The Brief

For California political observers, the housing plan that Kamala Harris recently unveiled may have caused a twinge of familiarity.

As a central plank of her agenda to “lower costs for American families,” the Democratic presidential nominee pledged in August to build 3 million additional affordable homes and rentals over the next four years to address “a serious housing shortage across America” — echoing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s platform during his first gubernatorial campaign in 2018, when he called for California to add 3.5 million housing units by 2025.

Housing policy experts are enthusiastic about many of the ideas that Harris floated to promote production, which include creating a new tax incentive for developers who build starter homes for first-time homebuyers, expanding a tax incentive for affordable rental housing projects and establishing a $40 billion “innovation fund” to finance construction, as well as repurposing some federal land for housing and streamlining the permitting processes for projects.

Michael Lens, a professor of urban planning and public policy at UCLA, called it a wonk’s wish list: “This is all of the stuff we talk about at dorky academic conferences.”

But transforming the housing market from the top is difficult, as Newsom’s experience has demonstrated.

While California has increased production during his time in office — about 112,000 units were completed last year, according to the Department of Housing and Community Development, compared to about 70,000 in 2018 — it is still only building at a fifth of the rate necessary to meet his original target.

The governor has since acknowledged that 3.5 million units “was always a stretch goal” and scaled back. His office declined an interview request for this story.

Even with new policy priorities in place, high construction costs, onerous regulations, lack of public funding and community resistance remain major hurdles to supercharging homebuilding in California — offering lessons for a potential Harris administration.

“You’re going to be limited in your ability to change things on the ground,” said Ben Metcalf, a former state and federal housing official who is now managing director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. “Even when you are trying to move carrots and sticks, you find years later, what do you have to show?”

Set manageable goals

The high cost of housing has long been a top concern for Californians, but the problem is spreading across the nation. Industry data indicates that home prices exploded over the past five years, up more than 50% since 2019, while rent surged by about a third during that time, oustripping raises.

People moving from expensive cities to outlying areas for more affordable housing or moving into bigger homes during the coronavirus pandemic has driven up demand in new places, while even many recent pro-growth boom towns are becoming strained by the natural limits of expansion or a dimming taste for development.

“There is plenty of reason to think that it could get worse, in the sense that California is a bellwether,” Lens said.

Construction is constrained in California by pricey land, local zoning limits and fees, lengthy permitting processes and the threat of litigation, all of which drive up the cost of building and make it difficult for many projects to pencil out financially.

It’s unclear where the Harris campaign came up with its goal of 3 million housing units over the next four years — or how exactly it would measure success, given the emphasis on affordability. A campaign spokesperson did not respond to questions seeking a more detailed explanation, though he did clarify that this would be above current production.

That would require a President Harris to immediately boost construction nationwide by 50%, to levels not seen since before the housing market crashed during the 2008 financial crisis. The country built about 1.45 million new homes last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's first gubernatorial campaign in 2018 called for California to add 3.5 million housing units by 2025.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

The strategy carries some political risk. Newsom set an ambitious housing goal as a candidate for governor, which would have required California to build 500,000 new homes per year, and then faced criticism for falling short.

Metcalf noted that Harris’ plan for 3 million homes is more aggressive than the 2 million figure that President Joe Biden was campaigning on before he dropped out of the race this summer, but far below the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, which targeted the construction or rehabilitation of 26 million units over the next decade, including six million for low- and moderate-income families.

“The last time we saw an incoming president really putting a big, bold number on the board was that,” Metcalf said. “She wants to be able to campaign for a second term saying, ‘Hey, we did it.’”

Clear regulatory hurdles

California officials are undertaking a serious push to make it easier to build housing.

Over the past several years, they have passed major legislation:

• SB 9 allows landowners to add additional units on single-family lots in residential neighborhoods.
  
• SB 6 streamlines the process for turning empty commercial properties into housing.
  
• AB 14449 shields certain affordable projects from lengthy environmental reviews and legal challenges.
  
• SB 423 opens up land owned by religious institutions and colleges for construction.
  
• AB 1893 gives developers more tools to speed up permitting in uncooperative cities and counties.

Advocates projected these policies could unlock millions of new homes across the state, but the impact so far has been significantly more modest.

“That’s a precursor to making a lot of these things work,” Lens said. “We have to make housing more allowable in more places.”

New housing construction in Elk Grove on July 8, 2022.

(

Rahul Lal

/

CalMatters

)

A series of laws to encourage more “accessory dwelling units” has been a promising exception, according to Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor with an expertise in land use and housing law. Since California forced local governments to waive fees and affordability requirements and grant faster approval for backyard cottages and other secondary units, the state has seen a boom of ADU construction.

Elmendorf said Harris’ proposed tax incentive for starter homes — which is not an official category, but generally refers to more modest housing that provides a cheaper entry point into the market — could similarly provide a quick jolt to the housing supply.

“If the goal is to promote small, inexpensive, market-rate homes, that’s really different than what California has been doing,” Elmendorf said. “California has been able to pass a lot of laws, but it hasn’t been able to pass many laws that make housing economically feasible.”

Experts argue that California has not been able to maximize the effectiveness of its new pro-housing laws because it is prioritizing so many other goals — demands to use union labor, requirements for more deed-restricted affordable units to reduce gentrification, environmental considerations to discourage sprawl and climate risks — that it’s still too expensive to build here.

The high costs for workers, materials and local regulations have been compounded lately by elevated interest rates, which drive up the price tag to finance projects and may actually be reversing California’s progress on construction. Metcalf compared it to a straw breaking the camel’s back for the building industry.

“That’s something that we’ve made almost no progress on as a state,” he said. “Once you have the table set, if the costs are too high, then nothing gets built.”

It’s of particular concern for affordable housing developers, who rely heavily on public funding. Chione Lucina Muñoz Flegal, executive director of the affordable housing advocacy group Housing California, said that despite state laws that have made it easier to plan projects, developers continue to struggle to pull together enough money to get them over the finish line.

She is hopeful about a surge in financial support — through the tax incentives and innovation fund in Harris’ plan — that has been unavailable from state or local governments, which she said have not generally prioritized money for affordable housing because constituents do not understand the benefits.

“There’s a narrative challenge that we’re grappling with that often translates into a political challenge,” Flegal said. “That’s a way the federal government could be impactful in a way the state could never be.”

Use sticks as well as carrots

Though Newsom made clear his desire to boost housing production in California, not everyone has been on board with his approach.

Some cities, particularly wealthy or coastal suburbs, have vigorously fought to restrict additional development in their own communities, resisting a state mandate to plan for far more housing and suing to exempt themselves or overturn new laws that make it easier to build more densely. They contend these policies would destroy the character of their communities.

Newsom, who argues that everyone must do their part to solve the crisis, has cracked down by creating a new enforcement unit within the state housing department and suing the most intransigent cities for failing to approve housing plans or even specific projects.

The construction project is funded by the No Place Like Home bond, which passed in 2018 to create affordable housing for homeless residents experiencing mental health issues.

(

Camille Cohen

/

CalMatters

)

But the federal government does not have the same legal authority that California has given itself to demand local communities build more housing, and there’s no guarantee that Congress would be willing to step in to play more of a role in what has traditionally been a local matter in most states.

“Plans don’t translate into outcomes if people don’t want to build housing,” Elmendorf said.

So to reach her goal of 3 million new homes, Harris would have to rely more on the proposed incentives, such as the tax breaks for starter homes and affordable rentals and the innovation fund, for voluntary compliance.

Experts believe she has a good political opportunity to actually get her plan passed. Congress will be under pressure next year to extend a series of tax cuts made under former President Donald Trump that are set to expire at the end of 2025, which could be used as a bargaining chip for Harris’ housing proposals.

The federal government also has the power of the purse on a scale well beyond California, which it could amplify through regulations — such as tying transportation dollars to building more housing — that make supporting development the more desirable option.

California has tried this type of regulatory incentive, encouraging local governments to remove obstacles to construction with grant money and creating a “pro-housing designation” for cities that adopt streamlined development policies, which gives them privileged access to state funds.

“Unfortunately, that pro-housing designation is not based on outcomes. So that’s a fundamental problem,” Elmendorf said. “That’s something Harris will have to figure out.”

Los Angeles City Councilmember Curren Price Jr. was ordered to stand trial on corruption charges Wednesday.

Superior Court Judge Shelly Torrealba made the decision after a six-day preliminary hearing where prosecutors presented a wide range of evidence against the 75-year-old Price, including documents showing he voted to support projects that benefitted his wife’s business.

Price faces 12 felony counts: five counts of grand theft by embezzlement of public funds, four counts of conflict of interest and three counts of perjury by declaration.

If convicted on all charges, he faces up to 11 years behind bars.

“I’m glad that we were able to put on the evidence and the judge heard it and we get to move forward,” said Deputy District Attorney Casey Higgins, who presented the case.

Price has pleaded not guilty.

“We’re obviously disappointed,” said Price defense attorney Michael Schafler. “We are going to continue to fight.”

Price declined to comment after the hearing.

Conflict of interest charges

Price, who represents a large swath of South L.A., is termed out of office at the end of the year. He is a veteran L.A. politician who has served in the state senate and assembly and on the Inglewood City Council.

The conflict of interest charges relate to Price’s failure to recuse himself on votes involving projects in which his wife benefitted, according to prosecutors. Delbra Price Richardson provides relocation services and community engagement on big projects.

During the hearing, prosecutors presented evidence that the city’s Housing Authority and LA Metro paid Price’s wife more than $800,000 at the same time Price voted to award the agency's multimillion-dollar contracts.

Prosecutors also presented evidence that Del Richardson & Associates, a company owned solely by Price’s wife, received payments totaling more than $150,000 between 2019 and 2021 from developers before he voted to approve their projects.

Former Price staffers testified about their system for flagging projects where there was a conflict of interest. But they conceded some projects slipped through the cracks.

Schafler said Price didn’t know about the conflicts at the time.

“There is no evidence Mr. Price knew of conflicts or that he acted with any wrongful intent,” the defense attorney said. “Prosecutors presented no evidence of Price's state of mind.”

He also noted the projects “overwhelmingly” passed the City Council and that Price’s vote made no difference.

Higgins, the deputy district attorney, argued it was ultimately Price’s responsibility to recuse himself from voting on projects involving his wife. The prosecutor told the judge Price tried to “create a wall around himself” with staffers who would give him “plausible deniability.”

The perjury charges relate to Price allegedly failing to include Richardson’s income on disclosure forms. Schafler said the statute of limitations had run out on the charge.

Price is also accused of embezzling approximately $33,800 in city funds from 2013-2017 to pay for medical benefits for Richardson, whom he falsely claimed was his wife while still legally married to Lynn Suzette Price.

“He's nickel and diming the government at every turn,” Higgins told the court.

“Your honor, this is not the kind of case with strippers and hookers and bags of cash and cocaine,” he said. “It's a long secret corruption.”

Statement from Price’s office

After the judge’s decision, Price’s spokesperson Angelina Valencia-Dumarot issued a statement.

“The testimony presented during the hearing, including from key witnesses, clearly shows that Councilman Price did not act with any intent to do wrong and that the case rests on speculation rather than facts. While the court’s ruling is disappointing, the Councilmember remains fully committed to fighting these charges, clearing his name, and is confident the truth will ultimately prevail.”

No trial date has been set. The next court date is March 13.

As a series of winter storms barreled toward Southern California around the start of the new year, the 211 LA hotline prepared to hand out motel vouchers and reserve shelter beds for people seeking refuge from wet weather.

The hotline received more than 12,700 calls for assistance between Dec. 22 and Jan. 6, when the Emergency Response Program was activated in response to the severe weather.

But it had only 140 motel vouchers to distribute — 50 from the city of Los Angeles and 90 from the county. All vouchers were handed out within a day, according to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, known as LAHSA, which helps distribute funding.

Only one shelter in the program, in Long Beach, was open at that time and it was full during the two-week activation period, according to LAHSA. Another winter shelter program offers 335 beds but was mostly full at the time, officials said.

The situation highlights long-running challenges 211 LA has faced during weather emergencies, including inadequate staff and long wait times. Officials say hotline callers are often frustrated when they find out that so few resources are available.

“A lot of the responses that we get from callers is anger … about not being able to provide them with that resource that they were told they can call us for,” Nancy Dueñez Velazquez, 211 LA’s housing director, told LAist.

She noted that when city and county officials encourage people to call 211 LA for shelter during a storm, they often don’t make clear that resources are "extremely limited.”

County supervisors say they’re working to address 211’s challenges, but there are budget constraints. The county is considering major cuts to homeless services and programs in the next budget year as it faces increased costs and funding losses.

Other county officials say they’re working to improve messaging around 211 and are shifting more funding through LAHSA to boost staffing.

Supervisor Janice Hahn told LAist she wants the county to look into providing more shelter beds during storms.

“In an emergency when lives are on the line, we have to be able to do better,” Hahn said.

LAist reached out to several authorities in the city of L.A., including Mayor Karen Bass, but none responded by the time of publication.

Thousands of calls; limited resources

Southern California experienced historic rainfall in late December — Christmas Eve and Christmas Day were the wettest on record — followed by more rain in early January.

During that time, the 211 hotline received 12,784 calls for assistance, Dueñez Velazquez said. But it didn’t have enough staff to handle them all.

The hotline had funding for 17 agents, working around the clock, who were able to field about three quarters of those calls. The rest disconnected before reaching an agent. Ideally, the hotline needs nearly 60 agents to handle the call load, according to 211 LA estimates.

Officials said they can boost staffing during emergencies by paying staff overtime. During the recent storms, 211 LA added about 58 hours of overtime, officials said.

Fewer staff can mean people wait longer to get connected to an agent for assistance. The average wait time for people calling during the storms was a little under eight minutes.

The longest wait time happened on Dec. 23, a day before Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in L.A. and five other counties because of the weather. Some 211 callers waited two hours to reach an agent.

Long wait times are not new to 211. In February 2024, as an atmospheric river was pummeling the region, LAist called the hotline and waited three hours and 30 minutes before reaching an agent. That was a little longer than the average wait for most callers that day, officials said at the time.

Officials from 211 LA have communicated those challenges in multiple after-action reports, most recently in June 2025. The reports highlight strained capacity, extensive wait times, frustrated callers and delayed funding.

Dueñez Velazquez said 211 LA has the ability to respond quickly to emergency events and assist people in need, it just needs the resources and budget to support the work. On a typical day, the hotline is “able to handle the call volume,” she said, but callers’ needs fluctuate with the weather.

Resources can run out quickly, so 211 LA provides whatever assistance is available at the time of the call, Dueñez Velazquez said.

“Whether that's a motel voucher, whether that's placement in a winter shelter site or whether that's information and referral to the next possible best resource that we can connect you to,” she said. “We really are here to help.”

She added that 211 LA updates its website with information about the number of available motel vouchers so callers with access to the site can decide whether to stay on the line.

LAHSA officials said the agency's goal is to serve as many unhoused people as possible each winter, and they’re proud to have “maximized resources” during the latest emergency.

“We would welcome additional resources, but we understand there are several competing priorities,” Ahmad Chapman, LAHSA’s director of communications, told LAist.

County officials respond

L.A. County officials say they’re working to fix some of the problems facing 211.

Supervisor Hilda Solis, chair of the Board of Supervisors, told LAist her office is improving public messaging so people calling 211 get the most up-to-date information on how many vouchers and other emergency resources are available.

“Extreme weather events highlight both the importance and the limits of motel vouchers,” Solis said. “While they are an essential emergency tool during storms, they are resource-intensive and difficult to scale quickly enough to meet the full level of need.”

Measure A, a half-cent sales tax increase passed by voters in 2024, directs funding to 211 LA to help ramp up capacity during the winter shelter season, Solis said. Cities can use their Measure A dollars to help add emergency shelters beds and motel vouchers to the overall inventory.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger told LAist the county’s new Department of Homeless Services and Housing is focused on making the most of limited resources while working with LAHSA on outreach.

“While emergency shelters are one critical tool, they are not the only option — motel vouchers and other interventions are also part of the County’s response — but all of this is constrained by fiscal realities,” Barger said. “That’s why we continue to look for ways to better coordinate, communicate, and stretch resources as effectively as possible.”

Officials with the Department of Homeless Services and Housing told LAist that more emergency shelter units were available during the winter storms, nearly half of which were allocated to 211 LA.

The department said in a statement to LAist it connects with people experiencing homelessness to make sure they’re aware of incoming storms, moves them out of areas prone to flooding and provides temporary shelter for as many as possible. Outreach teams also have their own motel vouchers to hand out, according to officials, in addition to 211 LA.

“[The department] has taken steps to support 211 in addressing an influx of callers seeking support during inclement weather, including shifting funding through LAHSA to pay for around-the-clock staffing to meet urgent needs,” the statement read.

Officials with the city of L.A. have expressed concerns about the region's storm response in the past.

Councilmember Nithya Raman has said previously that her office struggled to get people seeking shelter into temporary rooms during winter storms in 2024, and that there needed to be better lines of communication between LAHSA, 211 and the city.

Raman, chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee, and Councilmember Ysabel Jurado, vice-chair of the committee, didn’t respond to LAist’s questions about the recent storm response.

Mayor Karen Bass’ office did not respond to LAist’s request for comment.

On Wednesday, Bruce Springsteen released a protest song condemning the violence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis. The song memorializes the lives of Renee Macklin Good and Alex Pretti, who were fatally shot by federal agents this month.

"I wrote this song on Saturday, recorded it yesterday and released it to you today in response to the state terror being visited on the city of Minneapolis," The Boss wrote on social media. "It's dedicated to the people of Minneapolis, our innocent immigrant neighbors and in memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good. Stay free."

"Streets of Minneapolis" is a full-band rock and roll song, complete with an E Street Choir singalong. Springsteen's raw and raspy voice is full of indignation as he calls out "King Trump" and his "federal thugs," and promises to remember the events unfolding in the streets of Minneapolis this winter. The verses narrate the killings of Good and Pretti respectively, and underline how eyewitness videos of their deaths contradict government officials' statements.

"Their claim was self defense, sir / Just don't believe your eyes," Springsteen sings. "It's our blood and bones / And these whistles and phones / Against [Stephen] Miller and [Kristi] Noem's dirty lies."

Following the shooting of 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti on Saturday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem referred to Pretti's actions as "domestic terrorism," saying he "brandished" a gun and "attacked" officers. Noem used similar language to describe Renee Macklin Good's behavior shortly before she was shot by an officer. A preliminary government review of Pretti's case diverts from Noem's initial statements, instead claiming that Pretti resisted arrest before being shot by two Customs and Border Protection officers.

The release of "Streets of Minneapolis" follows public comments made by Springsteen regarding the ongoing protests. During an appearance at the Light of Day festival in New Jersey earlier this month, he dedicated his performance of "The Promised Land" to Renee Macklin Good, and echoed sentiments expressed by Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey that "ICE should get the f*** out of Minneapolis."

Springsteen, who has written politically-driven music for decades, has heavily criticized President Trump's policies since he was first elected to office in 2016. Last spring, he released the live EP Land of Hope & Dreams, which included on-stage comments from a show in England calling out the "corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous administration."

Copyright 2026 NPR

President Donald Trump's unprecedented use of the National Guard could cost $1.1 billion this year if domestic deployments remain in place, according to data released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

During his second term, Trump sent troops to six Democratic-led cities in an effort to suppress protests, tackle crime or protect federal buildings and personnel. Half of those mobilizations ended this month, namely in Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland, Ore. But the continued military presence in Washington, D.C., Memphis and New Orleans, along with 200 members of the Texas National Guard still on standby, is expected to carry a steep cost.

On Wednesday, the CBO said that at current levels, these deployments will require an additional $93 million per month. The operation in D.C. alone, which currently includes over 2,690 Guard members, is projected to reach upwards of $660 million this year if it runs through December as expected by the CBO.

The CBO's findings were issued in response to 11 U.S. senators — led by Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon — who, back in October, urged the budget office to conduct an independent probe into deployment costs.

"It's a massive use of national treasure that should be going into healthcare, housing and education," Merkley told NPR on Wednesday.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

For months, the Trump administration has offered little information about the price tag associated with the Guard operations. The CBO's findings on Wednesday come as Trump's use of National Guard troops has already faced legal scrutiny in the courts and sparked serious conversations about soldiers' morale.

In 2025, $496 million spent on domestic deployments 

Trump first deployed the Guard in June to Los Angeles in response to protests over immigration raids. In the months that followed, the president ordered troops to D.C. and Memphis, arguing that they were needed to crack down on crime. Guard forces were also mobilized to Chicago and Portland, Ore., after the administration said they were needed to protect federal buildings and personnel, though they were blocked by federal courts from conducting operations. Most recently, at the end of December, troops arrived in New Orleans after Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry requested federal assistance to improve public safety.

According to the CBO, these mobilizations cost about $496 million in 2025. That total includes:

• $193 million in Los Angeles 
• $223 million in D.C.
• $33 million in Memphis
• $26 million in Portland, Ore.
• $21 million in Chicago

The cost for a single service member — which includes pay, health care, lodging, food and transportation — ranges from $311 to $607 per day, the budget office said.

At large, the nation's defense budget will surpass $1 trillion for the first time in U.S. history as a result of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But Gabe Murphy, a policy analyst from the nonpartisan budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the deployments' multimillion-dollar price tag shouldn't be overlooked.

" No one wants to see their tax dollars wasted," he said.

Murphy argued that using federalized Guard members to tackle crime, like in D.C. and Memphis, is not cost-effective since they are not allowed to conduct actual law enforcement duties, such as performing arrests or searches. He added that deploying the Guard is not a long-term solution to reducing crime.

"It would be far more cost effective to invest in local law enforcement," he said.

Trump has repeatedly defended the use of troops, asserting that cities with a Guard presence have become safer.

"Can't imagine why governors wouldn't want us to help," Trump said at a press conference on Jan. 3.

If Trump orders more deployments, it could cost up to $21 million per 1,000 soldiers

Earlier this month, the Trump administration withdrew the Guard from California, Oregon and Illinois after the Supreme Court refused to allow troops into Chicago, at least for the time being.

Despite the setback, Trump has continued to suggest using military force domestically. Most recently, he threatened to activate troops via the Insurrection Act to quell protests in Minneapolis following the shooting of Renee Macklin Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

To support additional Guard deployments, the CBO estimates that it could cost between $18 million and $21 million for every additional 1,000 soldiers.

Lindsay Koshgarian, the program director of the National Priorities Project who has been tracking deployment costs, worries that at some point, these expenses will affect funding for other important military priorities. The NPP is a research group within the progressive think tank, the Institute for Policy Studies.

A cautionary tale comes from 2021. After some 25,000 Guard forces were sent to D.C. in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, the Army National Guard warned that the money used for that deployment had diverted funds away from military training and readiness. Congress later approved $521 million to reimburse the Guard.

"At some point, this is going to either take away from other things that people want and need or it's probably going to have to be funded with additional money," she said.
Copyright 2026 NPR