It’s surprising people are congratulating the San Carlos City Council, on which I used to serve, for standing up to Sacramento “usurping” local control over housing policy.
They’re ignoring where that authority comes from: the people of California, through their Legislature. It is not an inherent right of local communities. When our state government, seeking to serve all Californians, decides a change is needed, local communities must obey. Always subject to challenge in court and through statewide ballot initiatives, of course.
But it also misses some more important truths.
We benefit from being part of larger communities than the one we live in. The residents of Hillsborough and Atherton would starve to death and have their homes fall apart if they couldn’t purchase food, goods and services from businesses they do not allow within their city limits. Homes in every Peninsula community would be worth a fraction of what they are without our vibrant, dynamic regional economy.
Local government has little incentive to encourage more housing even though the people powering our economy must live somewhere. Homes only generate a fraction of the cost of serving their occupants. In San Carlos, the median single-family home contributes less than $1,000 annually in property taxes to a city budget currently running at about $3,600 per household. That alone drives communities to pursue commercial development.
Which most do, grabbing almost every commercial development opportunity coming their way. It insulates them from raising taxes — inflation affects everyone, including cities — and gives their leadership more money to do things residents like. That’s important if, as a council member, you want to get re-elected. What could be wrong with that?
Well, for one thing, it strains our transit infrastructure. It’s not just the number of people living here which clogs our highways during rush hour. The further away people are forced to live from their jobs, the more road capacity they consume because they’re on the highways longer.
It also raises labor costs, challenging local businesses. Most people in lower-paying or entry-level jobs are better off migrating to less expensive communities, even if it means getting paid less. So, wages, and prices, must rise in areas without enough housing. Or people must cut costs by living with their parents, or sharing living spaces, worsening parking problems and local traffic.
Recommended for you
Sacramento tries to address this jobs/housing imbalance by requiring communities to enact policies supporting the development of enough housing to meet the demand they are creating. Only here’s the curious thing: little of that housing has been built in many years. And what little does get built tends to target households in higher income brackets.
Many civic leaders are quick to defend themselves by saying “we just set the rules, we don’t build the housing.” That misses the point: why isn’t the housing being built? What about the policies keeps them from encouraging more housing?
Here’s a big part of the answer: those policies often ignore economic realities (not surprising; few civic leaders are well-versed in market capitalism). Private developers aren’t in business to solve housing shortages. They exist to make money. When local policies — parking requirements, constraints on where denser housing can be built, etc. — make it less economically attractive to build housing the average person can afford, something else — luxury housing, commercial projects, whatever — gets built instead.
Recent moves by the Legislature to address the housing crisis, like Senate Bill 9, are the result of the long-term failure of most local communities to solve a problem they created themselves. Local communities want the tax revenue associated with commercial activity … but not the people who make it possible. They’re better off grabbing as much commercial development as they can while foisting the need for housing off on someone, anyone else.
It’s a great scheme … in the short run. Unfortunately, it’s time to pay the piper. Which we can do by getting more housing average people can afford built. Or by letting the regional economy stagnate and decline as businesses move elsewhere.
I know which choice I prefer. My single-family home’s value grows because of our vibrant regional economy. And I know economics is not a zero-sum game: I can improve my overall situation by allowing others to improve theirs. I just have to keep myself open to change, remembering it provides more opportunities than challenges.
But more importantly, I don’t like exploiting other people whose economic situation is less than mine. And that’s exactly what many local communities are still doing. Shame on them, and shame on us for allowing it.
Mark Olbert is a former school board trustee, city councilmember and mayor from San Carlos. He and his former colleague Seth Rosenblatt have launched a podcast on politics and economics you might find interesting. It’s at TheBoilingFrog.net.

(14) comments
Yes. Exactly. It is a choice between short term expediency w/ long term economic catastrophe or just doing all of our part and baking a larger pie for shared economic success.
Bravo. Who would have thought that re-imaging our tax base and how we approach development would be a helpful exercise?
Oh yes, Sacramento is so effective – losing $billions in EDD fraud, giving $billions to the union giveaway known as the train-to-nowhere, giving $billions to support non-Americans (all with American taxpayer dollars of course). And the list goes on… Congratulations to the San Carlos City Council and any other cities that choose to subvert Sacramento’s control. Isn't CA subverting federal border security laws? If CA is going to pick and choose which laws they want to follow, why can’t localities? BTW, I notice all these folks complaining about housing costs don’t address one of the root causes of high home prices – the cost of development (here a fee, there a fee, everywhere a fee…).
Always good to hear from the befuddled paranoid! :)
Quite amusing Mr. Olbert responds to criticism by insulting people and intimating that commenters aren’t addressing the topic at hand. Of late, I’ve noticed this trend among a number of editorial writers – their knee-jerk reaction to criticism is to launch personal attacks rather than defend their positions or rebut criticism. What else can they do? Answer the hard questions.
100%, Terence... 100%.
You may or not may recall Mark contributing to the discussion following Dirk's Jan. 11 LTE, "Hypocrisy at its best." mark's post was a bit snarky but that is not out of character. I responded to his post and addressed the underlying sentiment in comments like his from the left side of the aisle. Mark's rebuttal? Crickets... followed by the sound of scurrying.
Ray, yes, I do recall that discussion. Dirk’s letter brought out the usual cast of TDS-infected characters. BTW, speaking of crickets and the sound of scurrying, it appears Rel and Jorg have resurfaced on another thread. Perhaps they think the attention regarding their noticeable lack of rational response has died down. Perhaps they figure the coast is clear and they can spew their usual unsupported garbage and TDS musings. I’m looking forward to earning a few more exclamation points and flat Earth’s from Jorg, assuming Jorg isn’t driven underground after you force him to use up his repertoire of cut/paste excuses. Good times! Let me see if I have popcorn.
Terence
Addressing some DJ readers on another thread? If that is your wish, your wish will be obeyed.
Mark - I seem to remember that most local voters were opposed to the housing bills but endorsed by our local politicians anyway. So, according to you, since we elected them they were empowered to make those choices. That is exactly what is wrong with our current democracy. The vast majority of US citizens is in favor voter identification, closing the border, reopening our own energy sources and strong police protection. What does your side of isle do? Just the opposite. Yes, I may also be befuddled but you can only get away with name calling until the next election. Why do the homeowners in R-1 zones have to suffer the effects of more housing if the city governments just keep on adding more commercial and industrial development? Since you were on a city council, what was your role in this pending disaster? It is not the taxes but the spending, and you know it.
I dislike boring people by repeating myself so I’ll just refer to my other reply.
Mark
It appears nearly all DJ readers recognize the shortage of housing in our county, and it also appears evident that neither Sacramento nor City Hall are truly addressing the housing shortage. So, will there ever be enough homes available in our county for everyone who wants to live here?
In the words of Professor Thomas Sowell, “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” Ignoring that economic maxim and embracing the first lesson in politics happens in Sacramento when the state's single party rulers try to chop up established residential neighborhoods and lay the groundwork for dystopian tenement housing in peninsula cities... taxpayers will take the hit. City halls in the county Ignore that same economic maxim and embrace the first lesson in politics by prioritizing the development of local property for commercial purposes instead of affordable residential housing. So, will there be enough homes available in our county for everyone who wants to live here? No... not as long as the powers that be keep pushing current strategies.
Sometimes I wonder if people who write comments even read what they’re commenting on. This is one of those times 😀.
Hello, Mark
You speak to housing shortages on the peninsula and lament the local government policies that are not trying to resolve those shortages. Hmmm... that kinda sounds like my comments above re: local governments putting commercial real estate development ahead residential construction.
Here's what is curious... you say "shame on us" for letting the shortage to continue. Well, Mark, what is your solution to change how business is conducted in city halls across the peninsula? You say you're open to change... can you describe the change you want to see occur?
Yes, I read your commentary, and your message is very clear. BTW... snark may make you feel better but it's not really a response.
Mr. Olbert,
I read your column twice and I read Mr. Fowler’s comment twice. I see good points in both and to me, both of you seem to be talking about the same subject, at least generally speaking. I may be missing something, it wouldn’t be the first time, but I don’t see the connection between your comment that readers don’t seem to read what they are commenting about and Mr. Fowler’s comment.
I would agree that many times I have to wonder what people are commenting on but in two years of subscribing to the DJ I have found that Mr. Fowler is one of the few people that tries to stay on the topic being discussed. There are some, one in particular that lives in a fantasy world, that comment with the same old drivel regardless of the topic. Mr. Fowler is not one of them.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.