California is not building enough housing. On that point most observers agree. The only question is how big the problem is.

In February, public policy group Next 10 and research firm Beacon Economics released an analysis of the housing crisis titled “Missing the Mark,” which excoriates the states Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) as an inadequate and almost vestigial means of spurring housing production.

According to Beacon’s assessment, Bay Area cities are building so slowly in the face of housing challenges that it would take decades—or, in some cases, centuries—for this pace to satisfy demand.

As the report explains, “Under the RHNA process, all jurisdictions throughout the state are responsible for creating housing development targets for different types of housing at different income categories, and the local government’s plans to address housing needs.”

The problem, as “Missing the Mark” reckons, is that no city is meeting its RHNA goals, while some jurisdictions are, in fact, building nothing at all.

Here are some takeaways from the full report:

To the surprise of no one, California is not building enough: “While 200,000 units of housing are needed annually to keep up with population growth, only 113,000 were permitted in 2017, and fewer than 750,000 units were permitted since 2007, accounting for only 40 percent of the projected need.”

“While 200,000 units of housing are needed annually to keep up with population growth, only 113,000 were permitted in 2017, and fewer than 750,000 units were permitted since 2007, accounting for only 40 percent of the projected need.” In Beacon’s opinion, the RHNA doesn’t work as designed: “California’s RHNA process has failed to live up to its stated purpose, as most jurisdictions have continued to fail to meet their housing goals and those that do perform well often do so because there’s a relatively low bar of success.”

“California’s RHNA process has failed to live up to its stated purpose, as most jurisdictions have continued to fail to meet their housing goals and those that do perform well often do so because there’s a relatively low bar of success.” Notably, a number of counties and regions appear to ignore RHNA entirely: “The RHNA annual progress report (APR) forms the basis of the state’s understanding of localized housing development progress. Unfortunately [...] some jurisdictions never report out with an APR. [...] One out of every six jurisdictions in the state have never submitted an annual progress report (APR) for the years 2013 to 2017.”

“The RHNA annual progress report (APR) forms the basis of the state’s understanding of localized housing development progress. Unfortunately [...] some jurisdictions never report out with an APR. [...] One out of every six jurisdictions in the state have never submitted an annual progress report (APR) for the years 2013 to 2017.” What housing production there is woefully neglects low-income housing goals: “Forty-five point six percent of above-moderate income units have been permitted, whereas only 19 percent of moderate income 9.8 percent of low income, and 7.3 percent of very-low-income units have been permitted. Fifty-two percent of the jurisdictions reporting [...] have permitted zero units for the very-low-income category.”

“Forty-five point six percent of above-moderate income units have been permitted, whereas only 19 percent of moderate income 9.8 percent of low income, and 7.3 percent of very-low-income units have been permitted. Fifty-two percent of the jurisdictions reporting [...] have permitted zero units for the very-low-income category.” If this rate continued indefinitely, SF would take decades to meet low-income housing goals: Extrapolating current trends into the future, Beacon says SF would hit its current very-low-income goal in 2030 and its low-income target in 2025. On the other hand, the city is on track to hit its goals for above-moderate-income homes this year. These calculations assume that the current targets remain in place for decades and that the current rate of development continues; neither of which will happen.

Meanwhile, the rate of development in other Bay Area cities wouldn’t yield the current goals for hundreds of years : Oakland’s very-low-income point comes in 2032, with low-income following in 2072. Meanwhile, the city’s current rate wouldn’t create enough moderate-income housing until “beyond 2500.” (Yikes.) San Jose, like SF, is expected to satisfy its requirement for high-end housing this year, but the three lower brackets will take until 2048, 2086, and 2080, respectively. If that’s not shocking enough, “Given the current pace, it will take more than 2,000 years for Irvine and Santa Clara to meet their low-income RHNA housing allocation [...] and more than 3,000 years for Santa Clara to meet its very-low-income target.

: Oakland’s very-low-income point comes in 2032, with low-income following in 2072. Meanwhile, the city’s current rate wouldn’t create enough moderate-income housing until “beyond 2500.” (Yikes.) San Jose, like SF, is expected to satisfy its requirement for high-end housing this year, but the three lower brackets will take until 2048, 2086, and 2080, respectively. If that’s not shocking enough, “Given the current pace, it will take more than 2,000 years for Irvine and Santa Clara to meet their low-income RHNA housing allocation [...] and more than 3,000 years for Santa Clara to meet its very-low-income target. And finally, some California cities are just not building at all: “Regardless of income level, however, there are a number of jurisdictions in the state that have permitted zero housing units at all this RHNA cycle.”

Of the 16 cities pulling a no-show on housing, none are in the Bay Area, and most are located in Southern California.