
Following a community’s general plan is responsible planning. It is planning that recognizes the nuances in each community and allows local input - not to deny housing, but to make sure it fits into the community. This type of planning - working in collaboration with the State - serves everyone, long-time residents as well as future neighbors.
Sadly, it is the type of community input that has been silenced by the dictatorial state laws detailed above and in the Summary of Density Bonus Laws.
While NFABC began as a protest group against the specter of the Turquoise Tower, its mission and vision statements won’t allow it to stop when the fate of the 23-story poster child for what is wrong with state laws is resolved. Responsible planning is needed in California now more than ever.
NFABC has talked with elected officials including Mayor Todd Gloria, Council President Joe LaCava, State Senator Catherine Blakespear, and Assembly members Tasha Boerner, Carl DeMaio, and David Alveraz. NFABC will continue to push for legislative corrections that lead to a more balanced, collaborative remedy than the one the State is dictating.
The odds of success are slim, but NFABC has no choice. It can’t stand by and watch “unintended consequences” pop up across Pacific Beach, all of San Diego, and all of California. The heavy-handed, extreme solution the State has crafted is not working. We need change.
AMI is the Area Median Income as reported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The information that appeared for a time on this website’s Home Page needs to be included as part of this Special Report. Yes, affordable housing sounds great, but what do the numbers really mean? Look at what moderate income rents could be at Turquoise Tower. You read it right. Moderate rents for studio and 1-bedroom Tower apartments could be higher than current market rates.
Previous Special Reports
Does Prop D really need to be discarded? See the history of the citizens crusade that 53 years ago saved the coastal communities of San Diego from “unbridled coastal development.” Now, the state says the will of the voters as expressed in California’s Direct Democracy is “void.” Yet nearly 91 percent of citizens surveyed say Prop D should be honored. See the Prop D Special Report.
It seems so logical. Build more housing units in cities such as San Diego by building tall buildings - like the Turquoise Tower in PB. More housing supply means lower prices, right? After all, that has been a basic tenant of YIMBY-based advocacy for decades. Then, because the increased supply of housing will lower prices, more Hispanics and Blacks will have the chance to become homeowners. And yet … Study after study shows the reverse is true. Upzoning ups prices, lowers opportunities. See Upzoning Special Report.