Funny, you should read Adam Smith's opinion of landlords:

http://geolib.com/smith.adam/won1-11.html

or quoting from mises.org(!)

Smith was even less kindly to the role of landlords, where he recognized no economic function whatever that they might perform. In pungent passages, he writes that 'As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords like to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce'. And again: 'as soon as the land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of almost all the produce which the labourer can either raise or collect from it'.

But the housing market in California is arguably distorted; it doesn't actually reflect "free market" economics. So I think you're being a bit petulant trying to claim it's just about what the market will bear.

The market only bears it because the government (federal, state, and/or local) in some cases has arguably helped place realty companies and others in a position where they essentially hold a monopoly over vast areas of land and housing.

California also has a unique problem in the form of proposition 13:

http://www.nber.org/digest/apr05/w11108.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-19/jerry-brown-s-last-...