Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
California needs more housing working people and retirees can afford.
A reality under current state law
Current rules limit what local governments can require from applicants seeking density bonus incentives. In Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021), the court reinforced that density bonus applicants are not required to provide detailed financial pro formas to justify incentives and waivers, and cities cannot condition review on extra studies beyond what state law allows. This makes “it doesn’t pencil” claims harder for the public to verify.
1) Protect the affordable homes we already have
Preserve rent-controlled and naturally lower-cost housing, prevent displacement, and fund repairs and safety upgrades so existing homes stay livable.
2) Build naturally lower-cost “middle” housing
Support small apartments, courtyard buildings, duplexes, ADUs, and 3 to 5 story homes with clear, objective standards so compliant projects can move quickly.
3) Use public land and existing buildings to lower costs
Put public land near jobs and services to work for affordability, and convert underused buildings when it is faster and cheaper than new construction, with local oversight.
4) Make affordable housing cheaper to build
Simplify the funding maze, standardize requirements, and reduce avoidable delay so public dollars produce more homes, not more paperwork.
5) Target help to the people with the greatest need
Pair new housing with direct support for extremely low-income households so affordability is real, not theoretical.
6) A fair deal for public concessions
When government grants major concessions, extra height, density, parking reductions, streamlined approvals, the public should get a proportional return in affordability. If someone claims higher affordability is “infeasible,” that claim should be backed by standardized, publicly understandable information.
Require standardized disclosure for major incentive requests and clearly authorize an applicant-funded independent peer review process for infeasibility claims. Big giveaways should come with real transparency.
How we measure success
Who is it for, what does it cost per home, how fast will people move in, and what safety and infrastructure standards must be met first.
SOURCES:
1. Gov. Code § 65915 (official statute)
3. LSE I³ Working Paper 159 (2026) (primary research)
4. HUD Worst Case Housing Needs (2025) (primary federal report)
5. NLIHC Summary Page (Gap 2025)
6. Terner Center “Reducing the Complexity in California’s Affordable Housing Finance System”
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.