Totally agree that Prop 13 is a huge problem, it's a hugely regressive tax that seems completely out of place in a state that's supposed to be liberal or even leftist. California's liberalism is only skin deep, particularly among the wealthy, who pull their kids of out public school increasingly too.
Modern liberalism is contrary to the free market. If the market were allowed to work, you wouldn’t have a housing shortage. The housing shortage is because of liberalism, not despite it. You don’t have housing shortages in Houston. High density projects are typically opposed (in Houston) by the NPR-listening liberals inside the loop. For example, the Houston Heights, Upper Kirby District and other enclaves of very liberal, higher income people. In Katy, Texas (a Houston suburb,) if you want to build a 25 story condo development — you build it. Try the same thing inside of liberal areas of Houston, no way, they’ll fight it with all they’ve got while proudly displaying campaign signs from Democrat politicians.
Democrats, in my experience, are very anti-development, using hot-button words like “environment” or “historic preservation” as tools to support their NIMBYism.
I was at a restaurant in Cupertino last week and overheard some gents talking about a proposed new housing project in San Francisco and they said that the meeting consisted of people making arguments like, “but this project would anger Mother Earth.” Apparently, there is a Druid constituency with whom the Bay Area has to contend.
This isn’t an indictment of “liberalism” — merely an observation that rich liberals can be the worst sort. The vast majority of Silicon Valley are self-styled liberals, without a conservative within 100 miles, yet despite the name, the folks in charge are about as regressive as they come.
This is a large topic change from Prop 13 being a very conservative policy, and not liberal or leftist, but I'd like to challenge it a bit.
As far as liberals being contrary to markets, I disagree 100%. In most parts of the world "liberal" means using market based approaches to solving problems. The neo-liberals are extremely pro-market, and though I'm not one, that's definitely a thing.
There are some leftists who are anti-markets, just as there are lots of rightists that are anti-markets. NIMBYism crosses both liberal and conservative, and is mostly homeowners. Homeowners in California are highly enriched for conservatives.
Being anti-housing is something that has crossed party lines in California and it's not terribly useful to analyze it in the terms of national politics. Remember that California was the home of both Nixon and Reagan, and their policies have had long lasting effects on the state, so it's not a strictly liberal place.
Prop 13 which is decidedly against liberal values (basically a Grover Norquist anti-tax by any means possible policy), and that's the particular policy that the original poster was talking about. I don't think it's the biggest impediment, though it may be a small one for motivating people, IMHO.
This report from 2015:
http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing...
has a section titled "Why DO Coastal Areas Not Build Enough Housing?"
* Community Resistance to New Housing.
* Environmental Reviews Can Be Used to Stop or Limit Housing Development.
* Local Finance Structure Favors Nonresidential Development.
* Limited Vacant Developable Land.
And Prop 13 feeds into the third in a huge way, and a bit into the first.