Профиль

Housing policy is rarely simple. But if we want more Californians to have a shot at owning a home, we have to be willing to modernize laws that are no longer producing the outcomes they were intended to achieve. That's the work we're continuing on AB 1903. voiceofsandiego.org/2026/07/10/s...

Sacramento Report: Trying to Buy a Condo? One Bill Aims to Give Market a BoostMeanwhile, lawmakers kill a separate effort meant to increase California’s condo supply.voiceofsandiego.org

We also know this won’t solve the whole problem around creating homeownership housing. For example, there are still issues around deposits and subdivisions to address. But industry experts say reforming the construction defect liability process is the biggest change we can make.

To get the balance right, we still have more work to do. Once we incorporate amendments from Senate Judiciary (expected to be in print Aug. 3),we still need to revise the standards for defects to be fair to good builders while making sure health and safety issues are fully protected.

Importantly, AB 1903 isn't about protecting bad builders. Homeowners deserve safe homes and meaningful accountability when something goes wrong. Consumers should not be on the hook for shoddy work. Bad developers should be held accountable.

AB 1903 aims to restore the original balance. The goal is straightforward: ✅ Make it easier to identify legitimate defects ✅ Improve transparency in the claims process ✅ Create a true "right to repair" ✅ Create more certainty so builders are willing to build condos again

That means fewer attainable homeownership opportunities for teachers, nurses, young families, first-time buyers, and older Californians looking to downsize while staying in their communities. www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/open...

California bureaucracy locks young people out of home ownership. Here’s the fixOPINION: California once built tens of thousands of new condos per year. Today, it builds closer to 3,000. One law is to blame, Oisín Heneghan writes.www.sfchronicle.com

The result? A complete lose-lose where homeowners don’t get timely fixes for real defects, and because builders lose money on their existing condo projects, they refuse to build new ones.

Additionally, - Claims often lack enough detail to quickly identify and fix problems. - Builders can still be sued even after making repairs. - Homeowners can spend years waiting for litigation instead of getting repairs.

Under today’s system, builders have to pay HOAs and their lawyers for things that “might” cause problems in the future. This flies in the face of every other aspect of law, where plaintiffs can’t get damages unless there is actual damage.

Why? The law was originally intended to encourage builders to fix problems before anyone ended up in court. Instead, over time, it's become a system that often rewards litigation over repair.

But over the last two decades, condo construction has fallen off a cliff. When California's current construction defect law took effect in 2003, condos made up about 27% of new housing in major metro areas. Today, it's less than 5%.

Condos are one of the most affordable paths into homeownership. They're typically 20–30% less expensive than single-family homes and allow people to own a home close to jobs, transit, and the communities where they already live.

The issue that brought me into this fight in the first place hasn't gone away. California still needs to build more housing. That's where I'll keep focusing my energy: on fighting for solutions that strengthen our communities instead of forcing us into impossible choices.

That's why I'm opposing “my own” measure. The emergency that led to its creation is over. Now, voters have the final say. I'm asking them to vote NO on ACA 22.

But here's the important part: Just because ACA 22 got the more dangerous measure off the ballot *doesn't* mean ACA 22 should pass on the ballot. You should vote No on ACA 22.

It worked. The Taxpayer Protection Act came off the ballot. Billions in local funding, protected. The immediate crisis, averted.

I authored ACA 22 not because I wanted it to become law – but because it was the only path left to get the more dangerous initiative off the ballot before time ran out.

Politics doesn't always give you good choices. Sometimes the choice is between bad — and much worse. That's where we found ourselves.

At that point, the deadline was hours away. The clock was running out, and we had a choice to make: Leave a retroactive measure on the ballot that threatened billions in local funding, or accept a much narrower constitutional amendment that I still believed was bad policy.

Then, the deal collapsed. The people negotiating it ultimately couldn't deliver. The person who actually controlled the initiative refused to pull it. We were back to square one.