The national average is $21k, so really it's $29k you're out over what the rest of the country charges. Which is not ideal, but on a $600k+ ($29k is 5% or less

The national average is $21k, so really it's $29k you're out over what the rest of the country charges. Which is not ideal, but on a $600k+ ($29k is 5% or less) home, let alone a $1m home, that simply isn't the primary cost driver. ======== The whole article seems like it's poorly written or actively attempting to mislead. It's not until 1/2 way through that you learn: Prop 13 stymies local tax increases, which means housing is an enormous cost for cities because they can't recoup their costs through property taxes. Instead, taxes go to the state government. I dunno, could you imagine that severing the link between new development which increases local costs (schools, roads, utilities, police) and local income could affect cities' interest in building housing? Unlike complaints about environmental impact costs, this seems like a much more plausible explanation for the lack of housing. Then the article finally explains that building impact fees are the only way local cities have to recoup their direct costs, which explains their rise. Why wasn't that in the first 1/2 of the article? Also, prop 13 means rising prices are all to the good for home owners. In most (all?) other states, rising property prices mean homeowners pay more tax, which creates an incentive for homeowners to oppose too large an increase in home prices. Finally, the complaining about the Zero Net Energy mandate is misleading as well when it presents it only as a negative. A few minutes research will show that it's intended to curb the growth of energy requirements. Power plants are big, expensive, and tend to pollute a lot. If we want to have 45m people in CA, we have to be judicious about how much pollution our state can withstand. And someone has to pay for those new power plants we will have to bring online if we don't curb power usage growth.