AB 1903, authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, was designed to address one of the biggest barriers to building condominiums in California. At CCAH we liked it a lot and, based on the vote count, so did the entire legislature who passed it. Given that, we were confused when the bill quietly died at midnight on the last day of the legislative session. Despite receiving support throughout the legislative process and passing both houses in some form, the bill never received the final concurrence vote required before the legislative session ended.
Supporters, including CCAH, believed the bill could restart California’s nearly dormant condo market and create more attainable pathways into homeownership. While our members focus on affordable rental homes, almost all of them have told me they’d build condos for sale if the builder’s defect law were not so punitive.
My first home was a townhouse condominium and that little house represented the entry point into homeownership for me. The same is true for many of my friends. As a first-time buyer who could not afford a detached single-family home, I was able to purchase a condo as a more affordable alternative and that got my foot on the first step of the homeownership ladder. Sadly, today that ladder is harder to climb and the result is a growing gap between renting and ownership. Families and young singles who might once have purchased a condominium often find there is simply nothing available at a price they can afford and one major reason is California’s construction defect litigation environment. The very thing that Ms Wicks’ bill was written to address. In my mind, the failure of 1903 represents a missed opportunity to address California’s worsening affordability and housing crisis. Affordable rental housing is absolutely critical, but we cannot ignore the fact that millions of Californians still aspire to own a home and build equity for themselves and future generations. I did and I have my little condo to thank for getting me where I am today.
Developers have argued for years that condominium projects are uniquely vulnerable to defect lawsuits because shared building systems and homeowners associations make litigation easier and more likely. Whether every lawsuit is justified is not really the point. The reality is that builders, lenders, and investors evaluate risk when deciding what to build. If they believe a project will almost certainly face years of litigation after completion, they will and have choosen not to build condos at all. The economics are straightforward. If a developer can construct a rental project while avoiding much of the litigation risk associated with for-sale housing, rental housing becomes the safer investment. Over time, those decisions have added up to far fewer condominiums, leaving would-be homeowners with fewer opportunities to buy.
Assemblymember Wicks’ AB 1903 offered an elegant solution. It addressed this problem by creating a process that would require homeowners to clearly document defects and provide builders an opportunity to repair those defects before lawsuits proceed. Proponents argued that the changes would reduce unnecessary litigation while still protecting homeowners from genuinely defective construction. Opponents maintained that the proposal could make it harder for homeowners to seek accountability from irresponsible builders. Over the course of the session, Assemblymember Wicks agreed to significant amendments designed to address many of those concerns and she (and we, frankly) thought the bill would pass.
Yet, in the waning hours of the session and after the bill passed the Assemby and Senate without objection it failed because the Senate amendments required a final concurrence vote back in the Assembly. Essentially the bill needed one more procedural step before midnight and, much to everyone’s frustration, that vote never occurred. Whether the failure was legislative gamesmanship, disagreements between chambers, slow-walking by opponents, or simply the chaos that often accompanies the final hours of session remains unclear. What is clear is that a bill with broad support and no recorded opposition votes was allowed to die anyway. This was particularily frustrating for me because I observed the same thing when we ran AB 515 and AB 2638 in 2023 and 2024.
California needs more apartments, more affordable housing, and more homes of every type. AND we also need to rebuild the missing middle of our ownership housing market. Condominiums once provided that bridge between renting and ownership. Until we address the barriers that discourage builders from producing condos, thousands of Californians will remain locked out of homeownership, not because they lack the desire to buy, but because the homes simply aren’t being built.When we fail to provide ownership opportunities, we limit economic mobility and make it harder for Californians to build wealth. Our state will always need affordable rental housing and for many working families, buying a condo represents the most realistic path to achieving the American dream.
Assemblymember Wicks has indicated that she plans to return with another proposal. She should. The vast majority of California’s housing advocates stand with her and, for our part, CCAH will support that effort however we can.