ACA 10 viewpoint: Private sector, not State gov't, holds key to solving housing crisis

Considering CA's housing supply and affordability problems, CalMatters' Dan Walters suggests that proposed constitutional amendment ACA 10's grand promise—closing housing affordability gaps via guaranteeing residents the “right to housing”—would fall short of actual reform. He goes on to argue that the true architects of change are private investors, who must be persuaded via developer-friendly regulations to conduct business in the State. So, another vaguely worded new CA'n right may do no more than “virtue signal” or encourage frisky court battles (we're hearing echoes of Prop 1).

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10 is full of the vague language that lawyers love because it requires lawsuits and judicial interpretations to have real-world meaning.

In other words, it would invite even more litigation on an issue that is already awash in contentious legalism.

The most bothersome aspect of ACA 10, however, is its assumption – as Tubbs suggests – that state and local governments have the innate ability to solve California’s housing dilemma.

They don’t.

Building enough housing requires, above all, lots of money, much more than those governments can muster on their own. That money can only come from private investors who must be persuaded that building homes and apartments in California will be reasonably profitable.

Officialdom’s most important role is reducing the bureaucratic hassle and costs of such investment, as Newsom and the Legislature have sought to do through streamlining legislation.

ACA 10 is not only virtue signaling but sends the wrong message to potential housing investors that California could make development even more difficult and potentially less profitable.

This article originally appeared in CalMatters. Read the whole thing here.

Read exclusive local perspectives on ACA 10 here and here.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity