I think you're a little confused. The ADU thing was good, too, but I'm talking about SB9 and SB10, which are larger-scale fixes. Of course they're going to bring homelessness down. We can make a bet on it, but I think you'd be nuts to take it.
Actually, yes, the root cause of homelessness is a lack of housing. My Porsche analogy was perfect, but if you actively resist market thinking, you're not going to understand it. As I pointed out, look where homelessness is highest, and they all have one thing in common--very high housing costs. Look what happens when housing costs go up or down (homeless rises or falls). There's no correlation between addiction or mental-health issues and homelessness. It's just a dumb deflection that unscrupulous politician make, counting on stupid people's natural aversion to markets.
I'm not going argue the root cause of homelessness anymore, clearly we aren't going to agree in this.
But in regards to what was signed, I only knew about the adu and split property part of it since thats all I saw people bitching about and I stand by my statements in regards to that.
But since you said there's more to it, then let's take a look at it.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/16/g...-housing-supply-and-fight-the-housing-crisis/
Today, California officials announced the new California Housing Accelerator – a $1.75 billion component of Governor Newsom’s California Comeback Plan to expedite construction of an estimated 6,500 shovel-ready affordable multi-family units in projects stalled due to constraints on the supply of tax-exempt bonds and low-income housing tax credits.
This sounds great, but how are they going to make the housing affordable? Sure, sounds like tax liability will be reduced which won't necessarily put a huge dent in the cost. But how are unemployed people living on the street going to afford them even in spite of tax credits? How do they determine who qualifies?
This sounds like it will benefit your typical middle class earning family.
The Governor today signed California State Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins’ SB 9, the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, which the
White House this month commended to increase housing supply. The HOME Act facilitates the process for homeowners to build a duplex or split their current residential lot, expanding housing options for people of all incomes that will create more opportunities for homeowners to add units on their existing properties. It includes provisions to prevent the displacement of existing renters and protect historic districts, fire-prone areas and environmental quality.
This was the only part I was familiar with, which we've discussed already
SB 10 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) creates a voluntary process for local governments to access a streamlined zoning process for new multi-unit housing near transit or in urban infill areas, with up to 10 units per parcel. The legislation simplifies the CEQA requirements for upzoning, giving local leaders another tool to voluntarily increase density and provide affordable rental opportunities to more Californians.
If this works, great. But I'm skeptical considering most municipalities would rather zone area for commercial use because they get more property tax returns on it, which is the downside to Prop 13.
The Governor also signed SB 8 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), which extends the provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 through 2030. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which was scheduled to expire in 2025, accelerates the approval process for housing projects, curtails local governments’ ability to downzone and limits fee increases on housing applications, among other key accountability provisionsGovernor Newsom also signed AB 1174, by Assemblymember Tim Grayson (D-Concord), an urgency measure that makes changes to the existing streamlined, ministerial approval process for housing development in jurisdictions that have not yet made enough progress towards their allocation of their regional housing needs.
Seems pretty straightforward to me
In sum, it sounds like if some of this works, it could make it more affordable for buyers and renters.
But going from homeless to a buyer is quite the leap. You'd think they'd try to get homeless into rentals first... I mean don't we already have housing vouchers as it is? Unless when they say "multi-family units" there is the assumption they are going to be rentals.
And for the record I'm all for building more properties to make housing more affordable for buyers instead of constantly zoning for rentals which almost always what we see usually.
But I would bet you that even with low income housing being built, you aren't going to put much of a dent in homelessness. The lower class people who work and support their families are going to benefit of course from this, which is good. But I don't think the people who phoned it a long time ago, suffering from addiction and/or have mental health issues are going to be lead to water because of this.
They'll stay on the streets unemployed because that's the life they know. Unless they get the help they need first to be a contributing member of society. Then, maybe they'll be more likely to work and take advantage of low income housing opportunities.
