Very few CA cities are meeting Newsom’s housing goals

Are California cities building enough housing to catch up with the state’s severe shortage of homes you can buy without inherited wealth or an AI windfall?

You probably have a very good guess.

And now we can see how far they’re falling behind. This summer signals the halfway mark for California cities and counties to hit housing goals handed down from state regulators. 

The status so far? It’s not looking great.

As CalMatters’ Ben Christopher explains, the Newsom administration assigns localities housing targets across four affordability levels. Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to hit 2.5 million new housing units over eight years, which would be about 312,500 units per year.

But of the more than 530 jurisdictions, less than a third are on track to permit enough “above moderate” units, the tier that typically refers to market-rate housing. And only 32, or less than 6%, are on track to hit their “very low” targets, or housing that could be affordable for residents earning less than half the typical local income.

There is some good news: Five localities are permitting at a pace to hit all four income targets, for example. But all in all, almost nowhere in California is seeing the new construction necessary to meet the housing needs of the state. 

Critics of the state’s planning process have said the targets are unrealistic and that local governments can only do so much. Cities themselves do not build housing, and cities “cannot require developers to develop,” said Jason Rhine, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities.

Pro-development advocates, however, argue that cities can still do more to boost construction.

• Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action: “Cities can argue that they don’t directly control production. But they do control fees, zoning and permitting.”

Read more.

The California Supreme Court on Monday ruled that courts must allow exceptions to a state law that bans electronic recordings in most hearings, marking a loss for unions that sought to protect court reporters’ jobs, writes CalMatters’ Ryan Sabalow.

Millions of court hearings do not have a written record due to a shortage of court reporters. A transcript is usually needed to appeal a case, and recordings give parties in a legal dispute the option of later having a hearing transcribed by a certified professional.

Court reporter unions argue that having certified professionals in courtrooms ensures accurate transcripts. But because hiring a private court reporter can cost thousands of dollars, prohibiting recordings can create a “two-tiered” system of justice, critics argue.

The state’s high court agreed.

• Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero: “The continued failure of the superior courts to provide indigent litigants with a means of obtaining an official verbatim record deprives them of ‘meaningful access to the judicial process.’” 

Read more.

The state Supreme Court issued another ruling Monday — this time siding with one of California’s largest refiners in its battle with the city of Carson over a tax refund, reports CalMatters’ Alejandro Lazo.

The decision has broader implications because it emphasizes that cities and counties cannot put up unnecessary obstacles to tax refunds.

In 2022, Carson told a Marathon Petroleum subsidiary that it owed additional taxes under the city’s oil-industry business license tax. The refiner disagreed, but paid the additional amount and then filed for a refund under state law.

Carson insisted that Marathon stick with the city’s refund process; Marathon argued it should be able to get its money back under a state law called the Government Claims Act.

• Chief Justice Guerrero: “A local government entity cannot, consistent with the GCA, require a person to comply with such a procedure as a precondition to submitting a tax refund claim.” 

Read more.