One of the most promising political developments of 2025 has been the increasing prominence of the “Abundance” Movement. Primarily inspired by the incredible dysfunction of many California cities, the movement has tried to mobilize political energy behind building more housing and good governance reforms. Abundance has proven popular among both pundits and a growing bipartisan caucus in Washington.
Despite this extensive national conversation, Los Angeles elected officials fail to recognize that the city has become a cautionary tale. Last month, LA’s city council voted 8-5 to oppose one of the most prominent pieces of “abundance” legislation in 2025, SB 79, a measure that would make it easier to build more housing around transit stops across California. They did this because, in the words of Traci Park, Los Angeles has already “done the work to responsibly address housing.” Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky asserted that LA has done an excellent job at using “targeted, context-sensitive local planning tools.” Mayor Karen Bass tweeted her opposition, due to her concern that making it easier to build housing around transit may have “unintended consequences.”
Residents should be very skeptical of the notion that the city council has responsibly worked on housing. Homes are 2.7 times as expensive as they were in 2012, while wages are only 1.34 times higher. The city is losing more naturally affordable housing than it produces every year, and over 40,000 Angelenos sleep on the street every night. Los Angeles does not have the luxury of only embracing “targeted” reforms: the city needs all the housing reform it can get.
Mayor Bass is right that SB 79 will have an impact on the city; what she is wrong about is the nature of that impact being incredibly positive. Increasing housing density around transit stops is the only way Los Angeles will see a positive return on the hundreds of billions it is spending on new train lines. Currently, the region has seen ridership numbers decline to a fraction of those in 2013, as the limited housing around transit has rapidly increased in price. Building more housing within walking distance of transit stops is a proven strategy to increase ridership. Transit is a service that improves as more people ride, as more ridership allows for more frequent service, which can then induce even more riders.
However, even more pressing, analysts have pointed out that allowing housing around transit to be redeveloped would be a simple solution to LA’s deep budget crisis, which is so severe that they recently requested a $2 billion bailout from the state of California. Los Angeles has been struggling for years to control the upward march of costs, especially liability payments, before catastrophic wildfires in January tipped the city over the edge. Under Post-Prop 13 tax rules in California, low-density single-family homes create far less tax revenue than higher-density housing. Low-density homes are both less valuable structures and have land assessed at rates far below market, because owners stay in California’s single-family homes on average five years longer than condos. If all low-density parcels around transit were redeveloped, property tax revenues would increase by about $1 billion, precisely matching 2025’s deficit.
The idea of upzoning around transit is not new: Advocates have been calling for these reforms for years. Consider that in 2017, the planning department crafted a new program to facilitate building housing around transit, but chose to exclude low-density neighborhoods explicitly. State lawmakers considered upzoning around transit in 2018 and 2019 to fix this omission, but in both cases, LA’s city council voted to oppose the bills.
As recently as 2024, when the city crafted a new citywide rezoning program to comply with state housing targets, the city council again directed the city planning department to exclude single-family neighborhoods around transit stops. Even when experts argued these exclusions would lead the city to fall short of state-mandated housing goals, the city council saw 10 out of 15 members vote down upzoning low-density neighborhoods around transit. Those same city council members now have the gall to consider this work “leading on housing.”
SB 79 even allows Los Angeles to maintain local control, as recent amendments give the city the power to exempt areas it has already included in its transit-oriented development program. All SB 79 requires LA to do is to take the common-sense step of expanding transit-oriented development to all neighborhoods adjacent to transit, something the city has steadfastly refused to do.
One can only conclude that elected officials in the city of Los Angeles have decided to embrace scarcity instead of building more housing. They would rather cut public safety, refuse to fix residents’ streets, and watch thousands languish on the streets than take simple steps toward abundance.
Einstein reportedly quipped that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. By this maxim, it would be utterly ridiculous to continue to give deference to the elected officials of Los Angeles. California lawmakers should ignore the city’s complaints and prioritize the best interests of Los Angeles residents. And that almost certainly means ignoring the complaints of Los Angeles elected officials and passing SB 79.
Thomas Irwin is an economic development professional for a non-profit in Los Angeles, and a housing organizer with the Faith and Housing Coalition and Eastside Housing for All. You can find more of his writing at The Pontification on Substack.com.