In the past 30 years, california’s housing prices have steadily outpaced its residents’ incomes. Housing production hasn’t kept up with job and household growth within the state. the location and type of new housing does not meet the needs of many new california households. As a result, only one in five households can afford a typical home, overcrowding doubled in the 1990’s, and more than three million california households pay more than they can afford for their housing. meanwhile, the federal government has dramatically cut back programs that used to help local governments accommodate new growth. Voter imposed property tax and spending freezes have further constrained local governments from responding effectively to new growth. And affordable housing development, while still funded in part by the federal government, requires a larger local commitment than ever before.

Against this backdrop, it should surprise no one that many communities no longer accept population growth with open arms. When anyone proposes the development of affordable or multifamily housing, ambivalence about growth often shifts to hostility. Hostility feeds and strengthens certain myths, and deep emotional perceptions of how the world works. Myths— important sources of meaning in all societies—provide shared rationales for community members to behave in common ways, having a strong moral component, with clear lines between right and wrong. Although myths are sometimes positive, they can also serve as shields for deeper and uglier motivations: racism, fear of outsiders, and/or greed. When people argue against new high-density and affordable housing, often myths are used to convince decision-makers that the new development and its residents don’t belong there. Traffic will be too heavy; schools will become overcrowded; buildings will clash with existing neighborhoods; people won’t fit in; and maybe even a criminal element.