Give Gov. Gavin Newsom credit for his lengthy list of culprits in California’s homelessness problem.

His State of the State address basically stated that almost every Californian is a NIMBY.

The speech detailed, directly or indirectly, a roster of forces that, at best, did little to help the housing crunch: the not-in-my-backyard, anti-growth crowd. Folks who are rich or poor, urban or suburban. Homeowners and renters. Landlords, too. Not to mention decades of policymakers from his political party and the other one, too.

And he’s 100% correct in tying inaction to self-interest. It’s a natural defense mechanism against change in all situations, especially when an issue like housing puts literally trillions of dollars of wealth at stake.

“Time and time again, bigger, bolder reform hasn’t happened — in part because of some legitimate concerns,” his prepared text reads.

“Many of our lowest-income residents understandably worry about being pushed out of their own communities because of gentrification. Middle-class homeowners worry that their single-family home could lose its value — a scary prospect given a house is often a family’s biggest asset.

“These real concerns should not be brushed aside. At the same time, we also know the status quo is simply unacceptable — we aren’t building enough housing.”

Shaming inaction is a laudable tactic. But one often unspoken challenge is that the status quo is EXACTLY what a chunk of the real estate industry wants.

Newsom says sacrifices are needed from the homeowner who’s bet their life savings on a California home. He suggests the same from the tenement-dweller who accepts their dumpy rental because there’s no better option and they live one layoff or medical bill away from homelessness.

But what about the real estate industry?

California is one of the nation’s most-profitable places to build a home, sell or finance one or own an apartment complex. That’s due, in part, to the modest supply of housing available in the state’s growing economy.

Do you expect the industry to willingly give up that profitable perch?

Newsom and many others suggest the supply slice of the homelessness challenge is simple economics, more homes equal lower costs. But similar economic pressures suggest the state’s real estate world will protect its turf in a very NIMBY way.

It’s not just your typical Californian who doesn’t want the homeless shelter or “affordable” housing down the block. The portfolios of big landlords and major landowners may be harmed as well.

Are you a real estate fan? Then sign up for The Home Stretch newsletter and its Bubble Watch edition A twice-a-week review of what’s important for housing around the region! Subscribe here!

Or you hear of industry calls for “help” to make lower-priced home construction “profitable.”

Let’s look at last year’s 7% drop in California housing permits. It’s due in part to developers incorrectly betting on the need for luxury housing. So, building plans cooled as they retooled construction strategies to meet more modest consumer demands.

Newsom called for greater “accountability” in the housing challenges. What about this industry error?

The industry is good at seeking “help” from the government. Requests to loosen environmental constraints and ease regulatory approvals have merit. But what of industry demands for lowering “fees” charged in the process?

Many of these much-debated development fees are attempts by local governments to recoup infrastructure costs associated with new communities — schools, sewers, roads, first responders, etc. And some reasonable proposals have been floated to find state money to help lower these fees, which often are pushed all the way to the price the eventual buyer pays.

It’s a win-win if future cuts in developer fees equal homebuyer savings and not greater profits for homebuilders.

And it’s not just new construction.

What about the unnecessary complexity, not to mention the costs, of actually acquiring a home, new or used, or renting one. While we consider retooling state laws to make construction easier, what about regulations that could ease the acquisition and financing of housing, not to mention open up the transactions’ field to new entrants in order to boost competition?