Whether it’s how and where we build infrastructure, public safety, or climate resilience, our government systems fail their constituents when they elevate process over outcomes and prescriptive regulation over pragmatism.

Last month, I had the opportunity to attend Beyond Scarcity: The Summit to Advance an Abundant California, hosted by the UC Berkeley Possibility Lab (special thank you to Emily Jacobson, one of our advisory board members, for the invitation!). This convening was designed to help subject matter experts expand and refine their understanding of abundance. I left feeling inspired by the interdisciplinary nature of our fight for abundance.

I’ve spent the last five years working in the housing and infrastructure space, convinced that the built environment was our key to unlocking a more equitable future. But this conference pushed me to think beyond this version of abundance; in truth, there are exciting policy ideas in so many different realms that face regulatory hurdles to implementation. To deliver an abundant future, we need to get out of our own way. 

My favorite panel, surprisingly, had nothing to do with housing or transit: it featured researchers in early childhood education, K-12 policy, and public safety, all of whom were experimenting with fitting their fields into an abundance framework. The parallels to California’s housing battles were staggering.

The early childhood education expert drove it home with a stark example: layers of regulation ostensibly designed to “protect” kids have instead strangled innovation that would help kids and parents alike. Any attempt at reform is met by hyperbolic fears (literally, accusations that deregulation would lead to children drowning in unregulated pools). Sound familiar? It’s the same scare tactics we encounter in the housing space, where rules masquerade as altruistic but ultimately cause scarcity that harms our communities. Throughout these varied industries, though, we’re seeing a shift toward outcomes-focused policy—which feels revolutionary (at least to me as a new listener) in these contexts.

The truth is, whether it’s how and where we build infrastructure, public safety, or climate resilience, our government systems fail their constituents when they elevate process over outcomes and prescriptive regulation over pragmatism.

There are so many different fields that are either currently exploring or were born out of an abundance framework. Credit unions, for example, were catalyzed by philanthropic investment in the 1920s, spawning over 5,000 member-owned institutions. Could similar models—where people organize around shared interests rather than adversarial identities—take root in the clean energy or housing space? Imagine cities and towns where “infrastructure” is redefined as a dynamic public good that is continually reinvested in, not a static asset that decays over time.  

As housing and land use advocates, our work is often about dismantling myths of scarcity. But these conversations remind me that abundance isn’t just about more—it’s about systems that deliver for all of us. Whether we’re lobbying for streamlined permitting or proposing changes to how we value and invest in infrastructure, the question remains: How do we make the impacts of progress tangible, so everyone can feel the system working for them?