<\/p>\n
A developer plans to build 24 new condos in Sacramento\u2019s Campus Commons neighborhood, which is now under construction. Condominium construction has plummeted in the states as project lawsuits have risen, prompting the search for a legislative solution.<\/p>\n
City of Sacramento<\/p>\n
Sensing that the humble condominium could be the gateway to homeownership for countless Californians, a state Senate leader named John Burton passed legislation in 2002 seeking to incentivize its construction by giving builders a clear path to fixing any building defect without the need of lawyers.<\/p>\n
Burton, it turns out, got it wrong, causing condominium construction to plummet as project lawsuits became the norm. The Legislature hasn\u2019t come close to addressing this issue for nearly a quarter-century. Until now.<\/p>\n
California Assemblymember Buffy Wicks<\/a>, D-Oakland, has entered the breach with AB 1903,<\/a> which tries yet again to fix condominium construction problems first, with litigation as the last resort.<\/p>\n If the Democrats can sort through their priorities and get out of their own way, a revival in condominium construction could help ease the housing crisis in California.<\/p>\n AB 1903 is a must-watch bill in Sacramento this summer<\/p>\n Yet Wicks recognizes that she is touching a sacred \u201cthird rail\u201d of Democratic Party politics in California, a perilous political venture she hopes to survive. Fixing construction defects in a condominium pits two sacred values of the Democratic Party against one another. There is the drive to build more housing and new ownership opportunities for middle-class Californians. But there is also the affinity for protecting consumers against, in this case, the condominium building industry.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s been on my radar for the eight years I\u2019ve been here,\u201d said Wicks. Outwardly, she seems unafraid to confront the most controversial of issues for Democrats, such as her leadership last year in streamlining state environmental laws for infill housing projects. But this condo issue, unaddressed for years, is next level. \u201cI\u2019ve always been a little nervous to touch it.\u201d<\/p>\n A solution that prohibits a condo owner from suing the builder would favor the industry. One that maximizes a homeowner\u2019s litigation options would frustrate builders from quickly fixing the problem and building new units.<\/p>\n Wicks is trying to find that delicate compromise.<\/p>\n AB 1903 would require condo owners to detail the specific problems and for all owners in a complex to participate in addressing them. The builder would get a clear shot at fixing all the known problems. If homeowners are still not satisfied, a lawsuit is an option.<\/p>\n AB 1903 would eliminate the prospect of a lawsuit if the builder satisfies the local building department during the construction phase and hires an expert third-party to certify the quality of the construction. If a defect still arises and a homeowner complains, the builder fixes the problem, the third-party inspector certifies the quality of the fix, and the case is closed.<\/p>\n Ironically, the late Burton thought this is basically what he was doing with his legislation back in 2003, Senate Bill 800<\/a>. That\u2019s why it was known at the time as the Right-to-Repair Act.<\/p>\n Instead, \u201cit became a right to litigation,\u201d said Michael Lane, state policy director for SPUR<\/a>, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association.<\/p>\n Under SB 800, a condominium homeowners association, unbeknownst to most owners, can file a lawsuit for many units based on a sampling of construction defects. Insurance companies representing builders don\u2019t have to quickly pay to make repairs because the lawsuit doesn\u2019t go away. And others can be filed during the first 10 years of a project\u2019s life.<\/p>\n As the cost of housing has skyrocketed in California, you would think that the construction market would respond by building more and more of the units that Californians could still afford, condominiums\u2014yet the opposite has happened. In Santa Clara County, as one example, condo construction has fallen by an estimated 90% from its 2006 peak, according to one analysis<\/a>.<\/p>\n Downtowns and neighborhoods surrounding urban cores would look entirely different in California if the market had met housing demand with new condominiums. But it didn\u2019t happen. \u201cMany architects and general contractors won\u2019t even touch the product,\u201d Lane said.<\/p>\n If there\u2019s new housing construction in your downtown, chances are it\u2019s an apartment. \u201cNew homeownership is happening in the suburbs and the exurbs,\u201d Wicks said. \u201cIf you\u2019re trying to buy, you\u2019re kind of forced to go out.\u201d<\/p>\n Wicks has a small army of city and pro-housing groups in support of her bill. The lobby for the consumer attorneys, however, remains opposed. One concern, among others, is the requirement to identify each defect in a condominium complex rather than to extrapolate how many likely exist.<\/p>\n Wicks is a political heavyweight in the Assembly, and the bill sailed out May 26, 2026, without a single dissenting vote. Bills tend to get tougher questions in the second house. And while lobbies for attorneys tend to focus on the Legislature\u2019s judiciary committees, in the state Senate, Democrat Tom Umberg of Orange County runs the committee and is as fair a legislative arbiter as they come.<\/p>\n Many bills in the Legislature aren\u2019t worth the paper they\u2019re written on. Some can dramatically change the outside world. AB 1903 may be one of them.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019ll see a tremendous boost in condo production,\u201d Lane predicts.<\/p>\n Related Stories from Sacramento Bee<\/p>\n
![\"Profile](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/SAC_xm_230523tomPhilp012505.jpeg\")