California Will Do Anything to Save Democracy Except Build Housing
California has a reputation for leading the country in progressive battles. Politicians in the state make bold speeches about protecting voting rights, fighting climate change, and defending marginalized communities. The state has styled itself as America’s moral compass in an era of political division. But there’s a strange contradiction hiding beneath all that talk of democracy and fairness: California refuses to solve its housing crisis.
At the center of the issue lies a paradox. Democracy means ensuring people have the chance to participate fully in civic life. Yet millions of Californians spend so much of their income on rent or mortgages that they can’t save, plan for the future, or even feel stable enough to engage in community life. Housing is the bedrock of security, and without it, all the rhetoric about defending democracy rings hollow.
The Housing Crisis as a Threat to Democracy
When housing costs consume half or more of a household’s income, democracy doesn’t thrive. People forced to work two or three jobs don’t have time to attend city council meetings or campaign for candidates who might fix the problem. Parents juggling multiple shifts can’t volunteer at schools or neighborhood organizations. Instead, the daily grind of survival takes priority.
California, ironically, undermines the very democracy it claims to champion by refusing to build enough homes. Cities across the state have tight zoning restrictions, lengthy approval processes, and layers of local opposition that make new housing nearly impossible to develop. This dynamic has created some of the highest rents and home prices in the country.
The consequences ripple through every part of life. Families crowd into small apartments, workers commute hours each day, and young adults delay starting families because they can’t afford a place to live. Democracy depends on a stable, engaged middle class but California’s housing system squeezes that class to the breaking point.
California’s Commitment to Every Cause Except Housing
California has no problem positioning itself as the national leader on causes that grab headlines. When federal protections for voting rights came under attack, California officials proudly announced new measures to expand access to the ballot. When climate change hit the news cycle, the state rushed to set aggressive carbon reduction goals. When immigration became a political battlefield, California passed laws declaring itself a “sanctuary state.”
But when it comes to housing, the state takes half steps and symbolic gestures. Lawmakers pass bills meant to sound bold accessory dwelling unit reforms, density bonuses, rent control experiments yet they never go far enough to change the fundamental supply problem. Each reform gets bogged down in endless legal fights, exceptions, and carve outs designed to protect homeowners who don’t want their neighborhoods to change.
It’s as if California wants the moral glow of leadership without facing the uncomfortable work of reshaping land use, challenging wealthy suburbs, or building enough apartments for its people.
The Role of Local Power
Part of the problem lies in California’s obsession with local control. Every city, no matter how small, has a powerful voice in whether new housing gets built. Local councils often bow to vocal groups of homeowners who fear change. These residents argue that new apartments will bring traffic, lower property values, or alter the character of their neighborhood.
Because homeowners vote at higher rates, local politicians cater to them. The result is paralysis. Projects stall for years. Developers face endless public hearings. Courts become clogged with lawsuits from groups that use environmental regulations as tools to block new construction.
The irony is sharp: California promotes itself as a defender of democracy while its local democratic processes get hijacked by a narrow slice of the population those who already own homes. Renters and would be homeowners, the very people most harmed by the crisis, often lack the time, resources, or political power to push back.
ALSO READ: Breakthrough on California housing could put taller buildings in single-family neighborhoods
ALSO READ: 5 Powerful signs that America’s job market still holds opportunities in 2025.
The Cost of Pretending
The housing crisis doesn’t just harm individuals. It reshapes the state’s economy and culture. Tech companies recruit workers from around the world, but many employees leave after a few years because they can’t imagine raising families in million-dollar starter homes. Teachers, firefighters, and nurses the backbone of any community face brutal commutes or leave the state altogether.
This exodus erodes California’s democratic foundation. When working families move away, communities hollow out. Schools lose funding. Small businesses shut down because workers can’t afford to live nearby. Neighborhoods become exclusive enclaves for the wealthy, leaving little room for the diversity California celebrates in its speeches.
The state’s leadership acts as if democracy can be saved only through laws protecting ballots, immigration rights, or clean air. But what about the basic right to live in a secure home? Without housing, civic participation withers. The ability to live near where you work, vote in local elections, and invest in your community is directly tied to housing affordability.
A Generational Divide
Housing in California has also created a generational rift. Older homeowners sit on properties that have skyrocketed in value, while younger Californians feel locked out of ownership altogether. For many millennials and Gen Z residents, the dream of buying a house in California is laughably out of reach.
This divide has political consequences. Younger people grow frustrated and disillusioned with a system that seems stacked against them. They see a state government that calls itself progressive yet preserves the wealth of older homeowners at their expense. A healthy democracy can’t survive when one generation hoards resources while another feels permanently excluded.
The Homelessness Catastrophe
California’s homelessness crisis is the most visible symptom of its refusal to build housing. Tens of thousands of people sleep in cars, tents, or shelters each night. The state spends billions on temporary programs, supportive housing, and emergency services, but without addressing supply, the cycle continues.
It’s impossible to claim democracy thrives when so many people live without shelter. Homelessness strips people of dignity and cuts them off from participation in society. Every tent encampment is a reminder that California has chosen symbolism over substance.
The Fear of Density
Much of the resistance to building housing boils down to fear of density. Suburban homeowners worry that taller buildings will change the look of their neighborhoods. They picture crowded streets, fewer parking spaces, and a loss of the suburban ideal they bought into decades ago.
But density doesn’t destroy democracy. In fact, dense communities often create more vibrant civic life. Walkable neighborhoods encourage interaction. Local shops and restaurants thrive. Public transit becomes practical. People who live close to one another can form stronger community bonds.
The refusal to embrace density is less about democracy and more about nostalgia. California clings to an image of single-family homes with yards, even though that model excludes huge numbers of people. If democracy means inclusion, then housing policy must reflect the diversity of today’s residents, not just the preferences of yesterday’s homeowners.
What Real Leadership Would Look Like
If California truly wanted to match its democratic ideals with action, it would overhaul its housing system. Real leadership would mean:
-
Zoning reform at scale: Eliminating restrictions that prevent apartments and multi family units in areas dominated by single family homes.
-
Streamlined approvals: Cutting the red tape that lets opponents stall projects for years.
-
Massive investment in affordable housing: Funding not just subsidies but also construction at levels that match demand.
-
State level overrides: Limiting local veto power when cities refuse to build enough homes.
-
Focus on equity: Prioritizing housing for workers, families, and younger generations who have been left behind.
These moves wouldn’t just fix housing; they would strengthen democracy by ensuring more people can participate fully in civic life.
The Stakes
California likes to think of itself as a model for the rest of the country. But if it continues to dodge the housing crisis, its moral authority will crumble. What does it mean to defend democracy if only the wealthy can afford to live in the state?
The stakes reach beyond California. Other states look west for inspiration. If California can’t solve housing while claiming to be progressive, it sends the message that protecting democracy doesn’t require addressing basic needs. That would be a dangerous precedent.
Conclusion
California’s leaders say the state will do anything to save democracy. They pass laws to protect voting rights, immigrants, and the environment. But as long as they fail to build enough housing, those efforts ring hollow. Democracy isn’t just about ballots and speeches; it’s about whether people can live with dignity, stability, and security.
If California wants to live up to its self-image as a defender of democracy, it must start by building homes. Until then, every promise about fairness and inclusion remains incomplete.