[seriesf]

This is a problem of supply. “An unprecedented $1 billion” will buy you at most three thousand new dwellings, probably fewer given high cost and inefficiency of housing construction in California.

California has been under-building housing for decades, to the extent that people will call this current activity a housing “boom” even though it’s only slightly above historic lows.

[Zarath]

I wonder how many people you could pay to just sweep streets and clean up garbage for 1 billion.

[seriesf]

Housing is so expensive that you'd have to pay ~$50k/year even for those jobs. That's the big problem: anything you do on the demand side, like paying people higher wages, or giving them housing vouchers, goes directly into the landlords' pockets.

[vuln]

Little Rock is doing this.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/little-rock-homeless-pic...

[trophycase]

It's not like there's a shortage of work that society needs done, but that capitalists won't be able to make money off of. I think this is a perfect target for getting people on their feet.

[vuln]

Maybe someone or a not profit could built an app which pays people for picking up trash. The user would take a pic of the trash then a pic of proper disposal. The user would get paid some small amount that varies based on item, maybe 5-20 cents. The company could use the exif data from the photos for various studies. That data could be resold or used to help companies built better products or realize their customers are ruining their brand by throwing Pepsi cans on the ground instead of the recycling bin. If you brought on the social media aspect your users could humble brag about the few dollars a month they make helping keep the earth clean.

[someguydave]

Who is going to pay the homeless to do unprofitable work?

[Zarath]

The same people that are paying 1bn to build unprofitable housing? (I have to assume the housing is unprofitable or else it wouldn't be so difficult to build it)

[KirinDave]

> inefficiency of housing construction in California.

California housing isn't "inefficient." The housing codes are made with the idea of keeping houses up through natural disasters and serviceable for a long time. We might modify that last provision (as Tokyo does, for example) but it comes with it's own problems.

The idea that somehow housing regulation increasing costs is the core or even a major contributor to the problem is one that requires substantial evidence.

Unless you're referring to "Californian contractors are overpaid," which seems more like a reflection of the expensive cost of living here than "inefficiency."

[seriesf]

Well you are very wrong there. The inefficiency is in the permit process. In San Francisco it takes years to get your project approved, and that time is money. Many projects also just don’t get approved, and the carrying costs and fees of those failures don’t even get added to the average cost per dwelling that eventually gets reported. In many jurisdictions permitting and planning consume a full third of the cost and take years.

[KirinDave]

> Well you are very wrong there. The inefficiency is in the permit process. In San Francisco it takes years to get your project approved, and that time is money.

There is no denying that California refuses to build housing. This does raise the cost of Californian housing. However, this is characterized distinctly from efficiency of the housing regulations and building codes in most conversations specifically to avoid the dodge many developers present, "Housing codes are too strict, it's inefficient to build homes in California."

If I ended up misreading your post as a result of context, I apologize for doing so. I did not mean to put words into your mouth. But please consider that many other people may read this and read the same intent because of specific phrasing you're using.

[scurvy]

If it's supply, why are there high numbers of homeless in lower cost areas like Sacramento that have lots of supply?

[seriesf]

The last available vacancy rate in Sacramento was 2.9%, the lowest ever reported. They don’t have “lots of supply”.

[scurvy]

They do for sale. Sacramento hasn't been a big renter's market.

[seriesf]

Sacramento is majority-renter according to the Census, and is the fifth most competitive (ie worst, from buyer’s perspective) housing market in America according to Redfin. I can’t imagine why you think there is “plenty” here.