Across the country, unapologetically left-leaning candidates are having a moment. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Michigan Senate hopeful Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, and Randy Villegas in California’s 22nd Congressional District have all ridden a wave of populist enthusiasm to victory or contention. But in the race to succeed former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Congress, San Francisco voters are split between two Democrats who both describe themselves in progressive terms — and whose disagreement over housing policy may prove more consequential than any national trend.

San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, who has Pelosi’s backing, portrays herself as a champion of working families who won’t be swayed by corporate political money or the tech industry that has thrown its support behind her rival, state Sen. Scott Wiener. Chan has called Wiener, a longtime LGBTQ rights advocate who made national headlines for legislation aimed at exposing the identities of ICE agents, a “corporate Democrat funded by billionaires.”

But Chan’s record — marked by opposition to development projects and rezoning efforts in her own district — could turn off some progressive voters, particularly newcomers to city politics. For decades, San Francisco residents have resisted new construction, often prioritizing neighborhood preservation over adding housing supply.

That resistance has helped fuel the city’s housing crisis. Rents have climbed to record highs as the Bay Area’s AI-driven tech boom pours money into the local economy; one recent industry report found the average one-bedroom apartment now rents for more than $4,000 a month.

“Progressivism in San Francisco has become tightly wound up with an identity that refuses to accept a lot of things,” said Jane Natoli, a housing advocate who lives in Chan’s district and supports Wiener. “For some reason, especially on housing, San Francisco progressives have mostly just said no.”

In June’s primary, voters favored both Wiener and Chan over Saikat Chakrabarti, a former aide to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who energized younger voters with rhetoric reminiscent of Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders. The tech entrepreneur agreed with Wiener on the need to build more housing but coupled that stance with a broader anti-establishment, anti-capitalist message.

“I liked him a lot because his approach to YIMBY politics was conciliatory,” said Alex Vanscoy, Chakrabarti’s former field director. Vanscoy now backs Chan, who has pledged to refuse money from corporate political action committees. “Taking lobbyist money is a very serious thing to me,” Chan said.

Both candidates agree that affordability is the top concern for San Franciscans and that the city faces a housing shortage across every income level. Where they diverge sharply is on what role the state and federal governments should play in solving it.

**What’s driving the housing crisis?**

Wiener believes the state must require — not simply encourage — local governments to build more housing, particularly in cities and counties that have long resisted new development. A leading voice in the YIMBY and “abundance” movements, he authored legislation, now law, that cut red tape for certain housing permits, a move that pleased both labor groups and developers. Local officials have told the Legislature that the streamlining law has slashed average permitting timelines from years down to three to six months.

Chan, by contrast, has largely opposed new housing and development proposals in her district, saying her priority is protecting tenants from eviction and shielding small businesses from the disruption of construction. She often points to the “urban renewal” of the Fillmore District from the 1950s through the 1970s, which devastated San Francisco’s Black community, as a cautionary tale she doesn’t want repeated elsewhere. That painful history, in fact, helped give rise to the city’s modern progressive movement.

“I think we’re starting to see the real dividing line,” said Eric Kingsbury, a Wiener supporter and chair of the San Francisco County Central Committee, the local arm of the Democratic Party. “I really expect to see a lot of discomfort, because if you’re pro-housing and you’re a progressive person, you have a candidate in this race, and that’s Scott Wiener.”

Chan, one of the board’s four most progressive supervisors, recently voted against Mayor Daniel Lurie’s residential rezoning plan — a state-mandated overhaul designed to allow taller, denser housing near transit stops and major corridors. She previously led a lawsuit against the state, arguing its housing mandates unfairly targeted San Francisco. Chan said she opposed Lurie’s plan because it lacked sufficient protections against the demolition of rent-controlled housing and the displacement of tenants and small businesses.

“We can still demand accountability, we can still conduct environmental reviews, and at the same time make government more efficient,” Chan said.

“It’s ridiculous when people say I’m against development,” said Norman Yee, a former San Francisco supervisor who supports Chan. “All she wants is to make sure, first, that tenants aren’t displaced, and second, that community concerns are addressed.”

In 2021, Chan helped block a nearly 500-unit mixed-income housing proposal slated for a vacant parking lot just a block from a BART station — a decision that drew a scathing rebuke from the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board, which accused the city’s then-eight progressive supervisors of sabotaging “seemingly every serious attempt to address this city’s housing crisis.”

Beyond housing, Chan also fought a plan to add dedicated bus lanes along a corridor that, before the pandemic, carried one of the busiest bus routes in the country, objecting to the loss of parking spaces and warning of harm to small businesses during construction. The city’s transit agency approved the project anyway.

Chan has also pushed back against Sacramento’s growing role in local planning and zoning decisions, arguing that corporate developers and Wall Street real estate interests have persuaded lawmakers like Wiener to let them bypass local review processes. Wiener has dismissed the charge as misleading and “trivial.”

Chan points to her support for a recently opened affordable senior housing project — 98 units built on the site of a former funeral home — as proof she isn’t anti-development. No existing tenants were displaced, she noted, since the building went up on vacant land.

“I always joke that if anyone got displaced from that site, it would be a ghost from the funeral home,” Chan said.

In her campaign launch video, Chan promises to deliver “real affordable housing, not Sacramento’s version that destroys our neighborhoods.”

Wiener countered that the project, which opened last November, was made possible largely because of his own Senate Bill 35 — a landmark law he authored to speed up housing permits — along with roughly $60 million in state funding.

“If what you want to do is make it harder and more expensive to build housing, or even impossible, then that’s not progressive,” Wiener said. “That’s conservative.”

It remains unclear whether San Francisco voters who backed Chakrabarti, who won about 18% of the primary vote in June, will now consolidate behind Chan or Wiener heading into November.

**Other flashpoints**

Housing isn’t the only issue shaping the race.

Wiener, who is Jewish, drew criticism from some progressives after initially declining to use the word “genocide” to describe the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Following public pressure after a tense candidate forum, Wiener reversed course, explaining his shift in a video posted to social media.

The about-face proved awkward and alienated enough members of the Jewish community that Wiener stepped down as chair of the Legislature’s Jewish caucus. Others dismissed the change as symbolic and overdue. Months later, pro-Palestinian demonstrators confronted him so aggressively during the city’s Trans March that he was forced to leave the event.

Wiener’s wavering on the word “genocide” has bred distrust among younger voters, said Kaizen Betts-LaCroix, another former Chakrabarti staffer now supporting Chan. Betts-LaCroix said Chan’s unequivocal opposition to U.S. military aid for Israel, along with her refusal to accept corporate PAC money, are the main reasons behind the endorsement.

Wiener’s campaign has also faced backlash over aggressive attack tactics, including repeating a misleading claim that Chakrabarti actually lived in Maryland, and a now-deleted AI parody chatbot that impersonated Chan and mocked her record of blocking housing and other development projects.

Pelosi, who has used her considerable influence to boost Chan’s candidacy, quickly condemned the chatbot and rallied prominent Democrats — including seven congresswomen and former Mayor Willie Brown — to join her in denouncing it.

“Women have spent generations fighting to have our voices heard in the halls of power,” Pelosi wrote on social media. “We shouldn’t have to now fight AI for putting words in our mouths.”

Within days, Wiener’s campaign took down the site, pulled billboards promoting it, and apologized for offending voters, acknowledging that the stunt had “missed the mark.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post How Soaring Housing Costs in San Francisco Have Shaped the Race to Succeed Pelosi appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

While much of the country watches insurgent left-wing candidates like New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani energize voters, San Francisco’s own version of that political moment looks different. Here, the choice isn’t between establishment and outsider — it’s between two Democrats who both claim the progressive mantle but disagree fundamentally on how to solve the city’s housing affordability crisis.

San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, who has Pelosi’s backing, has cast herself as a champion of working-class renters and small businesses, someone unswayed by corporate money or the tech industry dollars fueling her rival’s campaign. She has repeatedly labeled state Sen. Scott Wiener — a longtime LGBTQ rights advocate who drew national attention for legislation aimed at unmasking ICE agents — as a “corporate Democrat bankrolled by billionaires.”

But Chan’s record of blocking housing developments and resisting zoning reforms in her district may not sit well with younger or newer voters who see unchecked rent increases as the more urgent crisis. San Francisco has a long history of favoring neighborhood preservation over new construction, a pattern many observers say helped create the shortage the city faces today. Rents have climbed to record highs amid the Bay Area’s artificial intelligence boom, with one industry report putting the median one-bedroom rental above $4,000 a month.

“Progressivism in San Francisco has really become very tied to this identity where it doesn’t say ‘yes’ to a lot of stuff,” said Jane Natoli, a housing advocate who lives in Chan’s district and supports Wiener. “For whatever reason, especially on issues such as housing, San Francisco progressives have largely said ‘no.'”

In June’s primary, voters passed over former Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aide Saikat Chakrabarti, who drew enthusiasm from younger, more left-leaning voters with a message that blended Bernie Sanders-style populism with strong support for new housing construction. Alex Vanscoy, who served as Chakrabarti’s field director, said he appreciated the candidate’s approach because it combined an anti-corporate stance with support for building more homes. Now Vanscoy backs Chan, who has pledged to refuse corporate PAC money. “Taking money from lobbyists is a huge issue to me,” Chan has said.

Wiener and Chan both agree that affordability tops the list of concerns for San Francisco residents and that the city needs more housing at every income level. Where they diverge sharply is on what role state and federal government should play in getting that housing built.

Wiener argues local governments — particularly ones that have long slow-walked new development — need to be held to their housing commitments, not simply allowed to promise progress without delivering it. As one of the state’s leading voices in the “abundance” and Yes In My Backyard movements, he authored legislation, since signed into law, that streamlined permitting for certain housing projects. City officials have told state lawmakers the changes cut typical permit wait times from years down to three to six months.

Chan, by contrast, has consistently opposed development and zoning changes she believes threaten existing tenants and neighborhood small businesses. She has pointed to the destructive “urban renewal” of the Fillmore District in the mid-20th century — displacement that devastated the city’s Black community — as a cautionary tale she doesn’t want repeated elsewhere. That history, in fact, helped shape the very brand of progressive politics now on display in this race.

“I think we’re starting to see the real divide show up,” said Eric Kingsbury, who chairs the San Francisco Democratic Party’s county committee and backs Wiener. “I would really expect to see a lot of discomfort, because if you are pro-housing and you’re an otherwise progressive person, you have a candidate in this race, and it’s Scott Wiener.”

Chan, among the board’s most left-leaning supervisors, recently voted against Mayor Daniel Lurie’s rezoning plan, a state-mandated effort to allow taller, denser housing near transit corridors. She previously supported a lawsuit challenging the state’s housing mandates as unfairly targeting San Francisco, and she has said her opposition to Lurie’s plan stems from its lack of protections against the loss of rent-controlled units and the displacement of tenants and merchants.

“We can still have accountability, we can still have environmental review and improve government efficiency at the same time,” Chan said.

Former Supervisor Norman Yee, a Chan supporter, pushed back on the idea that she opposes growth altogether. “I think for people to say that she’s anti-development is kind of ridiculous,” Yee said. “All she wants is to make sure that number one, tenants don’t get displaced, and two, to make sure that community concerns are addressed.”

Still, Chan’s record includes helping derail a proposed 500-unit mixed-income project near a BART station in 2021 — a decision that prompted a scathing San Francisco Chronicle editorial accusing the board’s progressive majority of undermining nearly every serious attempt to address the housing shortage. She has also opposed transit improvements, including a dedicated bus lane on Geary Boulevard, over concerns about lost parking and disruption to nearby businesses. The city’s transit agency approved the project regardless.

Chan maintains that state intervention in local zoning serves corporate developers and Wall Street real estate interests more than everyday residents, an argument Wiener dismisses as unfounded and outdated. She points to her support for a 98-unit affordable senior housing project — built on the site of a vacant funeral home, meaning no renters were displaced — as evidence she isn’t opposed to development done the right way. “I always make this joke that if anybody got evicted from the site, it was a ghost from the funeral home,” Chan said. In campaign materials, she has promised to “build real affordable housing, not the Sacramento version that destroys our neighborhoods.”

Wiener counters that the same project was made possible in large part by his own Senate Bill 35, a state law designed to speed up housing approvals, along with roughly $60 million in state funding. “If you’re trying to make it harder and more expensive to build housing, or even impossible to build, then that’s not progressive,” Wiener said. “That’s conservative.”

Whether the roughly 18% of primary voters who backed Chakrabarti will now side with Chan or Wiener remains an open question heading into November.

Housing isn’t the only flashpoint in the race. Wiener, who is Jewish, drew criticism from some progressives after initially declining to describe the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as a genocide. Following a heated candidate forum and mounting public pressure, he reversed course, explaining his shift in a video posted to social media. That reversal proved costly: he stepped down as chair of the Legislative Jewish Caucus after backlash from members of the Jewish community, while others dismissed the change as insincere. Months later, pro-Palestinian demonstrators confronted him so forcefully at the city’s trans march that he left the event early.

Kaizen Betts-LaCroix, another former Chakrabarti staffer now supporting Chan, said Wiener’s shifting position on Gaza has damaged his credibility with younger voters, adding that Chan’s firm opposition to military aid for Israel and her refusal of corporate PAC money were key reasons for their support.

Wiener’s campaign has also faced its own controversies, including repeating a since-debunked claim that Chakrabarti actually lived in Maryland, and launching a satirical AI chatbot mimicking Chan that mocked her housing record. Pelosi quickly condemned the chatbot, rallying several prominent Democrats — including seven congresswomen and former Mayor Willie Brown — in opposition. “Women have spent generations fighting to have our own voices heard in the halls of power,” Pelosi wrote on social media. “We should not have to now fight against artificial intelligence putting words in our mouths.” Within days, Wiener’s campaign took the chatbot offline, removed related billboards and apologized, acknowledging the effort had “missed the mark.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post San Francisco’s Sky-High Housing Costs Take Center Stage in Race to Succeed Pelosi appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Proposition 45 would overhaul how the California Environmental Quality Act, commonly known as CEQA, applies to projects like affordable housing developments, water infrastructure, schools and clean energy facilities. Backers argue the law, while well-intentioned, has increasingly become a tool for delay rather than environmental protection.

Jenna Abbott, executive director of the California Council for Affordable Housing, says her organization sees the consequences of that dysfunction every day. Members of her trade group work to build housing for veterans, seniors and working families who have been squeezed out of the communities where they grew up or work. But instead of moving quickly, many projects get bogged down for years in a permitting system Abbott describes as outdated, unpredictable and increasingly disconnected from its original purpose.

“The result is fewer affordable homes, higher costs, and more Californians wondering if they’ll ever afford a place to live,” Abbott said. “It doesn’t have to be this way.”

Prop. 45, she argues, would preserve the state’s environmental, worker and tribal protections while creating clearer timelines and a faster process for resolving legal disputes tied to essential development projects.

Abbott stresses she is not opposed to environmental review itself. She says thorough evaluation of a project’s impact on air quality, water resources, traffic and wildlife is important, and that communities deserve input before shovels hit the ground. Prop. 45, she says, keeps those safeguards intact.

But she points to what happened in Redlands as an example of how the system can be exploited. Nearly a decade ago, a nonprofit developer proposed an all-affordable apartment community for veterans, families with special needs and working households. The 80-unit project, which included on-site support services, was the kind of development many residents say the region desperately needs.

Instead of moving forward smoothly, the project was hit with a lawsuit — not over water quality, habitat loss or pollution, but over complaints about noise and aesthetics. A court dismissed the suit in 2018, but the legal fight had already set off a cascade of delays. By the time the dust settled, the project’s cost had ballooned by $21 million, a 70% increase that worked out to roughly $266,000 in additional expense per affordable unit.

The development, known as Liberty Lane Apartments, didn’t open its doors until this past April — nine years after it originally received approval.

Abbott says that story isn’t unique. Citing research from the law firm Holland & Knight, she notes that 87% of CEQA-related lawsuits target infill housing — projects built in already-developed urban areas near jobs and transit, rather than in open space. Many of the groups filing these suits, she said, have little track record on environmental issues, suggesting the law is sometimes used as leverage for unrelated grievances rather than genuine environmental concerns.

The financial toll of these delays, Abbott argues, ultimately lands on the people who can least afford it: veterans waiting for supportive housing, seniors hoping to age in place, and essential workers forced into ever-longer commutes because they can’t afford to live near their jobs. Taxpayers also end up footing a larger bill, since delays often mean the same publicly funded projects cost far more by the time they’re finally built.

Statewide, Abbott said, permitting delays alone tack on more than $75,000 to the cost of the average new home — a significant burden in a state facing a housing shortfall in the millions of units.

And it’s not just housing that suffers, she added. Clean drinking water upgrades, road and transit improvements, new schools, health clinics and renewable energy projects can all get caught in the same bureaucratic bottleneck.

Abbott is careful to note that Prop. 45 would not repeal CEQA or strip away the state’s environmental standards. Local governments would still retain authority over what gets built in their communities, and the public would still have opportunities to weigh in. What would change, she said, is the introduction of firm deadlines and a more efficient system for resolving lawsuits, replacing years of open-ended litigation with a clearer, faster path to resolution.

She acknowledges the measure won’t single-handedly solve California’s housing affordability crisis. But she believes it targets one of the most persistent obstacles: a permitting and legal review process that too often works against the very projects meant to help struggling residents.

“California has a choice,” Abbott said. “We can continue accepting a broken status quo, or we can update our project approval process while preserving the strong protections Californians value.”

For voters across the Inland Empire and beyond, Prop. 45 will pose a fundamental question — whether the state can find a way to protect its environmental standards without letting the review process itself become the biggest barrier to building the homes and infrastructure communities need.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Voters Could Fix Misused Environmental Law to Speed Up Vital Projects appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Cash out. Leave the Golden State for somewhere more affordable, less crowded and probably less cool. Sure, you lose the beaches, hiking, cuisine and culture. On the other hand, you gain cheaper living, the chance to save money and make your paycheck — or 401(k) — go further.

Decades of rising costs have prompted many to make this choice. But does it really pay off the way they expect?

New data from UC Berkeley strongly suggest that for people who moved out of the Golden State, taking part in the California exodus can bring dramatically improved financial conditions.

The researchers studied the finances of people who left California over the last decade to see how well they did in their new communities. The California Policy Lab research covered people who left or arrived in California from 2016 to 2025 — millions in total. They generally left for nearby states such as Nevada and Arizona but also for hot locales such as Texas and Florida.

Among the findings:

• People who left the state found that the move saved them almost $700 in monthly housing costs.
• They became 48% more likely to own a home in their new state compared with California, where housing prices are notoriously high.

Although the research covered all types of people who left the state, the differences were most notable for those who were struggling with affordability in California.

One surprise from the California Policy Lab’s findings: Those leaving the state are increasingly moving out of its wealthiest areas. The share of Californians departing the state from its top-third median-income areas rose by 6.4 percentage points between 2016 and 2025, while the shares from low- and middle-income neighborhoods dropped.

In other words, the pandemic caused a major shift in the type of person who leaves California, with residents of higher-income areas growing.

“The average exiter now leaves from a neighborhood that is 8.7% more affluent than in the pre-pandemic period,” the report stated.

Evan White, a California Policy Lab co-founder and author of the report, said he wasn’t exactly sure what caused the trend. But he noted that tech workers in upscale Bay Area districts who can work remotely might find more affordability elsewhere. Another possibility is that lower-income residents “can’t keep up with the Joneses and aren’t able to attain the type of lifestyle they want to have,” causing them to look elsewhere, he said.

The price of a basket of typical goods and services in California from 2016 to 2025 is up about 38%, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations. Median home sale prices went up around 75% over the same span, per the state Employment Development Department.

Indeed, the data suggest that those leaving California are in significantly worse financial shape than their neighbors who stay. Those who left had $5,500 more (twice as much) student debt on average than their neighbors and 16% higher rates of credit card utilization.

The data, compiled over 10 years, are an indication of the affordability gap across California.

But it is far from a full demographic snapshot. Some of those who left California have returned, saying they missed the lifestyle and nature. California has bounced back from the pandemic, with populations rising again in big cities. Even some critics have noticed a new boom in San Francisco, hit hard by COVID-19 but now enjoying a rebound thanks to the artificial intelligence gold rush.

While the entertainment industry has seen significant retraction in Southern California, the tech sector in Northern California has generally remained strong.

Dowell Myers, a professor of policy, planning and demography at USC who was not involved in the research, said the Berkeley data reinforce the affordability challenges California faces, especially when it comes to housing.

The nearly $700 a month in lower housing costs is less than adequate compensation for those who leave the state, he argued, adding that many people leave because they have no other choice.

“It’s a really sad story,” he said.

As for young professionals who come to work in the Golden State, “we can’t hold them, that’s the lesson,” he said. “They come for opportunities, but housing is really key.”

The chart above shows the average monthly housing expenses for three separate groups between 2016 and 2025: those who moved from other states to California, those who moved within the Golden State, and those who left California for other states.

Before leaving California, those who left paid on average $2,376 in monthly housing costs. After relocating to another state, former Californians spent just $1,705 per month, a drop of $671. Those who moved from other states to California saw the opposite effect, with costs rising a similar amount.

“Pretty much anywhere else is more affordable than California,” said White, the author of the report. “People were going to dramatically less expensive locations.

“Once we learned that,” he said, “it didn’t surprise me that they then became homeowners at higher rates.” What was surprising, however, was the magnitude of the change, White said.

White said he undertook the research to contextualize the shift in population over the last few years “because people care what’s happening with their friends and neighbors,” he said. “They don’t want to be the last one at the party” as others leave.

Still, the state’s outlook remains bright, White said. California continues to mint millionaires, “so there are good reasons to stay and good reasons to come here” besides the obvious attractions such as lifestyle and weather, he said.

White, who was born in Altadena, now calls the Bay Area home. He’s a homeowner, but if he weren’t, he might consider leaving the Golden State because of high costs: “Sure, I could see that influencing me.”

The post Life after California: People find dramatically lower costs, are more likely to buy homes, new data show appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Inland Region Housing Justice Coalition — which includes Time for Change Foundation, IE Tenants Union, Victor Valley Family Resource Center, ACLU of Southern California, Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement (COPE), Inland Equity Community Land Trust, Inland Congregations United for Change (ICUC), and Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity — opposed the measure and urged investments in housing and services.

“The number of encampments on county public property has increased over recent years,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman and Third District Supervisor Dawn Rowe. “These conditions threaten not only those living within the encampments, but also the broader community. The goal of this ordinance is to address critical health and safety risks, while also ensuring that people experiencing homelessness have access to the care and support they need.”

The County said the ordinance aligns with a July 2024 executive order by Gov. Gavin Newsom encouraging local governments to adopt policies to address homeless encampments and to humanely remove encampments. Following adoption, officials said they will prioritize flood channels and other areas that expose inhabitants to critical health and safety dangers, and will connect individuals to housing and supportive services while continuing outreach.

“Passing this ordinance is an important step in our proactive approach to addressing homeless encampments,” said Rowe. “It also ensures that people experiencing homelessness have access to the appropriate supportive services.”

Coalition leaders said the ordinance targets people experiencing homelessness without solving the region’s underlying shortages of housing and care. “The ordinance fails to address the real crisis. Our region’s lack of affordable housing and supportive services,” said the Inland Region Housing Justice Coalition in a joint statement. “Criminalizing homelessness only deepens poverty and makes it harder for people to get back on their feet.”

“We need investment in housing, not handcuffs,” said Raynesha Belvins, Homelessness Survivor and Advocate of Time for Change Foundation.

“This ordinance may have passed, but our community is united in demanding dignity and solutions,” added the coalition. “We will continue to push for policies that reflect compassion, equity, and justice,” said Sharon Green – CEO of Victor Valley Family Resource Center.

During the public hearing, coalition representatives urged county leaders to prioritize permanent supportive housing, rental protections, addiction treatment, mental health care, and wraparound support. They emphasized that enforcement-targeted policies are harmful and costly to taxpayers, while housing-first models save money and lives.

The post San Bernardino County Bans Homeless Encampments; Housing Coalition and Time for Change Push Back appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

And that’s not a question to be answered based strictly on her prospects for winning.

Initially, at least, the former vice president would be the heavy favorite to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom — although, eventually, she could find herself in a tough election fight next year.

Rather, the answer should be determined based on what strengths, goals and ideas she would bring to the table — her specific plans for fixing California’s enormous problems, her eagerness to fight even political allies to achieve her objectives and her own desire to lead the state’s comeback.

She shouldn’t view the job as a consolation prize after losing the presidential election to Donald Trump. Voters would smell that and, anyway, Harris would be miserably bored in the state Capitol dealing with budget minutiae and relatively inexperienced legislative leaders.

So far, since returning from Washington to her native state, Harris, 60, has displayed none of the above criteria that California needs in its next governor.

But neither did she previously in any noteworthy way as a U.S. senator or — particularly — state attorney general. As attorney general, Harris refused to take positions on important ballot measures, including those dealing with her role as California’s so-called top cop — propositions to stiffen criminal sentences and both abolish and expedite the death penalty.

Harris has a record of being overly cautious about taking positions that could alienate interests she deems important to her political career.

Sure, Harris isn’t running for anything right now. So, she deserves a pass on issuing 10-point plans to patch up the state.

But, look, you don’t need to be a gubernatorial candidate to express concerns about your state. Any resident who’s conscious should be alarmed.

“Home prices have skyrocketed as supply slumped over the past three decades,” the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California noted in a report last week.

California’s median home price in March was $884,000 — very tough if not impossible for many middle-class families. The housing shortage is largely due to over-regulation, tangled red tape that slows issuance of building permits and abuse of California’s environmental protection laws.

There’s a strong move in the Legislature to ease regulations, but it’s highly controversial. Does Harris have a thought on this?

Homeowner insurance rates are rising fast in the aftermath of wildfires. And in many fire-prone regions, traditional policies are impossible to obtain. The next governor needs to fix this.

California’s poverty rate is the nation’s highest when the cost of living is considered, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Despite our spending many billions of dollars and regardless of ugly finger-pointing at each other by Newsom and local officials, 187,000 Californians are homeless — a 35% increase in 17 years. That’s the highest in the nation — only partly because we’ve got the largest population.

Gasoline prices are roughly $1.60 a gallon higher in California than the U.S. average. And two oil refineries are planning to shut down, invariably hiking pump prices even higher.

We’re a high-tax state, a fact Newsom is in denial about. We lean too heavily on the wealthy for tax revenue and that produces roller-coaster budget deficits and surpluses depending on the stock market. It’s ridiculous. State taxes should be modernized. But no politician has the guts to attempt that.

Then there’s California’s historic problem of not enough water for its thirst.

Does Harris have anything to say about any of this? She hasn’t so far.

Of course, the seven leading announced Democratic candidates have been practically mute themselves on matters that risk aggravating party interest groups.

One exception is former Los Angeles Mayor and state Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, who has been bolder than most of his rivals.

Harris has said she’ll decide by the end of summer whether to run for governor in 2026. Maybe she’ll seek the presidency again in 2028 or retire from politics and make a bundle in the private sector.

But Villaraigosa already is taking shots at her — including last week for allegedly helping to cover up former President Biden’s cognitive decline while in the Oval Office. Villaraigosa included in the attack another gubernatorial candidate: former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra.

Harris is a lot more vulnerable than Becerra on the issue.

But it’s a cheap shot. How many people would publicly accuse their boss of being mentally incompetent? And Harris would have instantly been blasted for being self-serving by plotting to push the president aside so she could grab the Democratic nomination.

Harris could help herself and California’s voters, however, by occasionally voicing some anxiety about her home state.

The little we’ve heard from her this year are attacks on Trump. She also has been lending her name to anti-Trump fundraising appeals by the Democratic National Committee.

But the last thing California Democrats need is another politician — especially a potential governor — telling them that Trump is an evil, ignorant con artist. They’re fully aware of that. They need someone who can tell them how their state can be fixed.

If she ran, Harris would be the initial favorite because of her broad name recognition, past election successes in California and fundraising ability. Some current candidates would probably drop out.

But there doesn’t seem to be a public clamoring for her to run.

Harris needs to start showing people why she should even consider seeking the job. Because, so far, she’s sounding more like a 2028 presidential retread.

The post Harris hasn’t shown much interest in being California governor appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

But then I realized I already have.

I live in California.

If you do, too, you might be hungover, right about now. Or you’re wondering if this is all a nightmare.

It’s not. Well, it kind of is.

Vice President Kamala Harris, a California native, lost to former President Trump, and it wasn’t even close. A convicted male felon ran against a female former prosecutor and won decisively, running the table even in so-called battleground states, and Republicans also reclaimed the Senate and could well take the House.

A guy whose own running mate referred to him as “America’s Hitler,” called him a reprehensible idiot and “a total fraud,” will soon be moving back into the White House after months of juvenile name-calling and vulgarity.

Putin is partying. Ukraine is weeping. And you’re Googling real estate listings in Portugal, or Canada, or maybe you’re looking into those homes in Italy that sell for $1.

No need.

You live in California, which stands apart (along with 18 other states).

Not entirely, of course. Roughly 40% of the state’s votes will be logged for Trump when the counting is complete, with red streaks running down the center of the state.

And California had its own mini-version of a rightward tilt, with Proposition 36 (tougher penalties for criminal and drug offenses) leading in a rout as of Wednesday morning, and criminal justice reform-minded L.A. County Dist. Atty. George Gascón’s reelection bid going down in flames.

To be fair, California’s dominant, super-majority liberal leadership has been feeble in the face of homelessness, income inequality, child poverty and the housing affordability crisis.

Not that Trump policies as president had much of an impact on those problems in California or any other state, and not that he’s come up with any new or ambitious plans since then.

“The state of California is a mess,” Trump said in September, using us as a foil, but also as a springboard, casting a global economic powerhouse as a failure, a sanctuary cesspool and a symbol of wretchedly woke excess.

Insult, or badge of honor?

California said no to the candidate who has waged an assault on women’s reproductive rights and called his female opponent dumb as a rock.

No to the candidate who called climate change a hoax.

No to the candidate who calls immigrants savages and animals.

No to the candidate who has embraced RFK Jr., who wants to pull vaccines off shelves, get fluoride out of drinking water, and who knows — maybe send the nation’s science teachers off to a gulag somewhere.

No to the candidate whose allies put together a second-term playbook called Project 2025, which would seek to wage war nationally on the very idea of California’s progressive policies on abortion, inclusion, gun control, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights and the environment.

No to the candidate who appeals to the worst in us.

Jimmy Carter once said, “We become not a melting pot but a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams.”

Trump once said, “They are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. … They are eating the pets of the people that live there.”

In California, we did not vote for that candidate.

We understand that immigration reform is badly needed but know that Trump’s promised deportation of millions of people would cost a fortune, destroy major industries, raise the prices of goods and services, rip families apart and cripple the economy.

In California, defeat does not signal the end of the fight (the state could well end up in court, forced to defend and preserve its progressive policies against Trump attacks). And don’t forget that while we stand apart, we do not stand alone.

The other states that went for Harris are Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland.

So I suppose you could consider moving to one of those places in these ever-more-divided United States.

But I was born in California and plan to stay put for now, here in the home of the resistance.

The post Column: Trump return could be a growing California nightmare. But leave the U.S? No need appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California voters regularly name out-of-reach housing costs and homelessness as among the most important issues facing the state. Now lawmakers are calling their bluff. Next year the electorate will likely get the chance to put unprecedented gobs of money where its mouth is.

There’s the $10 billion bond proposal, spearheaded by Oakland Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks and currently slated for the March ballot, that would replenish the coffers of some of the state’s premier affordable housing programs. If a majority of voters approve, it would be the largest housing-related IOU that California has issued since at least 1980. Next, there’s the $4.68 billion measure, backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and also scheduled for March, to build housing and expand psychiatric and substance abuse treatment for homeless Californians.

That would be the largest-ever expansion of behavioral health funding in California, according to the governor’s office. As a housing-related bond, it would also be the third largest such measure in recent memory. But both of those state measures could be dwarfed by a third proposed at the regional level. The recently created Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, tasked with funding affordable housing projects across the nine counties that surround the San Francisco Bay, is still figuring out exactly how much it wants to ask voters to sign off on in November 2024.

But it could be as much as $20 billion. Three of the largest housing bonds in California history would seem to be great news for housing advocates. So why are some so worried? “I’m a runner. I’ve never run my three best races in a row,” said Louis Mirante, a lobbyist with the Bay Area Council, where he focuses on housing legislation. With lawmakers considering a bevy of other bond measures in 2024 that could total as much as $80 billion — more potential debt than the state has put on the ballot since at least 1980, even adjusting for inflation — the sheer scale of the state’s potential borrowing plans could test the upper limit of what voters are willing to stomach. “It’s conventional wisdom that if you put a bunch of bond proposals in front of voters, they get overwhelmed and are like ‘I don’t want to pay all of this money, so I don’t want to pay any of this money,’” said Mirante. And even before the question is put to voters, lawmakers will have to negotiate what goes on which ballot in the first place.

Unlike the other initiatives, constitutional amendments and referenda that will already crowd the 2024 ballot, bond measures can only be put before voters with a vote by the Legislature and approval of the governor. “There is only so much capacity that the state has for debt,” said Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, which lobbies for more affordable housing construction in the Legislature. “And politically, for the governor and the Legislature, there’s only so much they are willing to take on.”

Lawmakers may not have long to hammer out those negotiations. Any bonds bound for the March ballot need to clear the Legislature by the end of the session on Sept. 14. Branch-on-branch negotiations have been slow to get going so far, but may ramp up once the lawmakers return from recess on Aug. 14. “We want to make sure that we’re presenting a ballot to the electorate, in as much as we have the ability to, that is thoughtful and aims to tackle some of our tougher challenges, but in a way that doesn’t confuse voters with, like, ‘Here are your ten opportunities to vote for housing,’” said Wicks. “I anticipate over the next probably two or three months that we’ll start landing some of these planes.” Not everyone in housing world is so concerned.

The mere fact that so many housing-related bond measures are vying for space on next year’s primary and general election ballots is a sign that the state’s affordability crisis is finally getting the political and fiscal attention it deserves, said Kate Hartley, who directs the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority. “I don’t know what voters will think about” a glut of bond measures next year, she said. “But I do know that voters really care about this and they want solutions.”

‘You name it, there’s a bond’

Some of the most competitive real estate in California these days is a spot on either of the two 2024 ballots. The Legislature is considering as many as ten borrowing measures for either the March primary or November general election next year.

Among them are competing school bonds, climate and flood protection proposals and a bond aimed at fighting the fentanyl crisis. Though it isn’t likely that all will make the cut, taken together, they come with a collective debt of at least $80 billion, with the price tag on one proposal still undetermined. “We have so many crises for people facing so many different challenges,” said Chris Martin, policy director with Housing California, an affordable housing advocacy group. “You name it, there’s a bond for it being considered in the Legislature and there’s only so much bonding authority.” The Newsom administration has reportedly set the borrowing limit for both of next year’s ballots at $26 billion, but the final number is likely to be ironed out in negotiations with legislative leaders.

Whatever the borrowing cap, it’s as much a question of political arithmetic as it is budget math. There is no legal limit on how much debt voters can approve in a given election. Budget analysts keep their eye on different metrics comparing the state’s debt payments to its discretionary cash cushion, its overall budget or the total size of the California economy. Projections of future interest rates and future budget surpluses and deficits also get considered. One measure — the ratio of the state’s annual debt payments to the budget’s discretionary “general” fund — currently sits at roughly 3.5%, depending on how you measure it. That’s a tad high compared to other large states, but it’s far lower than it has been in the past.

Keeping that figure below 6% is “generally considered prudent,” said H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance. There’s no evidence that voters have any of that in mind when they vote “yes” or “no.” Californians have generally been perfectly happy to put big projects on the state’s credit card. That may be because bond proceeds are typically directed at politically sympathetic causes and the downsides of borrowing — higher debt payments in future years — are more abstract for the average voter.

Since 1980, the electorate has signed off on more than 75% of all state bonds put before them, approving $182 billion in new debt and rejecting only $42 billion. In contrast, voters have approved only about 40% of all non-fiscal propositions.

The prospect of ‘bond fatigue’

There are clear exceptions. Sometimes the voting public, presented with particularly eye-popping sums, gets into a tight-fisted mood. The November 1990 election was the most bond-happy in recent history, with 14 borrowing proposals in total.

Voters batted down 12 of them. A more recent example of bond failure: The March primary election in 2020, when voters rejected what would have been the largest school bond in California history, a $15 billion IOU. One of the possible post-election explanations offered at the time: Voters, saddled with a bumper crop of borrowing measures at the local level, succumbed to “bond fatigue.” Now, with 2024 approaching, some housing advocates worry the electorate is susceptible to the same condition.

As a matter of fiscal reality, the two major housing proposals — the affordable housing measure and the Newsom-backed mental health bond — are dipping from the same pool of fiscal overhead and electorate will. But as policies — one that supports the construction of more housing and the other that boosts behavioral health treatment capacity for people living on the street — they could very well complement one another. According to the governor’s office, his mental health bond would allow for the shelter and treatment of 10,000 more unhoused Californians.

As negotiations kick into gear, some proponents of both measures are hoping the governor and legislative leaders will see things that way. “If you have temporary shelter beds and services for an individual suffering from mental health or substance abuse disorder but no affordable housing, that person is likely going to return to homelessness,” said Alex Visotzky, senior California policy fellow at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, which supports the affordable housing bond and is still reviewing the mental health-related proposal. “Conversely if you have affordable housing, but no services available, then that individual is going to struggle to maintain their housing.” “We feel the Legislature has a real opportunity to connect the two,” he said.

A race against the clock

Politically, California voter frustration with unaffordable housing and homelessness could cut one of two ways. Voters who believe public dollars are poorly spent may not welcome proposals to throw more money at the problem. Earlier this year, lawmakers directed the state auditor’s office to dig into how the state’s homelessness funds are actually being spent.

A 2020 audit from the same office called for an “overhaul” of California’s “cumbersome” affordable housing funding process, after the state allowed $2.7 billion in bonds to expire untapped. (The state application process has since been streamlined.) But many housing developers hope it will translate into the popular political will to ratchet up the spending. In fact, they’re counting on it.

Of the roughly 2.5 million units the state Housing and Community Development department says California communities need to build over the next eight years to make up for years of under-building, roughly 1 million must be set aside for people earning less than 80% of the median income in their region. But that planned-for boom in affordable housing won’t materialize without some extra help, said Heather Hood, who manages the northern California market for Enterprise Community Partners, a nonprofit that funds, consults and advocates for affordable housing. “The state’s been, on one hand, very clear about what the ambitions and goals are,” she said. “And yet (it) hasn’t supplied the resources to enable that to happen.” It’s unclear how many additional units $10 billion in extra state funding could bring online.

The cost per-unit of affordable housing climbs year after year, occasionally exceeding $1 million. By that math, the eye-popping face value on the bond would only be enough to fund 10,000 new units. But state funding is almost always used to supplement private, federal and local sources of cash. “Housing isn’t completely paid for by public dollars,” said Hood. “Having this kind of security in the public realm means that there’s more security in the private realm and so it smooths the pipeline.”The last time the state turned to the voters to fund affordable housing construction was in November 2018. Voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 1, giving the state the go-ahead to borrow $4 billion.

Of that, about half went toward the construction, rehabilitation and preservation of income-restricted rental housing. The remainder was meant to be split between programs that promote homeownership, the construction of farmworker housing and other housing-related infrastructure projects. The timing of Wicks affordable housing bond next year is also no coincidence. With a little over $656 million remaining, that Prop. 1 funding is expected to run dry by next year.

But even if voters are feeling generous next year and sign off on each of the housing bonds on the ballot, Wicks said she is only just getting started. “We have to have significant ongoing investments for a serious amount of time in order to crawl out of where we are right now,” she said.

That could mean putting yet more bond measures on the ballot or dedicating more money from the state budget on an ongoing basis. “That’s something that I want to work on next year. And probably the year after that.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California could borrow a record-breaking $35 billion to tackle the housing crisis appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The housing market has seen significant changes in the past year. Mortgage interest rates have been climbing and housing inventory has declined. Even though the median home sales price in the country has dropped, it’s still a challenge to find affordable real estate.

Not only that, but a housing crisis could be on the horizon. Not every area of the country will experience a crash, but some metropolises in California could be in danger.

Ranked best to worst, these metros are Visalia-Porterville, Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Merced, Chico and Bakersfield.

Visalia-Porterville

• Homeowner Vacancy Rate: 0.9%

• % of Mortgages 90+ Days Delinquent: 0.37%

Located in Central California, the Visalia-Porterville metro is home to just over 477,000 people. The area is known for the Sequoia National Monument and the Sequoia National Park, as well as an abundance of natural rivers, forests and creeks.

As of February 2023, the metro’s unemployment rate was 10.6%. And, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the annual mean wage in the area is $50,100.

When it comes to real estate, approximately 52% of homes sold under their listing price. Around 18% of homes had at least one price cut before being sold. This could all be a sign that the housing market in the area is slowing down or that not as many people are buying.

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario

• Homeowner Vacancy Rate: 1.4%

• % of Mortgages 90+ Days Delinquent: 0.35%

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, more than 4.6 million people live in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area. This California metro is located just west of Arizona and Nevada, near Los Angeles. It’s known for manufacturing services and citrus industry.

The current unemployment rate in this metro is 4.5% — slightly higher than the national average. The average annual mean wage is $55,050.

Around 21% of property listings in the area experienced a price cut before they were sold. The percentage of homes that sold below their listing price was 53%.

Merced

• Homeowner Vacancy Rate: 0.9%

• % of Mortgages 90+ Days Delinquent: 0.48%

Merced — the Gateway to Yosemite — is uniquely positioned between Yosemite National Park, the Pacific Ocean and Monterey Bay. The metro is home to nearly 290,000 people.

In February, the metro’s unemployment rate was a whopping 10.5%. The annual mean wage, meanwhile, is $50,900.

Unlike many other areas, Merced’s home prices have declined in value over the past year. Just over 56% of homes sold under their listing price. Along with this, 17% of homes had a price cut before being sold.

Chico

• Homeowner Vacancy Rate: 1.9%

• % of Mortgages 90+ Days Delinquent: 0.37%

Located in Northern California, Chico is home to an estimated 208,000 people. Featuring trails, Bidwell Park and other outdoor activities, this metropolitan area has long been popular with nature lovers.

As of 2021, the annual mean wage in Chico was $55,290. Currently, the unemployment rate is 5.6% — just over two percentage points higher than the national average.

According to GOBankingRates data, 62% of homes in the area sold under their listing price. About 19% of homeowners cut their home price before selling.

Bakersfield

• Homeowner Vacancy Rate: 1.4%

• % of Mortgages 90+ Days Delinquent: 0.53%

Bakersfield — or the Bakersfield-Delano metro — has over 917,000 residents. The metro is known for its country music and agricultural and oil industries.

The annual mean wage in Bakersfield is $54,570, while the unemployment rate is 8.9% and rising. Like the other metros on this list, Bakersfield also might be headed for a housing crisis.

Not only are the mortgage delinquency rates in Bakersfield fairly high, but 51% of homes were sold for less than their listed price. Just under 19% of listings saw a price reduction as well.

Signs of a Looming Housing Crisis

Only time will tell whether these California metros are heading for a housing crisis. In the meantime, here are some signs of an impending market crash:

• Increased rate of mortgage delinquencies (especially those above 90 days)

• Economic downturn (e.g., increased unemployment rate or reduction in property sales)

• Rising mortgage interest rates

• Decreased value in housing prices after a recent history of faster appreciation

• Increased number of foreclosures

• Higher inventory of available homes (and fewer buyers)

Whether you’re a prospective buyer or current homeowner, it’s important to keep an eye out for these signs. This could keep you from spending too much on real estate.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post 5 California metros that could be headed for a housing crisis appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Progress is abysmal. The state called for the construction of 180,000 new units annually between 2015 and 2025 to close the gap. We built fewer than half as many, only about 80,000 new units per year.

This is unacceptable, but there are solutions. As members of the Little Hoover Commission, the state’s independent government watchdog, we spent months examining this problem, and we know there are ways to move forward: get more data, use better metrics, organize government more efficiently, and – most of all – build more houses.

The problem is not new. The issues are all too familiar. The opportunities to make a long-term impact are often deemed too controversial and squandered by a lack of political will. Sometimes they’re blocked by existing homeowners who already have what others seek.

In our new report, California Housing: Building a More Affordable Future, we offer targeted actions state leaders can take immediately to address this crisis:

First, California must expand its affordable housing strategy – in both policy and funding – to include a greater emphasis on affordable homeownership. This policy expansion must also include an emphasis on increasing supply.

Add CEQA Flexibility to Expedite Projects

The state can jumpstart affordable housing production by treating California’s housing shortage with the same urgency as the state’s wildfire crisis. This includes creating targeted working groups charged with tackling logistical and policy challenges within a set period of time and building in CEQA flexibility to expedite projects.

We can also use “shared equity” models. In effect, the government helps homeowners buy at a lower price on the condition that they sell at a limited price later – helping to ensure that the home stays affordable for future generations.

Second, the state must consolidate housing functions. The state’s housing departments are spread across four agencies and divided among the purviews of the governor and the state treasurer. This organization is inefficient. By consolidating housing functions, through reorganization or formalizing a strategic working relationship, the state can craft a better affordable housing strategy and improve operations.

Third, the state should reconsider how it measures local governments’ progress toward housing goals. Local jurisdictions are responsible for developing and executing a strategy to meet the housing needs of their communities. While this process considers how much housing needs to be built and where, it fails to account for how much housing is actually built. This must change.

The state should also boost enforcement of local governments’ housing plans. When a locality fails to adequately plan for its housing needs, the state can decertify its housing plan. As a consequence of decertification, certain affordable housing projects can “automatically” receive permits.

What’s the catch? Developers typically must get a court order requiring the locality to issue the permit. However, in the face of overwhelmed courts and developers who are incentivized to keep the peace, this enforcement method falls short.

Every County Should Have a Housing Ombudsman

To improve its enforcement capabilities, the state should appoint an ombudsman in every county with the authority to approve affordable housing projects when a local jurisdiction is noncompliant with its housing element.

Finally, the state must fill data and analysis gaps. California is missing key pieces of information that would help policymakers better understand the state’s housing crisis. Using the best technology and methodologies available, the state should fill these gaps. Information found should be used to guide policymaking, and tools should be shared with local governments either at cost or, preferably, for free.

The cost of housing may be the biggest issue facing the state. But action-by-action, state leaders can chip away at the problem.

Pedro Nava, Cathy Schwamberger, and Dion Aroner | Contributed

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Solving California’s Housing Crisis Starts With Building More Homes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.