Goes Wrong

Notwithstanding, after Pompey and Crassus had been elected consuls, they differed on all points and “were constantly in collision.”10 These two men of great respect in Rome had their own niche areas to operate in and Pompey used his military prestige to appeal to the people which was a brilliant tactic because Pompey’s political expertise was rudimentary at best. In the Senate, Crassus had more weight; but among the people the power of Pompey was great. For he gave them back their tribunate, and suffered the courts of justice to be transferred again to the knights by law. But the most agreeable of all spectacles was that which he afforded the people when he appeared in person and solicited his discharge from military service.”11 Plutarch explicitly states here that Pompey’s influence over the people due to his perceived moral character was a critical reason why Pompey became consul. Crassus was tasked with fighting Rome’s enemies and the Senate, while Pompey’s civil duties propelled him to greater fame and reputation. Upholding the justice of Rome and appealing to the whole populous garnered Pompey great favor. Both Cicero and Pompey were predominantly known for their characters exemplified through the office of the consul. On the opposite side of the spectrum of moral characters is that of possibly the most famous of all Romans: Gaius Julius Caesar.

Caesar’s Consulship

Of the most controversial and talked about characters in history, Julius Caesar’s long-debated decisions have been and will be commented on for many generations. As a candidate for the consulship, Caesar devised an ingenious plan. This policy was to reconcile Pompey and Crassus, the most influential men in the city. These men Caesar brought together in friendship after their quarrel, and by concentrating their united strength upon himself, succeeded, before men were aware of it, and by an act which could be called one of kindness, in changing the form of government. For it was not, as most men supposed, the quarrel between Caesar and Pompey that brought on the civil wars, but rather their friendship, since they worked together for the overthrow of the aristocracy in the first place, and then, when this had been accomplished, they quarreled with one another.12 Plutarch perfectly documented the spark that propelled Caesar to both consulship and dictatorship. Friendship with Pompey was the root of all the success and eventual problems that circulated around Caesar. The eventual civil war of Rome that resulted in the murder of Pompey by an Egyptian assassin solidified the fact that Caesar had absolute rule and authority within the dictatorship he

created. Without Caesar’s cunning and thirst for power, the consulship would have remained a significant and respected office. With the downfall of the Republic, Caesar morphed all the head offices of Rome into one title. Caesar’s formation of the Triumvirate, the alliance between Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus--the three most powerful men in Rome at the time--was adored by the people of Rome and became extremely potent in all political affairs.

Caesar, however, encompassed and protected by the friendship of Crassus and Pompey, entered the canvass for the consulship; and as soon as he had been triumphantly elected, along with Calpurnius Bibulus, and had entered upon his office, he proposed laws which were becoming, not for a consul, but for a most radical tribune of the people; for to gratify the multitude he introduced sundry allotments and distributions of land.13 The appeals to the people of Rome certainly aided in the positive view of Caesar while in the consulship. Along with his strategy of appeasing the masses, Caesar utilized fiery rhetoric against the Senate to paint the Senate as departing from the good graces and interests of the people. In the senate the opposition of men of the better sort gave [Caesar] the pretext which he had long desired, and crying with loud adjurations that he was driven forth into the popular assembly against his wishes, and was compelled to court its favor by the insolence and obstinacy of the senate, he hastened before it, and stationing Crassus on one side of him and Pompey on the other, he asked them if they approved his laws. They declared that they did approve them, whereupon he urged them to give him their aid against those who threatened to oppose him with swords. They promised him such aid, and Pompey actually added that he would come up against swords with sword and buckler too. At this impulsive and mad speech, unworthy of the high esteem in which Pompey stood and unbecoming to the respect which was due to the senate, the nobility were distressed but the populace were delighted.”14 Caesar used the power, prestige, and voice of the office of consul to denounce the Senate and appeal to the mob-like tendencies of the Roman public. Though this shows Caesar’s dictatorial tendencies, it also shows the transformation of the office of the consulship from the law-maker and defender of Cicero to the political celebrity of Pompey now to the overly ambitious Julius Caesar. The policies of Julius Caesar were unbecoming of a consul and because of the sudden, dramatic increase of power in the consulate, Caesar was conspired against and eventually murdered for his part in perverting the respected office of consul for his own personal achievement.

Conclusion

The forceful transition into the Roman Empire during Julius Caesar’s regime highlighted an important change in popular beliefs at the time. The populous that elected the consuls chose Caesar because of his perceived attack of the nobility as well as pushing the Senate to concede power so that he could more thoroughly guide Rome as consul. What nobody, except maybe Cicero, could have expected was for Caesar to proclaim himself emperor and take all of Rome into his own hands. As the Roman Republic died, the Roman people began to lose faith in the officials that they elected. Though men such as Cicero and Pompey primarily used the consulship for good, Caesar left no ambiguity in his thirst for glory and power. It is extremely surprising that Rome lost faith in men of good virtue and chose someone as ambitious as Caesar to usher in the future of Rome. This fatal choice for the Roman Republic showed the fragility of the government’s balance of power. Polybius, a prominent Greek historian, stated that if focused solely “upon the power of the consuls, the government appeared to be purely monarchical and regal.”15 This simple observation from Polybius became reality when the people focused on what Caesar could do with more power rather than how he could abuse it and not be checked by the Senate. The consulship became a vessel for whoever held the office and also amplified both the virtuous and malicious desires of the consuls. For some men, the consulship brought out their inherently good characteristics that were traditional for such a high and respected office. On the other side of the spectrum, the consulship was deformed into an extension of the consul’s will and ambition. Whether it was Cicero or Caesar in office, the consulship affected and was affected by every man in its office. As the consulship turned into a conduit for maliciousness by Caesar and the Roman Republic fell, people were left to wonder why their way of life that had worked for centuries suddenly shattered. The consulship only survived through traditional, virtuous Romans that filled the office. Caesar was neither virtuous nor a traditionalist which is why the consulship failed under his oppressive conquest. The consulship was meant to exemplify the epitome of Roman standards; when men of less than exemplar characteristics maneuvered their way into office, disaster was the only logical conclusion for the Roman Republic.

Notes

1. Francisco Pina Polo, The Consul at Rome: The Civil Functions of the Consuls in the Roman Republic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 4. 2. W.B. McDaniel, “Cicero and His House on the Palatine,” The Clas sical Journal 23, no. 9 (June, 1928): 652. 3. W.B. McDaniel, “Cicero and His House on the Palatine,” The Clas sical Journal 23, no. 9 (June, 1928): 653. 4. Plutarch, “Life of Cicero,” in The Parallel Lives, trans. Bernadotte Perrin (Cambridge: Loeb Library Classical Edition, 1919), 109. 5. Plutarch, “Life of Cicero,” 151. 6. Ibid., 169. 7. Ibid., 133. 8. Plutarch, “Life of Pompey,” in The Parallel Lives trans. Bernadotte Perrin (Cambridge: Loeb Library Classical Edition, 1917), 117. 9. Plutarch, “Life of Pompey,” 169. 10. Ibid., 169. 11. Ibid. 12. Plutarch, “Life of Caesar,” 472. 13. Ibid, 473. 14. Ibid., 473-475. 15. Polybius, “Rome at the End of the Punic Wars,” in The Histories trans Oliver J. Thatcher (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), 166.

The Housing Crisis in California: When Progressivism Goes Wrong

ALEXANDRIA HURST

The state of California finds itself in a unique position between two extremes. Within its borders and scope of influence are a strong and prosperous economy, and a people in crisis due to an instable and unsatisfactory housing environment simultaneously. The housing crisis has been described by thought leaders and the populace alike as one of, if not the largest, problems the state faces today.1 This essay will unpack the history and roots of the crisis, including theories regarding contract cities and freeway protests, with a particular focus placed on controversy surrounding state regulations and inclusionary housing programs. Then, the current state of the crisis will be examined, addressing others topics such as homelessness and the housing cost burden. Finally, the question of the future will be considered, looking into hypothetical approaches to reduce homelessness and examples of strategies taken internationally from which leaders can learn. Furthermore, legislative attempts and successes will be referenced and discussed, tying together a holistic analysis of what some consider to be a nearly unsolvable problem. To begin, the history of the housing crisis can be traced as far back as the 1950s. In 1954, the so-called “Lakewood Plan” became California’s first contract city.2 A contract city contracts with others for municipal services. For instance, as Lakewood paved the way for this new style of local government, they contracted with the county Sheriff’s Department for the enforcement of traffic laws within city bounds. At first glance the phenomenon of contract cities do not have a direct correlation to the housing crisis. Yet, the contract city strategy can be identified as an early cause of excruciatingly high housing prices, as these suburban areas were able to incorporate as a city with a lower population than would normally be needed and thus, instill rules and regulations to maintain their classic character.3 As they did so, they made these areas less accessible to low income populations and more difficult to build in. This is sometimes seen as the first step toward the modern crisis of housing. Also in the 1950s, however, were the San Francisco freeway revolts, in which the residents organized into an anti-freeway movement and fought against the development of 7 out of 10 proposed freeways.4 From the anti-freeway movement can be traced the anti-growth movement, a mindset which allowed for further housing regulation which has curbed efforts to build under the umbrella of environmentalism and putting a stop to growth for growth’s sake.5 As anti-growth challenges increased, the number of building permits issued dwindled from an average of 215,585 units per year in the 1970s to 110,581 units per year in the 1990s.6

When the communities of California determined themselves to be against development ventures which threatened their ways of life and the physical layout of historic and sentimental neighborhoods, a number of regulations were put in place. These regulations, though broad in what they cover, fall into two main categories: environmental and land-use. The two very often overlap, and for the purposes of this essay will be considered under the same umbrella. Environmental regulation can be described as the laws which protect the natural environment and ecosystems from pollution or damage by development. Similarly, Calder from the Cato Institute defines the role of land-use regulations as, “control[ing] the development of private land through use, density, design, and historic preservation requirements.”7 Studies have shown that any variant of government regulation upon housing increases housing cost in both home ownership and rental.8 The history of the crisis does not end there, nonetheless. Perhaps rooted in contract cities and freeway revolts, California’s housing situation was exacerbated with controversial legislative attempts. These attempts are often tied together in a broad policy approach known as inclusionary housing.9 Inclusionary housing tends to be mandated in city zoning codes, building permit requirements, and city or county ordinances. The overarching goal of inclusionary housing policy is to demand more affordable housing. For instance, many inclusionary housing programs include criteria for income eligibility and restrictions on the resale and rentals of the units.10 Yet Shneider of CityLab suggests, “critics, namely developers and some economists, say the policy reduces the overall supply of housing, thus raising prices.”11 Though demand continues to increase, the inclusionary housing policies remove incentives and increase barriers to development which ends up decreasing supply. When demand outpaces supply, the prices go up. The supply and demand dynamic, so ably demonstrated by inclusionary housing policies, has effects on the housing markets aside from price as well. In cities which put these policies into practice, one study shows that over time the number of multifamily housing starts increased by 7 percent.12 This same study showed that when inclusionary housing practices are mandated, housing producers increased housing prices in more affluent markets and decreased housing sizes in less affluent markets. In other words, rich communities end up paying more than ever before for their homes and poor communities are given less living space than would normally be considered satisfactory. In California resides both the affluent and the impoverished, leading to the manifestation of this occurrence. Therefore, in addition to a simple lack of housing altogether, the housing that does exist targets the local market. Where there is housing for the middle class and above, the prices are high and continue to rise. Where there is housing for the lower class and those in poverty, the sizes of the units are small

despite the fact that multiple families living together is becoming more and more common. Despite the previous findings, the nature of the problem is not quite so easily solved. Inclusionary housing is controversial because of the challenges presented in pinning down its exact effects. Other studies find contrasting results, stating that inclusionary housing policies do lead to higher housing affordability and describing a lack of evidence that less inclusionary housing policies are tied to lower prices.13 One major example of environment regulations can be found in the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA. This act from the Reagan age allows anyone to object to housing and development projects, and while originally used sparingly it has evolved into a dreaded tool to put seemingly reasonable projects on the chopping block.14 While it is often viewed negatively by developers, proponents of the act argue that it maintains the health of the public and the land.15 Furthermore, the act provides accountability and requires developers and government officials to adopt transparency regarding the full effects of projects on the environment and surrounding communities. Those in favor of the act, and others like it, take the stance that maintaining high quality of life is more important than meeting high standards of modern housing demands. They debate the act’s role in the housing shortage and instead credit it with maintaining such lovely Californian scenery. The roots of the problems with housing may be arguable, but the crisis is not. The issue is real and current, as proven by the most recent data available regarding the state of the state. The Legislative Analyst’s office describes the housing issue in terms of four concerns.16 First, the state is building less housing than there are people who need housing, and this demand leads to high housing costs. Second, Californians are spending more on housing than the rest of the nation by far, increasing the poverty rate and impacting low income households. Third, the state needs more housing assistance for low income households than it has the resources to handle. Fourth, the state has a high population of homeless individuals and residents, draining resources and posing a humanitarian issue. Frankly put, California is not building enough housing. The California Department of Housing and Community Development estimates that California must build an additional 180,000 new housing units every year to keep up with demand.17 Despite this need, the department reports that for the last ten years the state has built an average of 80,000 new housing units each year. Other estimates are more dire. California Senator Weiner has commented that the number is “quickly approach[ing] 4 million homes—equal to the total deficit of the other forty nine states combined.”18 The Orange County Register reports that California needs to build between 1.8 million and 3.5 million housing units by the year 2025 to meet demand, yet at the time of the study 97% of the state’s cities and counties were behind in permitting to build the units.19 The Register

also reports that while developers blame the city zoning and permit regulations, the cities blame the developers for a lack of willingness to build where the housing is most needed. While the exact numbers are contested, the shortage in supply of housing is clear. This leads to higher housing cost and, subsequently, greater housing cost burden. Housing cost burden is a state in which more than 30% of total income is spent on housing alone, such as rent or a mortgage. Individuals are severely cost burdened when 50% or more of total income is spent on rent. The CalBudget Center reports that in California, approximately two to three households out of every five are cost burdened.20 Furthermore, the same report shows that one in every five households are severely cost burdened. When looking specifically at low income household affordability, the number jumps to four out of every five households facing cost burden, more than half of which are severely burdened. Housing affordability does not change depending on the region of the state, but people of color are objectively more severely affected than others. According to the CalBudget Center’s data of housing burdened households, two out of three were people of color and more than one out of three were of Latin descent specifically. These numbers are significant, even though it seems that a similar problem exists nationally and not exclusively in California. Nationwide, estimates are that in 2017 nearly one in three households were cost burdened.21 Even taking this into consideration, California has a notably higher percentage of households facing cost burden than the rest of the nation. With the proven strain of housing costs, the need for affordable housing in the state is greater than ever. Yet just as the demand for housing is outpacing the state’s rate of supply, the need for affordable housing and low income housing assistance exceeds the resources available. The California Housing Partnership’s 2020 report found that due to federal tax reform, California’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit housing production and preservation has fallen by 13% statewide.22 The report also showed while the average median income of state residents has increased only 8% since 2000, the median price of rent has increased by 40%. Furthermore, of households considered Extremely Low Income, 79% are severely housing cost burdened. Yet the Legislative Analyst’s office states that only approximately one of four low income households are receiving housing vouchers or living in subsidized affordable housing.23 The extraordinarily high cost of housing and the lack of resources or measures to provide affordable housing or housing vouchers from the state government has led to a crisis in homelessness closely tied to the crisis in housing. Though many years in the making, each of the housing issues the state is struggling with has begun to culminate. In one year, the homeless population rose by 16%, and the state now has an estimated homeless population of approximately

151,000 individuals.24 As there are an estimated 552,000 homeless in the nation, experts‘ best guesses are that California holds more than 1 in 5 of every homeless individual in the United States.25 As if the sheer numbers were not bad enough, the United Nations has compared the disgraceful tent encampments in the state to slums in New Delhi.26 The homeless population is disproportionately African-American by demographic, and half of unsheltered homeless self-report that the cause of their homelessness is unstable mental health. However, not every homeless case can be chalked up to mental health issues. They cannot even be attributed solely to joblessness. In fact, in 2017, 13% of San Francisco’s homeless population were actively employed, and in 2018, 10% of San Diego’s homeless reported active employment.27 The state government is very aware of each of these major housing concerns, but homelessness appears to be the focus. Governor Newsom has, on several occasions, addressed the need for answers and President Trump frequently calls for California to take more drastic action. In the last year session alone there have been hundreds of bills introduced to both legislative houses with intent to lessen the weight of the issue. For instance, AB-3122 was introduced on February 21, 2020, and proposes that in the regular assessment of development intentions for each county and city, potential sites for emergency homeless shelters and temporary housing are also required to be identified.28 Governor Newsom also called for state-owned properties to be given to local governments as temporary shelter spaces to get the homeless into shelter.29 But attempts to fight the crux of the issue—the problems with housing as a broad problem—are much fewer and have less broad support. SB-50, introduced in December of 2018, would have streamlined attempts to build multi-family housing on eligible parcels of land (areas with large amounts of jobs and transits) and made the projects exempt from certain regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act.30 After more than a calendar year of amendments and readings, the bill was refused passage. Hope for effective legislation to address the housing needs continues to lie in bills with little chance at being chaptered, particularly when many such efforts were postponed with the recent emergency of Covid-19. AB-3107, for example, is young and has no co-authors as of yet, but would allow affordable housing to be built on land zoned or designated for commercial use.31 Its progress in committee was postponed on March 16, 2020. With deep-rooted conflict, overwhelming current challenges, and legislation prone to band-aid treatment, what might California’s future look like? Public policy history and analysis is of little use unless it is used to anticipate and plan for the best possible future. Next, possible steps to be taken will be discussed. First will be immediate possible approaches to homelessness, followed by a discussion of the need for regulation reform and suggested next steps for