Yesterday’s LA Times article highlighted a stark and increasingly important contrast between San Diego and Los Angeles when it comes to housing production. The data is hard to ignore: San Diego is building apartments at nearly twice the pace of Los Angeles, while LA’s new construction is down more than 30% over the last three years. The article made the case for why many builders, developers, and investors have quietly packed up their spreadsheets and left Los Angeles behind. And why wouldn’t they? Discretionary approvals, layered regulations, rent control expansions, and the mansion tax in LA – why would you stay?
Los Angeles has perfected the art of looking compassionate on camera while structurally ensuring that almost nothing new gets built. Endless discretionary approvals. An outdated General Plan. Ever-tightening rent control. The mansion tax. Eviction rules that scare capital away faster than a wildfire evacuation order. Each policy may sound noble in isolation. Together, they function like a neon sign: “Do Not Build Here”.
And yet, somehow, leadership still seems shocked when… builders stop building.
San Diego, on the other hand, does something radical: it tells you what it wants, updates its Community Plans, and—here’s the shocking part—lets compliant projects move forward. No moral grandstanding. No surprise political ambushes at the eleventh hour. Just a process that, while still imperfect, respects reality.
Does that make San Diego “anti-renter” or “pro-developer”? No. It makes it pro-math. Rents in San Diego are flat without rent control, just more supply.
But, even with all of San Diego’s progress, we are still failing a huge group of people: middle-class families who want actual homes.
Not micro-units, not studios where the showers convert into beds table due to lack of space. Not “luxury” apartments where luxury means stainless steel appliances and a Peloton no one uses.
I’m talking about homes with backyards, garages for your junk, enough bedrooms for real families, and space for kids to play outside instead of sitting on their iPhones indoors.
Apartments and ADUs absolutely serve a purpose—and credit where it’s due, San Diego has done more than most cities in California to allow them. But let’s be honest: they are a band-aid, not a long-term cure. The real challenge ahead isn’t just “more housing.” It’s the right mix of housing.
What works for transient renters often doesn’t work for families trying to plant roots, raise children, and stay in one community for generations. A city made entirely of rental units is not a city that builds long-term civic stability—it’s a holding pattern. And that’s the uncomfortable truth neither side of the political aisle likes to say out loud.
Los Angeles refuses to build anything meaningful.
San Diego builds—but still not enough of the right things.
San Diego is closer.
Los Angeles is still arguing with itself.
If LA is an example of what happens when ideology replaces planning, San Diego is proof that competent policy matters—but also a reminder that we haven’t finished the job.
Progress isn’t banning construction.
Progress isn’t weaponizing regulations.
Progress is creating places where people can actually build lives.
And California families are stuck in the middle, waiting for someone in charge to notice that apartments alone don’t build communities. Until California cities stop treating families who want homes like an inconvenience—and builders like the enemy—we’ll keep cycling through the same crises, just with different slogans.
Alex Lisnevsky