In the first article of this series, we examined Greenville County’s interest in development concurrency  and the broader question facing the Upstate: how to manage growth responsibly while preserving affordability and opportunity. The principle behind concurrency—aligning development with infrastructure—is understandable and often reasonable. But the experience of other regions shows that growth-management policies can produce unintended consequences if they are not carefully designed.

Few places illustrate those consequences more clearly than California. Over several decades, a combination of well-intentioned policies, regulatory complexity, and housing supply constraints contributed to one of the most severe housing affordability crises in the United States. The result has been extraordinarily high housing costs and rising homelessness across many parts of the state.

California’s experience should not be reduced to political slogans or oversimplified explanations. It is a complex story involving many variables: economic success, population growth, environmental regulation, local governance structures, and market dynamics. But the core lesson is unmistakable. When housing supply fails to keep pace with demand—and when policy systems make it difficult to build new housing—the cost of living rises dramatically, and the consequences eventually reach the most vulnerable residents.

For rapidly growing regions like the Upstate of South Carolina, California’s experience offers a cautionary case. The purpose of examining it is not to criticize another state, but to understand what went wrong and how similar outcomes can be avoided.
 The Housing Supply Problem At the center of California’s housing crisis is a simple imbalance: demand for housing greatly exceeded the supply of homes being built. California has one of the largest and most productive economies in the world. It hosts major technology industries, research universities, entertainment companies, and global financial networks. These industries attract workers from across the country and around the world.

Yet while employment and population grew steadily, housing construction failed to keep pace. For decades, California built far fewer homes than population growth required. As the supply of available housing tightened, prices rose rapidly.

In competitive housing markets, scarcity produces predictable results. Buyers compete for limited homes. Renters face rising rents as landlords respond to demand. Over time, the gap between incomes and housing costs widens.

What began as a supply imbalance gradually became a structural affordability crisis affecting millions of residents.

Regulatory Complexity and Approval Delays

Housing supply shortages did not occur simply because of population growth. They were compounded by the complexity of California’s development approval system.

Many housing projects must navigate multiple layers of local review, environmental analysis, public hearings, and potential litigation before construction can begin. While these processes were originally created to protect environmental resources and give communities a voice in planning decisions, they gradually became increasingly complex and time-consuming.

Developers often face approval timelines that extend for several years before construction begins. During that time, financing costs accumulate, market conditions change, and uncertainty increases.

Large development companies sometimes have the financial capacity to absorb these delays. Smaller builders and local developers often do not. As a result, the number of firms capable of producing housing shrinks, further reducing supply.

When delays become the norm rather than the exception, the housing market begins to operate under structural scarcity.
 Local Opposition and Fragmented Governance Another factor contributing to California’s housing shortage is the fragmented nature of local land-use authority.

Cities and counties hold significant control over zoning decisions and development approvals. Residents who oppose new housing projects—often referred to as “Not In My Back Yard,” or NIMBY opposition—can exert substantial influence on local decisions.

In many communities, this opposition has led to reductions in housing density, lengthy review processes, or outright rejection of projects that would add new homes.

While local concerns about neighborhood character or traffic impacts are understandable, the cumulative effect across many jurisdictions has been a substantial reduction in the amount of housing that can be built.

Because housing markets operate regionally rather than city by city, decisions made in one jurisdiction often shift demand to another without solving the overall shortage.

The Escalation of Housing Costs

As housing supply tightened across California, the economic consequences became increasingly severe.

Home prices and rents rose to levels far above the national average. In many metropolitan areas, median home prices climbed into the millions of dollars, placing homeownership far beyond the reach of many middle-income families.

Rental markets followed the same pattern. As rents increased, households with moderate incomes began spending a larger share of their earnings on housing. Many families found themselves paying more than half of their income simply to remain housed.

Young adults delayed homeownership or left the state entirely in search of affordable housing. Workers essential to local economies—teachers, police officers, healthcare workers, and service employees—often found it difficult to live near the communities they served.

Housing affordability became one of the defining public policy issues in the state.

The Connection to Homelessness

Rising housing costs do not automatically cause homelessness. Homelessness is influenced by multiple factors including mental health challenges, substance abuse, family instability, and economic hardship.

However, housing affordability plays a crucial role in determining how vulnerable individuals and families respond to those challenges.

When housing costs are relatively moderate, families experiencing temporary financial hardship may still be able to find lower-cost housing or rely on extended family arrangements. But when rents and home prices rise dramatically, the margin of safety disappears.

Households living paycheck to paycheck can be pushed out of housing by even small disruptions—a lost job, a medical emergency, or a sudden rent increase. Without affordable alternatives, some individuals eventually fall into homelessness.

In high-cost housing markets, the number of people living near that financial edge increases significantly.

This dynamic has been observed in many parts of California, where rising housing costs have been one factor contributing to visible increases in homelessness over time.

The Policy Warning Signs

California’s experience provides several warning signs that rapidly growing regions should recognize early.

First, housing supply must remain a central priority . Policies that unintentionally reduce the number of homes being built can create long-term affordability problems even if those policies were originally intended to protect communities.

Second, approval processes must remain predictable and efficient . Long delays and uncertainty discourage builders and increase costs for those who remain in the market.

Third, infrastructure policies must be paired with realistic funding strategies . Requirements that development wait for infrastructure improvements can delay housing supply if governments lack the resources to build those improvements quickly.

Fourth, growth management tools should be targeted rather than blanket restrictions . Different areas of a region have different infrastructure capacities, and policies should reflect those differences rather than applying rigid standards everywhere.

Finally, policymakers must recognize that housing affordability is not merely a statistic—it directly affects the stability of families and communities .

The Fairness Question

Another dimension of growth management often receives less attention: fairness to property owners.

Families who have owned land for generations frequently view development as the primary opportunity to realize the value of that asset. If approval processes become uncertain or restrictive, those landowners may find themselves unable to sell or develop property in a reasonable timeframe.

In some cases, policies designed to control growth can unintentionally shift economic burdens onto landowners who have maintained property for decades in anticipation of eventual development opportunities.

Fair policy must therefore consider not only the interests of current residents and future buyers, but also the rights and expectations of property owners whose land forms part of the community’s growth.

What the Upstate Can Learn

The Upstate of South Carolina stands in a very different position from California. Housing costs remain relatively moderate compared with many coastal regions, and there is still significant land available for development.

This position offers an advantage: the region has the opportunity to learn from the experiences of others before encountering similar problems.

The key lesson is that growth management should not create artificial scarcity . Policies designed to align infrastructure with development must also preserve the ability to build sufficient housing for the population that the region hopes to attract.

Regions that maintain a healthy supply of housing are far less likely to experience the affordability crises that have affected some high-cost metropolitan areas.

Looking Ahead

The purpose of examining California’s experience is not to suggest that the Upstate will inevitably face the same challenges. Rather, it highlights the importance of balancing infrastructure planning with housing supply and economic opportunity.

Growth is not the enemy of a thriving community. In many cases, growth reflects economic vitality and the attractiveness of a region to new residents and businesses.

The challenge lies in ensuring that growth occurs in a way that strengthens communities rather than placing pressure on affordability and infrastructure.

The next article in this series will turn from caution to possibility by examining a high-growth region that has taken a different approach. Austin, Texas, has experienced extraordinary population growth in recent years, yet it has pursued policies designed to expand housing supply while coordinating infrastructure and transportation planning.

Austin’s experience offers valuable lessons about how rapidly growing regions can adapt to change without sacrificing opportunity or affordability.