2. FAIR is Unfair, California. Wake Up!

In a recent San Francisco Chronicle article—California FAIR Plan is running out of money; nearly all homeowners to help bail it out—the question of what “fairness” really means for Californians took center stage. The piece delved into local debates over zoning, taxation, and social welfare programs, showcasing how each initiative is defended under the banner of “fairness.” Yet this term, so commonly invoked in public discourse, remains slippery and often obscures the deeper complexities of social and economic justice. As Californians grapple with housing shortages, widening income gaps, and shifting demographics, it is becoming clear that the notion of what is “fair” can just as easily perpetuate systemic inequities as it can address them.

The Myth of a Level Playing Field

One of the most persistent myths in California’s social and political discourse is that we all start from the same place. In an ideal world, fairness means everyone competes on a level playing field and that hard work inevitably leads to success. However, as the Chronicle article pointed out, this assumption often discounts the historical and structural realities that have shaped different communities. From racially restrictive covenants in housing to under-resourced public schools, countless policies from the past and present have left certain populations at a disadvantage before they even begin the race.

When city councils and state legislators introduce policies in the name of “fairness,” they typically mean uniform rules—everyone must abide by the same regulations. But when an entire population does not, in fact, start at the same baseline, uniformity does not always ensure justice. Too often, it simply normalizes existing inequities.

Housing and the (Un)Fairness Gap

Nowhere is this issue more visible than in California’s housing market. The notion of “fairness” frequently surfaces in debates over zoning laws and development permits. Single-family zoning, for instance, has long been viewed by established homeowners as a fair means to preserve the “character” of their neighborhoods and the value of their properties. On the surface, that seems reasonable—if you purchased a house believing the surrounding area would remain low-density, it feels unfair for local authorities to change the rules.

Yet, the Chronicle rightly underscored how such zoning practices have contributed to the current housing crisis. These rules have historically excluded multifamily housing, thereby shutting out lower-income residents from neighborhoods where job opportunities, high-quality schools, and other resources abound. When preserving “fairness” for one group comes at the expense of preventing another group from even getting a toehold in the same environment, we have to ask: fair for whom? The myth that preserving single-family zoning is simply about protecting property values ignores how these rules entrench stratification.

Taxation and Social Welfare: A Mask for Inequity?

California’s tax structure—particularly property and capital gains taxes—also reflects the tension between what society calls fair and what might actually perpetuate inequality. Proposition 13, touted as a way of keeping property taxes “fair,” froze tax levels for long-term homeowners, thereby exempting them from rising costs that younger or more transient Californians now bear. The Chronicle article highlighted how, as a result, wealthy homeowners in gentrified areas pay substantially less tax than recent arrivals in less affluent places—even when both groups hold properties of roughly the same value.

In everyday political discussions, this structure is still sold as “fair” because it protects homeowners against unpredictable spikes. In reality, though, it places an outsized tax burden on newcomers and can reduce funding for critical public services like education, public transit, and infrastructure maintenance. These services, ironically, might help level the playing field for all Californians, regardless of whether they own a home. What started as a so-called fair policy ironically amplifies generational divides and diminishes the resources that could benefit communities at large.

A Narrow Definition of Fairness

In the Chronicle piece, a variety of commentators argued that fairness is not just about rules being the same for everyone—it’s about looking at outcomes as well. When we see systemic patterns of disadvantage, “equal treatment” is insufficient. This is why critics have called for more robust frameworks, such as equity, which explicitly acknowledges that people come from vastly different starting points. Rather than treating them all identically, policies oriented toward equity seek to ensure that marginalized groups receive targeted support to redress historical injustices and current disparities.

Yet, critics of equity-driven approaches often claim that such efforts are themselves “unfair,” because they grant special treatment to certain populations. This rhetorical move conveniently erases the legacy of segregation, discrimination, and wealth inequality—legacies thoroughly documented by historians, sociologists, and economists and referenced in detail by the Chronicle’s investigative reporting.

Whose Reality Counts?

Another critical insight from the article is how easily conversation about fairness gets diverted by focusing on a singular, dominant reality—one often shaped by those who have benefited from existing structures. Surveys and opinion polls frequently reflect the concerns of middle- and upper-income residents, making it appear as though their perspective is the only perspective. This, in turn, drives political and legislative agendas.

For instance, local governments may prioritize the preferences of long-term residents seeking to preserve neighborhood aesthetics over the urgent needs of individuals living in cars or under overpasses. Discussions about “fairness to current residents” overshadow the broader ethical questions of how a community should accommodate newcomers or how best to address skyrocketing housing and rent costs. When certain voices are amplified and others are not, it’s no wonder that the status quo remains intact.

Taking a Step Beyond “Fairness”

What if California reclaimed the term “fair” in a more expansive sense? Instead of conflating fairness with static rules and property ownership protections, we might adopt a perspective that recognizes unfairness whenever a group is locked out of basic resources. How fair is it, for instance, when low-income families can’t find safe, affordable housing in regions with ample job opportunities? Or when they are pushed to the periphery—both literally and figuratively—while wealthier enclaves remain cloistered in established neighborhoods?

The Chronicle article proposes that we start by asking better questions. Rather than “Is it fair to build affordable housing here?” we might ask, “Is it just to withhold new housing from working families who need it?” Instead of asking, “Should long-term homeowners pay more taxes?” we could ask, “Is it fair to perpetuate a system where property wealth grows for some but is inaccessible to others?” These reframed questions acknowledge that real fairness must reckon with decades-long trends of displacement, gentrification, and systemic bias.

Conclusion: California, Wake Up!

What emerges from all this, and what the San Francisco Chronicle article compellingly laid out, is that fairness can no longer be treated as a catch-all virtue if we fail to see how it is used to defend entrenched inequities. In a state as diverse, prosperous, and innovative as California, the burden of proof should lie on those who champion “fairness” while upholding the status quo. The conversation must shift toward a deeper, more nuanced understanding of equity—one that factors in the variety of starting lines and hurdles different Californians face.

Ultimately, if we cling to a narrow sense of fairness, we risk cementing inequality for generations to come. By recognizing the complexity behind the term, and by listening closely to the voices of those left behind, California might move closer to a fair society in the richest sense of the word. One that does not merely preserve existing advantages but provides meaningful opportunities, protections, and resources for all who call this place home.

California, it’s time to wake up—before our cherished ideal of fairness becomes the very thing that blinds us to our collective responsibility.