Almost.

Here's the thing about prefab housing — it makes enormous sense on paper. Japan builds about 15% of its new housing this way, with factories cranking out 10 homes a day. Sweden hits nearly 80%, including units produced by IKEA. The U.S.? A pathetic 3%. Clearly, regulatory barriers and fragmented building codes are holding us back, and consistent standards could be the biggest lever to shift the needle.

But California has a special talent for taking a good idea and smothering it in costs. As one Bay Area resident pointed out, "Prefab units built with union labor are 25-30% more expensive, so market rate developers are never going to buy them in state. Their use would be limited to subsidized projects so the factories can never scale." That's the core tension: if the economics only work when taxpayers are subsidizing the gap, you haven't solved the housing crisis — you've just created a new spending program.

The track record isn't exactly inspiring either. Katerra, once the poster child for modular construction, imploded spectacularly. Connect Homes just went under. As one local noted with characteristic bluntness, "Titles with a question are almost always answered 'no.'"

Look, we want this to work. Anything that can reduce the insane cost of building in the Bay Area deserves a fair shot. But the right approach is removing regulatory obstacles and letting the market figure out whether prefab pencils out — not propping up factory-built housing with mandates and subsidies that mask the real costs.

If Sacramento is serious about making prefab viable, the bills should focus ruthlessly on cutting red tape and standardizing codes, not creating another government-dependent industry. Let prefab compete on its merits. If it can't survive without life support, that tells you everything you need to know.