Considering all the criticisms of California’s housing creation process, one might think that statewide production of new places to live is abysmal.
It might surprise you that my trusty spreadsheet found otherwise.
It looked at the Census Bureau’s housing permits data — documents typically filed by developers just before construction starts — comparing figures for the 50 states and the District of Columbia along with demographic and economic data from the past decade.
Let’s start with California builders having 1.1 million permits approved to build residential units – both for ownership and renting – between 2016 and 2025. That’s the third-highest total among the states. Yes, third-highest in the nation.
Those construction plans were 8% of 14.2 million permits approved nationally and trailed only the Golden State’s economic archrivals: Texas at 2.1 million and Florida at 1.6 million.
Perhaps all the nudging for California to build better is working.
The past 10 years saw a 44% increase in permits over the previous 10 years. That period was marked by a building boom fueled by easy-to-get mortgages, followed by a market crash and the Great Recession.
California’s percentage gain in permits ranked 19th fastest among states and was just below the nation’s 45% growth.
Yes, California has upped its home construction game – at a pace on par with the nation.
It’s not the top-performing growth seen in Florida (97%), Idaho (93%), and Utah (87%). Nor was it Texas-sized growth, up 53%, ranked No. 12.
But permits fell in six states, led by North Dakota (down 39%), Illinois (down 12%), and Hawaii (down 11%).
Proper perspective
Now, some might argue that California’s recent building pace does not match its hefty status as the nation’s most populous state with 39 million residents.
California permits issued in the past decade were equal to 2.8% of the state’s population. That’s the 13th-lowest level among states and one-third of the nation’s 4.3%.
The nation’s best permitting was found in Idaho at 8.8% of its population, Utah at 8.5%, and South Carolina at 7.8%. The slowest permitting? Rhode Island at 1.2% of its population, Connecticut at 1.5%, and Illinois at 1.6%.
And the rivals? Texas at 7.1% ranked No. 7, while Florida’s 7.5% was No. 4.
Conversely, others might think the pace of construction should mirror population swings.
Remember, California added just 451,000 people in the past decade, or just 1% growth.
When comparing construction plans with new resident counts, you see that California had 2.4 permits per new resident. That’s the fourth-highest rate among the states and well above the national norm of 0.7 per person.
The rivals? The 0.5 permits per new Texan ranked No. 40. Florida’s 0.51 permits per new resident ranked 39th.
What’s it worth?
So what can a Californian say they got from the past decade’s worth of permitting, no matter how one grades the pace?
Home prices and rents did jump – but those leaps were below national surges.
For starters, consider a federal home-price index showing that over the past 10 years, California home values rose 86%.
While that’s painful for house hunters, note that the surge was the 18th-smallest among states and trailed the 93% jump nationally.
Gains ran as high as 161% in Idaho, 135% in Florida, and 130% in Utah. Texas, up 97%, was No. 20.
The smallest home-price increases were in Louisiana (up 43%), the District of Columbia (up 44%), and North Dakota (up 49%).
Next, think about renters. Data from ApartmentList for the nine years ending in 2026’s first quarter shows California tenants paying 25% more to their landlords.
Consider that, by this math, only nine states had smaller rent hikes. Also, the Golden State’s increase was below the 35% national gain.
The biggest rent surges were in Delaware, New Mexico and Idaho at 61%.
Smallest? The District of Columbia at 4%, Louisiana at 12%, and Oregon at 15%.
And California’s rivals? Texas’ 16% increase was the fifth-smallest, while Florida, up 39%, was the 18th highest.
Bottom line
The Golden State remains a very, very pricey place to live.
Consider a federal housing-cost index showing that a Californian’s expenses for the roof over their head was 54% higher than what a typical American spent in 2024, the latest available stats. Only the District of Columbia, at 55%, was worse.
Just so you know, the U.S. housing bargains are in Mississippi (44% below the U.S. average), Arkansas (42% below), and Alabama (38% below).
In Texas, housing costs were 3% below average, ranking 20th, while Florida housing was 22% pricier than the U.S. norm, the ninth-highest.
But don’t overlook that California’s construction efforts have modestly mitigated the pain in the wallet.
According to this housing-cost yardstick, Californians paid, on average, 61% more than the typical American over the last 10 years.
So, Golden Staters paying 54% extra for housing in 2024 – as harsh as that is to a household’s budget – represents a 7-percentage-point improvement compared to what Californians have been used to.
Only four states did better: Hawaii, Alaska, Wyoming and New York.
Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com