Here are the numbers that should be tattooed on every state legislator's forehead:
- California: ~35,800 dwellings per 100,000 people
- Texas: ~40,000 dwellings per 100,000 people
- New York: ~43,000 dwellings per 100,000 people
- Florida: ~45,000 dwellings per 100,000 people
Read that again. Florida — Florida — has roughly 25% more housing units per capita than California. New York, land of Manhattan rent horror stories, still manages about 20% more. Even Texas, which people love to mock for suburban sprawl, beats us by double digits.
This isn't some abstract policy debate. This is the math behind your $3,200 studio apartment. This is why your favorite restaurant can't keep staff, why teachers commute 90 minutes each way, and why an entire generation has given up on the idea of owning a home in the state where they grew up.
As one SF resident put it bluntly: "Nothing involving manual labor can function sustainably under these conditions and things are starting to crack under the pressure. We need to build housing."
The culprit isn't mysterious. It's decades of zoning restrictions, environmental review abuse, permitting nightmares, and — let's be honest — entrenched homeowners who got theirs and now treat every new apartment building like an existential threat. One Bay Area local captured it well: "Local governments in CA are almost always beholden to NIMBYs."
Recent state measures like SB 79 and the builder's remedy are chipping away at the problem, but chipping isn't going to cut it. If California built just 10% more housing to match Texas's per-capita rate, we'd need roughly 1.4 million new units. To match Florida? North of two million.
Every politician in this state campaigns on affordability. Almost none of them campaign on the only thing that actually moves the needle: dramatically increasing supply. Until that changes, the math doesn't care about your campaign promises.
Build. More. Housing.
