Now We’re Afraid of Maps
California’s housing crisis has produced some strange policy debates over the years. We’ve argued about CEQA, parking requirements, density bonuses, impact fees, design review, and almost every other obstacle to building homes.
Now, we’ve apparently reached a new low.
Some of the state’s most powerful housing industry groups are arguing that giving planners better, clearer information is somehow bad for housing.
That is the bizarre logic fueling the opposition to SB 1423.
The bill itself is remarkably modest. SB 1423 would direct the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to assemble existing statewide planning datasets into one standardized online platform. It doesn’t create new regulations. It doesn’t change zoning. It doesn’t prohibit development, nor does it force cities to use the tool. It simply pulls together information that’s already public but scattered across dozens of different agencies.
In other words, it is a basic data-management bill.
Yet, the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) and the California Apartment Association (CAA) are treating it like an existential threat. They argue the bill could confuse the public, rely on outdated information, and give NIMBYs (“Not In My Backyard” opponents) additional ammunition to kill projects.
I’ve spent more than three decades working in California land use. I’ve represented developers, environmental organizations, public agencies, and neighborhood groups. I’ve reviewed thousands of pages of planning documents and sat through countless public hearings. In all that time, I’ve never seen a project rise or fall because someone had access to better planning maps. Good projects survive good information. Bad projects don’t become better because information is harder to find.
These arguments don’t just fall apart under scrutiny—they expose a deeply troubling strategy.
The idea that housing opponents need a new state dashboard to fight projects is laughable. Anyone who has attended a single city council meeting knows that if neighbors want to oppose housing, they will find a reason. They don’t need a map to complain about traffic, neighborhood character, or shadows.
There is a profound irony in the building lobby fighting data centralization. For decades, developers have complained—rightly—about the fragmented, unpredictable nature of California’s planning process. SB 1423 actually solves a piece of that puzzle. California already maps wildfire hazards, flood risks, sea-level rise, and wildlife habitats. The problem is that this taxpayer-funded data is scattered across dozens of uncoordinated agency websites. As support letters from the Planning and Conservation League and The Nature Conservancy point out, organizing this data creates clarity, not complexity.
What the CBIA and CAA are really advocating for is a right to structural ignorance.
Their most revealing criticism is the fear that highlighting environmental hazards might discourage development on certain sites.
Of course it could. That’s the entire point of planning.
If a parcel of land is sitting in a high-risk wildfire zone, a flood plain, or a critical ecological habitat, planners and builders should know that before breaking ground. Feigning surprise after a subdivision burns down or floods is not a housing strategy; it’s a liability strategy. Better information allows governments and builders to choose smarter locations, design better mitigation, and protect future residents.
Ultimately, the building lobby’s “ignorance is bliss” approach hurts the very homebuyers they claim to champion. Recent research from UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment found that building compact housing in existing urban infill areas is ultimately significantly cheaper for homeowners than sprawling outward into the urban fringe, once you factor in the skyrocketing costs of wildfire insurance, new infrastructure, and commuting.
By fighting a clearer picture of where those risks lie, the CBIA and CAA aren’t protecting housing affordability—they are protecting the status quo of reckless sprawl.
A troubling trend has emerged in the Sacramento housing debate. Increasingly, some trade groups seem willing to dismiss any fact that complicates quick-turn production. Environmental data, infrastructure constraints, climate risks, and basic planning analysis are treated as hostile obstacles rather than reality.
But facts are not anti-housing. Maps are not anti-housing. Data is not anti-housing.
California will not solve its housing crisis by pretending the state isn’t burning or flooding. We solve it by building the right housing, in the right places, with our eyes wide open.
SB 1423 doesn’t tell anyone where they can or cannot build. It just ensures we aren’t making life-or-death land-use decisions in the dark.
That isn’t a barrier to housing. It’s just good planning.
Bob Staedler is the publisher of The Synergy Report and principal of Silicon Valley Synergy. He has more than 30 years of experience in California land use, economic development, and public policy, representing developers, environmental organizations, public agencies, and neighborhood groups.