Dan J. Harkey

Master Educator | Business & Finance Consultant | Mentor

A Collision of Good Intentions, Bureaucracy, and Market Reality with Far-reaching Consequences: California’s Entitlement Feed Back Loop

by Dan J. Harkey

Share This Article

Overview:

California prides itself on protecting consumers, tenants, and communities.  However, as “I’m entitled to some of yours” expectations harden into mandates, the machinery required to deliver on those expectations grows—rules multiply, compliance becomes a business line of its own, and costs cascade through housing, insurance, and everyday enterprise.

Urgent Need for a Balanced Approach in California’s Policies: Prioritizing Safety and Feasibility Equally

I.  The California Context: When Every Protection Needs a Process

In California, protections are rarely voluntary; they’re codified, administered, reported, and enforced.  This has led to wins—fewer failures, clearer standards—but it also builds a permanent compliance superstructure.  The more the public expects government to guarantee outcomes, the more the state must regulate, inspect, and audit.  However, there is hope for a more efficient system with the promising future that disciplined process reforms can bring.

Over time, the process begins to substitute for performance, and the bill arrives in the form of higher prices, longer timelines, and thinner margins for the productive sector.  But the government labor union monopoly-driven employees are there to take charge and straighten out the mess that they created.  There are always new laws and regulations to save the day, adding to the morass.

https://www.legintent.com/how-do-californias-statutes-differ-from-other-states/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_California

https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/c.php?g=1236266&p=9046517

You can see this plainly in three pressure points that touch nearly every property owner and operator in the state: 

·       balcony inspections,

·       the homeowners’ insurance market,

·       permitting and CEQA. Each started with a legitimate goal.  Each now illustrates how entitlement expectations—“we should never have accidents,” “coverage should always be available,” “development should never impose costs”—translate into bureaucratic growth and market strain.

II.  Balconies & Walkways: From Tragedy to Mandates (SB‑326 & SB‑721)

Following deadly balcony failures, lawmakers imposed broad inspection regimes for “exterior elevated elements” (EEEs) such as balconies, walkways, and stairs.

  • Condos (SB‑326 / Civil Code §5551).
    For condominium associations, the first EEE inspection must be completed by 1 January 2025, and performed by a licensed structural engineer or architect, with follow-ups at least every nine years.  Findings must be incorporated into the association’s reserve study, and severe hazards trigger notice to code officials and immediate access restrictions. 
  • Apartments (SB‑721) and the 2026 Extension.
    For apartments, SB-721 initially set a 1 January 2025 deadline.  Recognizing COVID-era access delays, AB 2579 (signed on September 30, 2024) extended the first inspection deadline to 1 January 2026. 
  • Scope, Penalties, and Insurance Knock-On Effects.
    SB 721 requires recurring inspections (every six years), minimum sampling, report retention, and distinct roles for inspectors versus repair contractors.  Noncompliance can result in penalties of $100–$500 per day, safety liens, and even foreclosure risk; insurance eligibility may also be affected by noncompliance. 

The costs are not just the inspection invoices.  Associations must budget for destructive testing where indicated, coordinate access for tenants and owners, and prepare for special assessments to address wood rot and waterproofing failures identified by inspectors.  As more developments hit the mandated windows, vendor bottlenecks emerge, and prices rise. 

Bottom line: Safety matters.  But lawful expectations that “no one should ever be hurt by a balcony” necessarily create recurring compliance cycles—inspection, reporting, repair, re-inspection—that expand administrative overhead and ultimately flow through to dues, rents, and resale values. 

III.  The Homeowners’ Insurance Crunch: Risk, Regulation, and Retreat

California’s property insurance market is a case study in entitlement expectations colliding with risk and regulation.  Insurers must price their policies to remain solvent.  Consumers expect affordable, comprehensive coverage, especially after a loss.  Regulators try to referee.  When rates cannot reflect risk, carriers exit or shrink.

  • State Farm’s 2024 Pullback.
    On March 20, 2024, State Farm announced that it would not renew approximately 30,000 homeowners', rental', and other property policies, and withdraw from approximately 42,000 commercial apartment policies in California, citing inflation, catastrophe exposure, reinsurance costs, and the constraints of decades-old regulations. 
  • Conditional Re-Entry by Other Carriers.
    On 26 April 2024, Allstate said it would consider resuming new homeowners’ policies if regulators allow catastrophe modeling and reinsurance costs to be reflected directly in rates—i.e., if prices can match risk. • (State Farm also referenced CDI’s proposed reforms in their 3/20/24 statement.
  • Wildfire Losses & the FAIR Plan.
    In April 2025, Moody’s Ratings reported $22+ billion in insured and reinsured losses from LA‑area wildfires earlier that year, calling them the costliest wildfires in U.S. History to date.  They also showed the California FAIR Plan’s market share grew from roughly 2% in 2019 to ~10% in 2024 as private carriers shed risk—pushing more homeowners into a last‑resort, limited‑coverage option with higher total premiums (often FAIR + DIC). 

The loop: Voters and consumers want affordable, comprehensive insurance everywhere in the state.  However, catastrophe losses, climate volatility, inflation, building costs, and reinsurance markets all push in the opposite direction.  If state processes slow or limit risk-aligned pricing, carriers may non-renew, FAIR Plan enrollment swells, and administrative oversight expands to patch the market.  

IV.  Permitting & CEQA: The Price of Delay

California can’t fix housing affordability if the time-to-permit and process risk keeps rising.  The significant Impact of these delays on housing affordability should be a cause for concern and a strong motivator for change.  Two credible sources illuminate the cost of delay:

  • The Terner Center has documented how the time to approve new housing and issue building permits is a significant cost driver, prompting bills to streamline entitlements and set 30–60-day timelines post‑entitlement (AB 2234). 
  • The Association of Environmental Professionals’ statewide CEQA survey (covering jurisdictions responsible for 40% of California residential permits since 2010) shows how CEQA pathways shape timelines; only 6% of projects required EIRs, but streamlining/exemptions and MNDs still entail significant time and risk. 

Even when environmental value is clear, the process can become an all-purpose veto, particularly via litigation risk.  Time is money: every added month increases carrying costs, financing risk, and exposure to market turns.  The effect is fewer feasible projects, which constricts supply and pushes prices higher.  

V.  Policy Whiplash as a Cost Multiplier (Student Loans as a Parallel)

While not California-specific, federal policy affects the cash flow of California households.  In Q3 2025, more than a quarter of federal student loan borrowers had their repayment progress paused via forbearance or deferment amid turbulence around the SAVE repayment plan and higher living costs—delaying milestones like home purchases and retirement savings. 
Those household pressures show up in landlords’ receivables, retail demand, and local tax bases, which makes the costs of state delays and mandates that much more consequential. 

VI. The Entitlement–Bureaucracy Feedback Loop

1.       A visible failure occurs (balcony collapse, wildfire devastation, project impacts).

2.       Public expectation hardens: “This must never happen again.”

3.       The state codifies protections, often with frequent inspections, expanded reporting, and new oversight bodies.

4.       Compliance becomes recurring and specialized, creating bottlenecks and escalating costs.

5.       Markets react, insurers retrench, developers shelve projects, HOAs levy special assessments.

6.       More public dissatisfaction about prices/availability leads to calls for further intervention, growing the bureaucracy.

None of this implies that protection is unnecessary.  It does mean that how matters as much as what.  If California wants affordability, resilience, and growth, it must discipline its process as carefully as it polices outcomes. 

VII.  A Practical Playbook for California Owners, Lenders, and Policymakers

A) For HOAs, Apartment Owners, and Asset Managers

  • Calendar the mandates now:
    Condos (SB‑326)—first inspection due 1 January 2025; apartments (SB‑721)—first inspection due 1 January 2026 (AB 2579).  Budget for 9-year (condos) and 6-year (apartments) cycles. 
  • Use the right expert: SB-326 requires structural engineers/architects; SB-721 allows qualified inspectors (including licensed general contractors and building inspectors), but separates inspection from repair. 
  • Tie reports to reserves: Incorporate findings into reserve studies and lender reporting to reduce surprises. 

B) For Owners and Borrowers Navigating Insurance

  • Risk-based pricing is on the horizon (and is already available in surplus lines).  Expect mitigation for access trade-offs as CDI implements reforms that allow catastrophe modeling and reinsurance costs to be factored into rates.  Build defensible wildfire hardening plans to stay in the admitted market. 
  • Model the FAIR Plan “tax”: If you must use FAIR + DIC, underwrite the premium delta against NOI and valuation; stress test for additional non-renewals in high-risk ZIPs. 

C) For Developers and Cities

  • De-risk timelines: Pursue by‑right pathways, early CEQA streamlining, and jurisdictions implementing post-entitlement permit clocks (30–60 days).  
  • Measure what matters: Cities should publish median days to entitlement and permit and commit to third-party plan review if clocks aren’t met—turning process discipline into a competitive advantage. 

D) For State Policymakers

  • Streamline, then sunset: Pair new protections with sunset clauses, audited outcomes, and automatic rollback if metrics aren’t met.
  • Align incentives: Encourage risk-based insurance pricing, coupled with hardening credits, and prioritize pre-loss mitigation over post-loss subsidies.  
  • Guard integrity: Large programs require real-time analytics to identify and prevent improper payments, reallocating dollars to effective mitigation and enforcement.  

VIII.  Conclusion: Toward a California That Delivers—Without Drowning in Process

California often leads the nation in its commitment to safety, equity, and sustainability.  The challenge is execution.  When entitlement expectations are translated into ever-thicker processes, we exhaust resources by doing the paperwork instead of the work.  The state will remain globally competitive only if it can protect people while reducing friction—pricing risk accurately, permitting housing efficiently, and targeting enforcement where it changes outcomes.

That’s not an argument against protection.  It’s a case for discipline: fewer but more precise rules, faster and more predictable timelines, transparent metrics, and sunsets on bureaucracy that prove their point and then get out of the way.

Also, California’s entitlement-driven regulatory environment is reshaping the economics of property ownership and development.

  • Balcony mandates ensure safety but impose recurring compliance costs.
  • Insurance markets are recalibrating around risk-based pricing, leaving FAIR Plan as a costly fallback.
  • Permitting delays continue to be a significant structural barrier to housing supply and affordability.

For stakeholders, the imperative is clear: anticipate compliance, price risk accurately, and prioritize jurisdictions and assets where timelines and costs can be controlled. In a state where expectations often outpace execution, disciplined planning is the only sustainable hedge against disappointment.

Sources: