Housing affordability in California is worse than it’s ever been, according to statistics and state officials.

And the housing crisis is making other things worse.

In an example of how bad housing policy begets bad, consider new legislation proposed by Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, a Democrat from L.A.

Santiago is rightfully frustrated with how cities and counties have passed measures to slow or freeze development in their communities. Such development restrictions can pass locally on a simple majority. And they add to the cost and difficulty of building housing – and buying and renting housing. California now has a median housing price more than 2 ½ times the national average.

But Santiago’s legislation would cure the California housing disease with the California governing disease.

He proposes to introduce another supermajority into supermajority-mad California. Instead of a majority vote for any restriction on growth, any measure that would block or delay development (the language is broad) would require a two-thirds vote.

That might seem fair in a brutal sort of way: if you want to stop growth restrictions, make them harder. But localities often get two thirds votes for taxes, so it wouldn’t stop growth. And the example is terrible: two-thirds votes are anti-democratic. They allow a minority of voters to make decisions, and it’s hard for people to accept the legitimacy of elections where the side in the minority wins. (Just ask our so-called president).

California needs leadership on the housing issue—at the state and local level. It needs unwinding of housing restrictions. It needs more ways to finance housing, and more ways to expedite housing, especially multifamily housing, in areas where it’s already approved. What is needed is more flexibility – on housing and governing.

Which is why an inflexible new supermajority isn’t going to make governing, or building housing, any easier.