Legislators should look to Sacramento as a test case on housing reform | Opinion

California legislators are considering two massive housing reform ideas. Led by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, with vocal support from Gov. Gavin Newsom, legislation includes a “fast track” streamlining package that would speed up housing approvals statewide and a bill legalizing apartments near transit stops.

These reforms, common sense as they are, would represent a sea of change for housing in California. For many lawmakers, the ambition alone may feel daunting. We get it — change is frightening, especially for politicians who have to worry about how their constituents will respond.

But if they want to understand the impact these bills would have on their districts, legislators in the Capitol don’t need to look far. In fact, looking out the window will do. By coincidence, these two efforts almost directly mirror the two biggest housing reforms that the City of Sacramento has implemented on a local level in the last five years.

In 2020, Sacramento streamlined essentially all infill housing approvals to something called a “ministerial” approvals process. This, in essence, depoliticized the approval process and ensured that frivolous litigation could not be weaponized to block housing.

In 2023, the city enacted a major transit-oriented zoning reform. There are small differences — we legalized apartments everywhere in the city, not just around transit, and the state’s plan allows higher height limits than the city currently does around light rail stations — but the emphasis on legalizing apartments within a half mile of transit is very similar.

So what can Sacramento, the Capitol, learn from Sacramento, the capital, and our de facto test run of these housing reforms? Four things:

First and most importantly, they work.

Rents in Sacramento continue to decline, according to industry data, dropping an average of about $250 from this time a year ago (after falling 8.1% the year before). This is an even bigger deal than it seems. Sacramento is, by some metrics, still the top relocation destination in the entire country — driven mostly by people looking to leave the Bay Area.

Two, the benefits of more housing supply are shared across the affordability spectrum. Sacramento city leaders have consciously adopted a more-of-everything approach, encouraging both market-rate and subsidized affordable housing. The increased affordability can be seen across the income spectrum — from deep discounts in new market-rate buildings to transformational new subsidized affordable projects.

Three, the effects of reform are slower than advocates hope and skeptics fear. Sacramento has built a lot of housing in the last five years, but it’s still far from enough. The reasons for this are varied — above all, rising interest rates and other market conditions have created substantial headwinds to housing construction. But the pace is slow enough that, less than two years later, the City of Sacramento has even re-opened a new process to figure out what else they can streamline. (There must be more we can do!)

But also: Housing construction is just slow by nature. Legislators who fear that their votes for reforms could open a Pandora’s box of change and development should remember that the impact will take years to realize, for better or worse.

Four, politically speaking, once passed, these housing reforms became almost entirely uncontroversial — even unanimous. As Sacramento City Councilmember Caity Maple, one of the many local champions (and, full disclosure, Evan’s boss), told us: “The overwhelming concern I hear from constituents is not ‘Have we done too much,’ it’s ‘How can we do more? How can we accelerate building even more housing?’”

In most cities in California, the project-by-project politics of slow approvals seems to encourage conflict, tension and anger. Think of the “monster in the mission,” the saga over farm worker housing in Half Moon Bay, or the anger over the parking lots to affordable housing plan in Menlo Park.

But in Sacramento? After the city streamlined housing — turning approvals from a political courtroom into an apolitical process with planning staff approving or rejecting projects on objective criteria — tensions have actually gone down. With faster, smoother approvals and less City Hall drama over individual projects, Sacramento as a community has been free to focus on bigger and more important goals, questions and policymaking around housing.

There’s also been no notable backlash, protest or widespread anger to speak of. No one was voted out of office because of these housing reforms.

That’s because our infill and transit-oriented housing strategy is working extremely well for Sacramento’s affordability and climate goals. It would work well for the rest of the state, too.