[KirinDave]

> inefficiency of housing construction in California.

California housing isn't "inefficient." The housing codes are made with the idea of keeping houses up through natural disasters and serviceable for a long time. We might modify that last provision (as Tokyo does, for example) but it comes with it's own problems.

The idea that somehow housing regulation increasing costs is the core or even a major contributor to the problem is one that requires substantial evidence.

Unless you're referring to "Californian contractors are overpaid," which seems more like a reflection of the expensive cost of living here than "inefficiency."

[seriesf]

Well you are very wrong there. The inefficiency is in the permit process. In San Francisco it takes years to get your project approved, and that time is money. Many projects also just don’t get approved, and the carrying costs and fees of those failures don’t even get added to the average cost per dwelling that eventually gets reported. In many jurisdictions permitting and planning consume a full third of the cost and take years.

[KirinDave]

> Well you are very wrong there. The inefficiency is in the permit process. In San Francisco it takes years to get your project approved, and that time is money.

There is no denying that California refuses to build housing. This does raise the cost of Californian housing. However, this is characterized distinctly from efficiency of the housing regulations and building codes in most conversations specifically to avoid the dodge many developers present, "Housing codes are too strict, it's inefficient to build homes in California."

If I ended up misreading your post as a result of context, I apologize for doing so. I did not mean to put words into your mouth. But please consider that many other people may read this and read the same intent because of specific phrasing you're using.