An extensive report on the high price of housing in California was released last week by that State’s Legislative Analysts office. It’s conclusions will not be surprising to those of us advocating for more housing at all levels of income. California housing prices are the highest in the nation. Why are California prices so high?

Building Less Housing Than People Demand Drives High Housing Costs. California is a desirable place to live. Yet not enough housing exists in the state’s major coastal communities to accommodate all of the households that want to live there.

That’s right, an independent state agency just said that, yes, it’s true, when there isn’t enough housing, prices go up. And why is there not enough housing?

In these areas, community resistance to housing, environmental policies, lack of fiscal incentives for local governments to approve housing, and limited land constrains new housing construction.

So as one writer points out, it is NIMBYs that create the problem. I get sick and tired of hearing NIMBYs say that they aren’t NIMBYs. People who are adding more process, hoops, rules, fees, and other barriers to creating housing realize what they’re doing but desperately want to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of making it harder to build. “We’re not NIMBYs,” they say,” we just want good growth.” But the report is pretty clear that whatever you call it, making it harder to build doesn’t make housing less expensive. It makes things worse.

And who bears the greatest burden of the housing shortage? Where is the pain felt most in California?

A shortage of housing along California’s coast means households wishing to live there compete for limited housing. This competition bids up home prices and rents. Some people who find California’s coast unaffordable turn instead to California’s inland communities, causing prices there to rise as well.

So the shortage causes bidding up of prices. This is what we have been saying over and over again to sometimes very little effect. When we clamp down on supply in a geographic area, or on the supply of certain types of housing, or lengthen the entitlement process the ensuing shortage means prices go up. But it also means more competition between households for housing, a contest wealthy people always win.

Some people think that I am harsh in my criticism of people pushing for more regulation of housing. What I think some people believe is that we ought to bargain with opponents of new housing; this is something I’m not willing to do. First, as the report makes clear, escalating prices indicate a shortage, and that means we need more. Housing is not a bad thing and too much of it, even if that was possible, favors the renter and the family trying to find housing. Do we really want to sacrifice much needed units to pacify a change resistant faction of the community? I don’t see any benefit to doing that, especially to poor families.

Second, I won’t relent in my efforts to stop people who claim that they are acting for justice or for “good design” or for “good density” from writhing out of the consequences of what they are doing. It’s wrong, and they know it. Is that harsh? I suppose it is.

What’s really harsh is trying to find a place to live that is reasonably priced and not being able to find it because somebody already here as erected a barrier to entering into the market. If I make the comfortable opponent of housing uncomfortable or an elected official feel bad by calling them out for that, I’m not sorry. In fact, it’s my job. If that makes us controversial I don’t care. Someone has to push back so that Seattle doesn’t become more like California, the state with the most expensive housing in the country. We won’t stop doing that.

Art from San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation (SFBARF)