Dave Amos delivers a crucial correction to the housing debate: accessory dwelling units cannot solve the crisis alone, yet they represent the most scalable, immediate lever available to unlock the nation's suburban lockbox. While the piece is rooted in California's legislative battlefield, its analysis of how to dismantle local obstructionism offers a masterclass in policy mechanics that applies far beyond the West Coast.
The Myth of the Empty Backyard
Amos begins by dismantling the romanticized view of the American suburb, noting that "large yards with perfectly manicured Lawns that started to be seen as wasteful" are actually holding back density. He argues that the post-war shift toward single-family exclusivity was a policy choice, not an inevitability, and that the "not in my backyard or NIMBY philosophy" has successfully throttled supply for decades. This framing is vital because it shifts the blame from abstract market forces to specific regulatory failures. The author points out that while multigenerational living is a historical constant, the legal framework has actively punished it for eighty years.
The piece highlights a critical disconnect: "when you limits apply but demand keeps growing prices increase housing cost sword putting home ownership Out Of Reach for many." Amos uses this to explain why the status quo is unsustainable. The argument gains traction when he contrasts the stagnation of the rest of the country with the explosive growth in the West. He notes that "Portland got into adus before they were cool," establishing a timeline where progressive policy preceded cultural acceptance. This historical context is often missing from modern debates that treat accessory dwelling units as a sudden trend rather than a suppressed reality.
"To stop a project you only need one red light but to make a project go you need at least 100 green lights."
This observation, attributed to housing advocate L Morante by Amos, serves as the piece's central thesis. It explains why incremental, piecemeal reforms fail; a single bureaucratic hurdle can kill a project that requires a cascade of approvals to succeed. Amos's analysis of the legislative history reveals that success came only when the state government systematically removed these barriers one by one.
The California Playbook
The core of Amos's coverage details how California transformed from a state with restrictive local codes to the "reigning queen of accessory dwelling units" through a relentless series of state-level interventions. He writes that the "legislative record on this topic is instructional," detailing how the state preempted local bans, eliminated mandatory parking requirements, and mandated "ministerial review" to bypass slow city councils. This is not just a story about housing; it is a case study in the tension between local control and state mandates.
Amos describes a "cat and mouse game where a law is passed and the local government finds a way to evade it and the State closes that loophole." This dynamic is the most valuable takeaway for readers in other states. The author explains that local governments often use their power "not to build more housing but to build less," effectively weaponizing zoning against the public interest. By forcing localities to "go out of their way to encourage new Adu Construction," the state flipped the script from passive allowance to active promotion.
Critics might note that this heavy-handed state preemption alienates local communities and ignores unique neighborhood contexts. However, Amos suggests that the alternative—leaving housing supply to local whims—has already resulted in a crisis where "many are also unable to afford any housing at all and are homeless." The data supports the urgency: between 2016 and 2022, California homeowners built over 24,000 units in a single year, a figure that dwarfs previous decades.
The Reality of Implementation
Despite the regulatory victories, Amos is careful to temper expectations about the economic impact. He writes that "the average cost of a new Adu in California is around $150,000 which is quite low in part because there are no land acquisition costs." While this makes them cheaper than new apartment towers, the author acknowledges that they are not a silver bullet for affordability. Only 27% of new units are considered affordable, and their small size makes them unsuitable for larger families.
Furthermore, the piece raises a nuanced concern about the nature of the new rental market. Amos points out that these units are often managed by "Mom and Pop landlords," which creates a double-edged sword. On one hand, they may be more forgiving than corporate property managers; on the other, they are "much more picky about who they rent to," raising risks of discrimination that are harder to police. This is a sophisticated critique that avoids the trap of assuming all new supply is automatically equitable.
"The devil is in the details and the difference between a successful Adu policy and a flop can be something as small as a 5-ft setback or additional parking space."
This sentence underscores the piece's greatest strength: its refusal to treat zoning as a monolithic block. Amos demonstrates that the difference between a boom and a bust often lies in technical specifications that policymakers frequently overlook. The analysis of how a 20-foot setback requirement can render a 50-foot lot unusable is a perfect example of how well-intentioned rules can have disastrous practical effects.
Bottom Line
Dave Amos's analysis succeeds by moving beyond the question of whether accessory dwelling units are a good idea to the more difficult question of how to actually build them at scale. The strongest part of the argument is the detailed dissection of California's legislative strategy, which proves that local obstructionism can be overcome through persistent state-level intervention. The biggest vulnerability remains the affordability gap; while the supply is increasing, the units are not cheap enough to solve the crisis for the lowest-income households. Readers should watch for how other states attempt to replicate this "100 green lights" approach without triggering the same political backlash against state preemption.