Gavin Newsom

But what you identify, I completely embrace. These labyrinths of rules, federal rules, state rules, absolutely. Localism, though, and I want to talk about that. Localism is determinative. And you pick on, understandably, San Francisco. But you can look at almost any city, including a Republican-held city like Huntington Beach. And the same...

rules and restrictions apply there in the same frustrations. So from the prism of left versus right, you take the shot against liberals, But can't we argue that there is sort of quality of consideration, nimbyism that persists in rural and red parts of the country as well?

rules and restrictions apply there in the same frustrations. So from the prism of left versus right, you take the shot against liberals, But can't we argue that there is sort of quality of consideration, nimbyism that persists in rural and red parts of the country as well?

rules and restrictions apply there in the same frustrations. So from the prism of left versus right, you take the shot against liberals, But can't we argue that there is sort of quality of consideration, nimbyism that persists in rural and red parts of the country as well?

They have, well, you established that in the book. In Houston, you make the point, I think it was 70,000 permits in 2023, just 7,500 in a much smaller city, San Francisco, but understandable contract. But a city with more demand. More demand, and it's simply because they have no zoning. They have land use considerations in Houston. But Austin has zoning.

They have, well, you established that in the book. In Houston, you make the point, I think it was 70,000 permits in 2023, just 7,500 in a much smaller city, San Francisco, but understandable contract. But a city with more demand. More demand, and it's simply because they have no zoning. They have land use considerations in Houston. But Austin has zoning.

They have, well, you established that in the book. In Houston, you make the point, I think it was 70,000 permits in 2023, just 7,500 in a much smaller city, San Francisco, but understandable contract. But a city with more demand. More demand, and it's simply because they have no zoning. They have land use considerations in Houston. But Austin has zoning.

Yeah, but not Houston in the context of that frame.

Yeah, but not Houston in the context of that frame.

Yeah, but not Houston in the context of that frame.

And your point is a point, just to level set people listening, I completely agree. This notion of the supply-demand imbalance. I mean, you're making an econ 101 argument. And that supply imbalance is next level in the state of California. We're simply not building enough housing.

And your point is a point, just to level set people listening, I completely agree. This notion of the supply-demand imbalance. I mean, you're making an econ 101 argument. And that supply imbalance is next level in the state of California. We're simply not building enough housing.

And your point is a point, just to level set people listening, I completely agree. This notion of the supply-demand imbalance. I mean, you're making an econ 101 argument. And that supply imbalance is next level in the state of California. We're simply not building enough housing.

And that goes to, I mean, and you correctly identify nimbyism and people, you know, incumbent protection racket, so to speak, not just from a corporate perspective, but someone who's very satisfied with their backyard and their views and their home and their community. They don't want density. They don't want other people moving in. They don't want any infrastructure built around it.

And that goes to, I mean, and you correctly identify nimbyism and people, you know, incumbent protection racket, so to speak, not just from a corporate perspective, but someone who's very satisfied with their backyard and their views and their home and their community. They don't want density. They don't want other people moving in. They don't want any infrastructure built around it.

And that goes to, I mean, and you correctly identify nimbyism and people, you know, incumbent protection racket, so to speak, not just from a corporate perspective, but someone who's very satisfied with their backyard and their views and their home and their community. They don't want density. They don't want other people moving in. They don't want any infrastructure built around it.

As it relates to transportation, they're very satisfied with what they have. And I think, and they abuse in some respects, a lot of these rules that have been around decades and decades to advance that aim.

As it relates to transportation, they're very satisfied with what they have. And I think, and they abuse in some respects, a lot of these rules that have been around decades and decades to advance that aim.

As it relates to transportation, they're very satisfied with what they have. And I think, and they abuse in some respects, a lot of these rules that have been around decades and decades to advance that aim.

We said, well, we had an audacious goal that was a study of studies. that identified what the state would need in order to address the supply, demand, and balance. But we made the point we were going through a legally binding process, what we refer to as ARENA goals. And we've established that here is the legally binding goal, 2.5 million units by 2030. And that is the established state policy.