California, just like many other states in the United States, grapples with the problem of rising housing costs. It is documented that nine out of the fifteen metropolitan locations with the highest median home values in the whole of the United States are found in California, and specifically, Silicon Valley is at the top of the list at approximately $1.2 million (Liam 2019). Consequently, some interest groups have always developed the perception that the remedy to the housing problem in California is building more homes, preserving the existing residential buildings, as well as protecting renters from forceful eviction. Recently, Senate Bill 50 was drafted by state Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and its aim was to allow construction of midrise apartments close to railway stations and several homes on pieces of land in most of the single-family neighborhoods throughout the state of California. However, Scott’s proposal and other similar proposals from various legislators did not succeed because of the failure to involve home owners and other lobby groups that had vested interests.
The proposal to have numerous residential buildings in the state was mainly drafted and supported by some legislators in the state, as part of fulfilling their promises to the members of the public. Many of them had previously promised the voters that they would use their legislative powers to ensure residents are protected from the rampant rent hikes, as well as agitate for construction of more residential buildings in an attempt to bring the housing costs down. This proposal was supported mainly by the renters because it would cushion them from exorbitant housing costs, and at least, make the cost of living affordable (Buhayar and Cannon 2019). California is one of the most expensive places to live in the United States, and as such, the proposal would have offered great relief to the residents, if it had sailed through the senate.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Opposition to the policy, as was expected, came mainly from homeowners in the state. Firstly, some homeowners in the state enjoy significant monopoly in the real estate industry. Many of them would be sure to hope that more homes are not built so that they use the high demand to their advantage. If there is increased demand for the houses in the state and only few are available, then the homeowners would increase the rent, and hike it every year. However, if the state constructed more houses, the demand would decrease and the houses would drop in value. Therefore, this would be detrimental to the homeowners’ real estate industry. Various lobby groups and activists as well opposed the proposal. Some of these groups have interests in the real estate projects within the state, and, therefore, the policy would threaten their interests. Secondly, the construction of more houses, which would mostly be apartments, would be done by the State. Consequently, they would be public property, and the State would control the rent prices. Activists and lobby groups cited interference if the State was to enter the housing industry.
Policies are usually made in the United States with the aim of solving certain problems or as intervention efforts. Most of the policies being drafted and implemented in the United States are intended to cushion American citizens from different forms of economic, social or even political adversaries. For instance, the Affordable Care Act was implemented as a way of protecting Americans from high healthcare costs. Donald Trump’s Immigration policy seeks to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the United States because of the perception that the immigrants could cause a strain on the available resources. The housing policy proposal in California was intended to make life at least affordable for the residents. Before a proposal becomes a full policy, it has to go through several stages namely: agenda building, formulation and adoption, implementation, and evaluation and termination.
Agenda building arises when a problem exists or is visible. The problem must be of significant magnitude to be recognized by the relevant parties (Gerston 2014, 48-50). In the California case, the high renting costs in almost all residential areas of the state have become a major concern to both renters and some of the legislators. Some of the politicians’ campaign manifestos have always sought to address this issue. The concern has always been that most aspects of the United States are run by corporates, which are always motivated by profits. The United States is a highly industrialized nation, which also attracts many people in the world to work and live. For instance, California and specifically, Los Angeles, is the headquarters of Hollywood, which is arguably the center of the movie industry in the world. Attempts have always been made to dismantle the corporates from gaining the monopoly of running crucial sectors, especially those which affect people’s livelihoods. Various lawmakers in California were also motivated by the same intention.
Formulation and adoption refers to processes of coming up with a solution or solutions to address a particular problem. For the case of the United States, several parties may be involved, such as the Congress, Courts, and lobby groups. The Congress usually debates the proposal, and since members of the Congress are perceived to represent the voices of the people they represent, their decisions are often legally binding. The courts usually act as arbitrators, especially to decide whether certain decisions or processes are constitutional or not (Araral et al. 2012, 17-29). Lobby groups most of the time consist of individuals who have different opinions from mainstream views. It is always important to involve lobby groups in the formulation of any policy, because they have a lot of influence in determining whether a policy succeeds or fails. Lobby groups usually use different means to oppose policies that do not advocate for their interests. The most prominent one is use of activism; mainly through conducting demonstrations. Some of the groups may lobby some of the legislators who could participate in debating and voting whenever a proposal is presented. Intense lobbying could deter the implementation of any policy that has a lot of opposition.
The implementation stage only happens when a policy has been debated and sailed through a particular legislative body. If the California housing proposal was to be approved, then the implementation would have been delegated by another body. The executive body of the California state government, through its housing organ would have been given the mandate or permission to start the construction process. The implementation usually actualizes the specifics of the proposal, since passing of the proposal implies that at least a majority of the legislators and different interest groups do not have opposition to it (Biggs, and Lelia 2014, 539-542).
When the implementation of a policy begins, there is at least a period when several authorities monitor and evaluate whether the policy serves the purpose it was intended for. The evaluation is designed to see whether the policy addresses the interests of the relevant groups. However, in the event that the policy falls short of its objectives, then corrective action may be taken. The most common action is to streamline or change some specific details of the policy. Nevertheless, there is also always a scenario where the whole proposal may be rejected, especially if its implementation causes public outcry or adverse criticism.
The California affordable housing policy proposal failed partly because it did not involve public participation in its primary stages, particularly during the formulation and adoption stage. The issue of high housing costs in California is popular, especially among renters, but the homeowners are usually reluctant to yield to the demands of the citizens and some of the lawmakers. Therefore, it is always expected that any attempts to address the issue is always met with resistance from homeowners. The proposal was introduced before legislators without involving the homeowners probably because of the resistance that would arise. However, the homeowners, especially in some of the suburbs also had legislators who represented them. For instance, Senator Antony Portantino shelved the proposal without allowing the legislation to proceed to a public vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee which he chaired. Portantino represents a wealthy community outside Los Angeles, and in his argument, he claimed the proposal was too punitive because it deprived cities and counties the power to plan for housing (Liam 2019). Additionally, powerful community members and activists from the local government drawn largely from suburban areas supported Portantino, and the pressure led to the imminent failure of the proposal.
The genesis of the opposition against the proposal might have also been due to the fear of the unknown. In this case, most communities in the suburbs must have been made to believe that construction of multiple apartments in single-family neighborhoods could lead to an influx of people in the state. Most affluent residents of California view apartments as slums, and have deep concerns that if apartments were to be built, then the quality of life in California would deteriorate. Additionally, some opponents to the proposal were skeptical that apartments would cause insecurity in most of the residential areas because of the congestion.
Single-family communities in California were also worried of losing their culture if the proposal was to sail through. Most suburbs in California are known to have only single or no storey buildings. Therefore, the residents view this as a unique culture which must be protected at all costs. The idea of introducing apartments is always seen as a way of making the state disorganized and destroying its unique antiquity. Members of the suburbs mostly hold conservative ideals and any legislation which has the potential to change or disrupt their way of life is always taken with a lot of suspicion (Obrinsky and Debra 2007, 20). Also the communities argued that the apartments would displace them, since a majority of them could be forced to migrate to other places out of fear. People living in the apartments could also become the majority, and that would mean that they could push for their own agendas.
Local government councils also opposed the proposal because of numerous concerns. Firstly, they thought the construction of apartments would strain their ability to provide essential services to the residents. Some of the services would include security, healthcare, sanitation, education, and many other social services. It is thought that most apartments have many school-going children, who, if allowed to reside in California, would need to attend school (Bliss 2019). Secondly, the apartments would lead to road and city congestions, and the local governments would be expected to provide parking space for the high number of vehicles. Space would reduce, and the local governments could face a lot of challenges while planning for the various functions and services. The priorities for the local governments would also probably change. For example, the high number of people in the state could force the local governments to place security at the top of their priority lists. If the local governments had insufficient resources and large portions were to be shifted to areas with low revenue, then provision of other essential services would be a problem.
Policy changes designed to change the status quo face a lot of resistance, especially from the parties which benefit from existing conditions. Secondly, policy proposals that tend to favor one party over the other are most likely to face challenges in formulation and adoption. In the California policy proposal, the proposal created some sort of enmity between the homeowners and the renters, or at least, people who wanted to move to California. In the whole of the United States, it is said that the highest housing problem is in California, especially because of the existence of laws which protect single-family homes. Senator Scott Wiener’s proposal in essence was aimed at scraping these protection laws off. Secondly, Scott only focused on addressing the needs of his supporters, and leaving out those who opposed it.
Housing costs, just like healthcare, is a national conversation. Proper public participation was necessary for the formulation, adoption and implementation of the housing proposal. Policies which have certain effects on particular groups need to have the support of those groups (De Vries 2006, 144-145). The United States is a democratic society, and any policy which is forced onto people cannot be implemented successfully. Many local governments in the United States usually hold town council meetings with the local residents to discuss some of the challenges the locals face and at the same time devise strategies in collaboration with the locals to address those problems. Such a model is always encouraged because of the common view that it is the people who know the nature of their problems, and that they could help to create the best solutions. Since the solutions are likely to affect them, they will be best prepared to help in their implementation.
Senator Wiener would have been more successful in pushing the policy proposal through if he had organized for such meetings with both those supporting and opposing the policy proposal. Since the need arose from the renters, the first step would have been to capture and record these needs. Secondly, the senator needs to have organized a meeting with the home owners and the lobby groups that were opposed to the proposal. He would then have explained to them the housing problem and its consequences especially in the long term. Such a meeting would be effective if the senator’s message was to be in the form of a plea to appeal to the homeowners to think about the crisis. Thirdly, there ought to have been a meeting involving the opposing groups, who would then debate about the issue, in the presence of legislators and other relevant parties, especially the local government administrators. Each side would hear the other’s concerns and even criticism of the proposal. The agenda of the meeting would be to aim at getting a solution to the issue from the people themselves. At least, when drafting some of the details of the proposal, the senator would revise it to make it more comfortable to both parties.
In conclusion, the state of California drafted one of the noblest policy proposals that were aimed at mostly addressing the housing issue in the state, especially the high costs of renting houses. However, the proposal failed because it lacked adequate public participation. The fact that the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee shelved the proposal until 2020, and that he represented an affluent community in Los Angeles shows that most people from the suburbs were not involved. Therefore, it was bound to fail because many homeowners were of the view that the policy was being forced on them.
Bibliography
Araral, Eduardo, Scott Fritzen, Michael Howlett, M. Ramesh, and Xun Wu, eds. 2012. Routledge handbook of public policy . Routledge.
Biggs, Selden, and Lelia B. Helms. 2014. The practice of American public policymaking . Routledge.
Bliss, Laura. 2019. “The Political Battle over California's Suburban Dream.” CityLab , November 22, 2019. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/04/california-affordable-housing-bill-sb50-single-family-zoning/586519/
Buhayar, Noah, and Cannon, Christopher. 2019. “How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare.” Bloomberg , November 22, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-california-housing-crisis/
De Vries, Michiel S. 2006. "Public participation in policy processes: Towards a research agenda." http://www.ramp.ase.ro/en/_data/files/articole/8_04.pdf
Gerston, Larry N. 2014. Public policy making: Process and principles . Routledge.
Liam, Dillon. 2019. “How California’s big plans to address housing affordability crashed.” Los Angeles Times , November 22, 2019. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-housing-bill-failures-20190604-story.html
Obrinsky, Mark, and Debra Stein. 2007. "Overcoming opposition to multifamily rental housing." National Multi Housing Council (NMHC) White Paper .
