Each morning, millions of Californians face an impossible choice: Endure hours in traffic and spend 20 percent or more of their incomes on car expenses, or spend more than half the median household income of $96,000 on housing near their jobs and transit. As members of California’s Congressional delegation, we’ve approached this challenge from different angles – but reached the same conclusion:
California’s disconnect between our public transit investments and our housing policies is failing our communities – and we urgently need reform.
The sad truth is that, even as we continue to ramp up public investments in expanded and improved bus, train, and light rail services, most of the new housing built in our state over the past two decades has been far from our public transit stations. In Los Angeles County, multi-family housing is illegal to build in all but a few neighborhoods, and in San Diego, the Trolley and Coaster run through neighborhoods where new apartments are often prohibited, limiting the ability of San Diegans to live near the services they paid for.
Meanwhile, Californians feel the effects of the shortage of at least 3 million homes in their pocketbooks.
The solution is clear: the state must allow more housing near transit. The benefits of this approach are substantial and proven.
For starters, according to the Mineta Center at San Jose State University, California residents who live near transit typically spend 40 percent less per year on transportation than residents who are more car-dependent. In addition to the immediate boost to family finances, allowing more residents to live near transit also drives regional economic growth: Transit stations occupy less than one percent of urban land – but attract more than 20 percent of new regional jobs. And by building housing near transit stops, we provide a greater return on investment for taxpayers, as farebox returns improve with increased ridership.
In essence, making it easier to build homes near our transit stations is a win-win that gives us more resources to invest – in our families, our communities and infrastructure, and even in safer, more frequent and reliable mass transit.
This is how public investments should work. Transit stations solve an urgent problem: the need to make life more affordable, reduce traffic and pollution, and give hard-working parents more time to spend with their families by cutting commutes — all while creating jobs and opportunities that more than pay for the investment in the process.
While California is usually at the front of the pack for common-sense, pro-family, pro-clean air reforms, we are actually lagging far behind on matching transit investments with housing development. States like New Jersey, Colorado and Utah are advancing policies that encourage more homes near transit; Washington state is considering similar legislation, and communities across Maryland, Texas, and Florida are advancing the idea that public transit investments should be accessible to all.
We understand why the existing residents of communities with access to public transit have concerns about neighborhood change. Our experience in local government taught us the importance of community input. Effective legislation can preserve local control and ensure rigorous design standards, while also making sure that housing is built where it’s needed most.
Make no mistake — sky-high housing costs are the leading reason tens of thousands of hard-working Californians are leaving our state. It’s a crisis draining our workforce, hollowing out communities, and threatening our future. We cannot fail to meet this moment.
No one city can solve this problem on its own. Each layer of government must play its role.
Related Articles
California’s trial lawyer racket, and how to end it The Founders believed knowledge could bind us together. It still can. No Kings: Why California needs the Libertarian message more than ever Immigration policy has divided my family. Congress should act now — before the situation gets worse. The roots of today’s housing crisis lie in a 1926 Supreme Court ruling Without action, these problems will only intensify. Hospital administrators and school principals regularly tell us their staff can’t afford to live in the communities they serve. Businesses are relocating to states with more affordable housing, taking jobs and tax revenue with them. The state risks losing billions in federal funding for services as other states attract residents seeking a more reasonable cost of living.We’ve each worked to address this gap. In Congress, we’ve launched the bipartisan YIMBY Caucus and proposed the Build More Housing Near Transit Act, which would tie federal transit funding to housing production. In Sacramento, legislation like AB 2097 eliminated parking mandates near transit stations, reducing housing costs by tens of thousands of dollars per home. Yet despite these efforts, the fundamental problem persists. We invest billions in transit while actively preventing housing nearby.
California’s future depends on fixing this disconnect. We can no longer invest billions on public transportation while artificially constraining who gets to live close enough to use it. By aligning these essential policies, we’ll create more affordable, sustainable communities where all Californians can thrive.
Laura Friedman represents California’s 30th congressional district. Scott Peters represents California’s 50th congressional district.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( We invested in mass transit. We should let Californians live near it )
Also on site :