It’s time to move on. Huntington Beach continues to lose its battle with the state of California over housing mandates. My fellow veteran and Huntington Beach resident, Russ Neal, made several claims in his opinion article, “Huntington Beach is Standing Up for You,” that aren’t grounded in the economic and social realities of California in 2025. As the journalist H.L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Russ’ argument may sound appealing, but it crumbles under even modest scrutiny. He draws a hyperbolic equivalence between the Soviet Politburo and the RHNA housing plan, which I find disappointing. There are no billboards of Marx and Engels on the 405, and no one’s singing The Internationale at Caltrans meetings. The RHNA plan isn’t collectivism; it’s capitalism clearing its regulatory throat. Market forces continue to drive private-sector developers to build housing in California.
The housing crisis and affordability issues stem from the cumulative effects of decades of collective municipal zoning policies across our great State that have interfered with free markets by inhibiting capital flows to meet consumer demand. The State is not forcing developers to build, nor does the State own the means of production. California has reduced local barriers (regulations) for developers to meet market demand and break local path dependence.
Russ implies that state housing mandates are responsible for the continuing housing crisis because construction numbers remain flat. However, construction rates are driven by interest rates, land availability, supply chains, and local regulations, all of which affect affordability. As California’s population continues to grow, the structural limitations imposed by decades of local zoning make higher-density development not just advisable but necessary. RHNA, SB 9, and SB 35 are all reactions to local path dependence that has developed over the past five decades.
Zoning and Path Dependence
Path dependence is the concept that an organization’s choices as it develops will limit its future flexibility. The central requirement for new home development is the availability of land. Nearly all land developed in California between 1955 and 1980 was subdivided for single-family detached homes over multifamily units, primarily due to local zoning laws. Economies developed around these communities, but rigid zoning locks them into a housing model that is mismatched to today’s needs. Over time, these collective municipal policy decisions have reduced the total housing stock and the range of housing options available to consumers. As demographics and population size changed, a divergence emerged between housing availability and consumer needs. This path dependence is no accident. It is a result of postwar zoning laws that reshaped California communities and land use.
Scarcity by Design: Land Availability and Regulation
Housing supply is currently limited within the local economy, resulting in higher prices. This is beneficial for long-term homeowners but detrimental for new families. Currently, Huntington Beach has no significant greenfield land remaining, as it is more than 85% built out. All that remains is infill development and redevelopment.
Home values tend to be responsive to supply and demand, and prices typically decrease because increased supply satisfies more of the existing demand. In a thought experiment, if we assume that Huntington Beach had an economy detached from the rest of California, for middle-class (median-income) earners to afford a home there, developers would need to build approximately 16,000 single-family homes. This solution faces a prohibitive barrier: there is not sufficient land available. Huntington Beach is part of the California economy, and addressing housing supply and affordability requires a statewide effort in which the city has a duty to participate. The path-dependent zoning decisions now narrow the city’s set of viable housing solutions.
Social Structure and Technology
When land becomes severely limited or unavailable, the mix of housing is critical, as single-family homes designed for a family of four or five are now occupied by one or two. This dynamic challenges local tax revenue, as the vast majority of these homes are assessed at rates well below their current market value, creating path dependence in local revenues.
Medical advances and other technologies have had a positive impact on the independence and health of Californians as we age. This means more seniors can “age out” in their homes. In 1970, the percentage of seniors (65+) residing in single-family homes in Huntington Beach was approximately 7%; it is currently approximately 19%. In 1970, the percentage of seniors statewide living in single-family homes was approximately 15%; it is now about 25%.
For some seniors, this is not a choice: about one-third of Californians 55 and older have no retirement savings or pension assets. If comfortable, low-maintenance condominiums or apartments were more readily available, many might choose to downsize and use the proceeds for a more cash-secure retirement, particularly as independent living becomes more challenging. This would create more inventory of limited single-family homes for young families. What stands in the way of entrepreneurs solving this problem in Huntington Beach and California is not state-level tyranny but municipal zoning overregulation. The builder’s remedy is the state’s solution to remove local NIMBY bureaucratic barriers that prevent free markets from filling housing needs.
Property Rights, Public Health, and the Limits of Zoning
Fundamental to American culture and law is the Enlightenment idea that all individuals have a right to own private property. This includes the right to own the means of production, land, and homes. And to dispose of one’s property in any way one chooses. Clearly, no rights in our society are absolute. The 100-year period between 1870 and 1970 saw a massive shift from agrarian production to industrialization, which both improved the lives of humanity and also created serious health issues for those living near factories. The Great Smog of London and Love Canal remind us that zoning must balance private rights with public health. However, there is a dark side to zoning.
California has a well-documented history of socio-economic exclusion through zoning laws. The first example was in Berkeley in 1916, when zoning became a tool of social engineering. What started as economic sorting quickly evolved into ethnic and racial exclusion. It was used to prevent the construction of apartment boarding houses and other forms of working-class housing in middle-class neighborhoods. By zoning for single-family homes, the city effectively discriminated against Italian, Irish, Chinese, and Japanese Americans who had been forced into overcrowded, ramshackle housing by economic exclusion. This is one of the first examples of how single-family zoning and growth controls to protect the community’s “character” have historically served to put a neutral face on policies that clearly target those perceived as “other.” The Courts have clearly stated that the effect of zoning laws may, in fact, be discriminatory, provided they are facially neutral and lack a proven intent to discriminate. When we hear the dog whistle “high-density housing,” we should all be clear about what it has historically meant and how it fits into the current narrative.
The uncomfortable reality about zoning is that, as a historically exclusionary social-engineering tool, it has created the housing crisis and the path dependence we now face. Huntington Beach alone cannot fix California’s housing crisis. The solution requires action by all city governments. The State of California is the only institution capable of providing a strategic vision and coordinating the solution. However, it has adopted a bottom-up planning model in which cities develop their own housing strategies, with top-down review and coordination, thereby allowing municipalities to determine the best way to address their share of housing need.
RHNA Plan Supports Those Serving Our Community
Russ omits some crucial facts about the income-level requirements in the RHNA’s housing mandate. I believe it is essential to clarify what the income level translates to in practice. When RHNA says build 3,661 units for very-low-income workers, it’s talking about the food server at Old World and Mama’s, the retail salesperson at Jack’s Surfboards, the Junior Library Assistant at our Central Library, and 1 in 10 seniors. When it says build 2,184 units for low-income workers, it’s talking about the Chef running the kitchen at Capone’s, the skilled carpenter remodeling your kitchen, the middle school teacher at Dwyer, and the firefighter at the station across from Edison High School. When it says “build 2,308 units for moderate-income workers,” it refers to the police officer keeping you safe while you sleep at night and the nurse working the midnight shift in the emergency room.
The RHNA mandate says the people who work and serve your community should be able to live there as well. We can preserve Huntington Beach’s coastal charm and low-density aesthetic while meeting the needs of the people who sustain it. However, it requires accepting the current realities and actively participating in the planning process. As it stands, we are abdicating our opportunity to shape our city’s future by engaging in an expensive and futile court battle with the state. Rather than spend millions fighting the RHNA in court, Huntington Beach should focus those resources on public-private partnerships, zoning updates, and creative infill development that reflect both our community values and our duty to shape, not stall, our future.
Erick M. Armelin is a retired U.S. Marine Corps Major and “Mustang” officer who served more than 27 years, including deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, he worked alongside the British Army’s 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery as a Fire Power Control Team Leader and liaison officer, coordinating fire support and terminal control of aircraft.
After retiring from the Marine Corps in 2016, he earned his Master of Business Administration and went on to found a software company focused on automating business processes. Erick has lived in Huntington Beach for over 46 years and has proudly raised his family there.
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.
For a different view on this issue, consider: