In many California communities residents are angry over the high-density multifamily housing that legislation is forcing into single family neighborhoods and feel that their elected representatives have failed them.

California does need to build more housing – particularly that which is affordable. One of the problems is that there is a shortage of available land.

Currently 47.5% of California land is protected through a variety of mechanisms – public lands, conservation easements, local ordinances, etc. This is one of the highest percentages in the US for open space preservation.

Yet the 47.5% does not include the additional 2,350 square miles of land conserved in the past five years under the 30x30 goal of which California has been a leader. This includes the expansion of state parks, the creation of new wildlife refuges, and the acquisition of private lands for public use. In the future the 47.5% figure will continue to be increased and eventually be revised upward.

Certainly we all want to ensure that our beautiful local, state, and national parks are protected as well as particular land parcels throughout the state. Not every piece of land should be developed.

However, not every piece of land should be excused for use by automatically invoking “biodiversity” or “climate resilience” either. For thousands of years land has been “recycled” either through natural and geological means, or human use.

Policies have consequences and are about making choices and understanding the tradeoffs. California has decided that eventually most of its land will be unavailable for any use other than for limited recreational purposes and that, unless extremely wealthy, residents will live in high density buildings.