Analysis: CA gov't isn't letting the private housing sector address homelessness
Kerry Jackson and Wayne Winegarden took to CalMatters to explain why California's ridiculous homelessness spending just isn't driving results: More gov't control over housing keeps developers gridlocked, supply down, and prices up. Instead, local leaders should remove regulatory barriers (looking at you, CEQA) to constructing and turning profits on homes.
California put aside $7.2 billion to address homelessness in the 2021-22 state budget. Last year, there were an estimated 172,000 homeless statewide, which equates to spending nearly $42,000 per homeless person.
Spending of this magnitude – which only accounts for state money – is sufficient if it were applied effectively. The worsening crisis indicates that something is off with how the state spends its resources.
This perspective is important in light of a comprehensive homeless survey by UC San Francisco. Many of its findings are enlightening, but too many of its suggestions call for more spending.
It strains credulity to believe that spending $42,000 per person is insufficient, but if bumped up to $45,000, all will be OK. California does not have the worst-in-the-nation homeless crisis because it spends too little....
Other suggestions merely throw money at the current ineffective government-run programs, a poor strategy bound to fail. Instead, California should fund well-run and fully accountable private sector groups that help homeless people gain control, address any issues and then become self-sufficient. The “California Way” bias has blinded lawmakers from successful initiatives in other states and tailoring them to West Coast needs. Partnerships and nonprofits in Virginia, Tennessee and elsewhere have shown that they can sustainably address homelessness through novel methods, flexibility and personalization.
Another flaw is government’s focus on “controlling the cost of housing” rather than removing disincentives driving the housing shortage. As rising inflation reminds us, you don’t lower the cost of anything by throwing money at people. We need to incentivize more housing supply by lowering costs and construction time through deregulation and avoiding harmful policies like rent control that worsen housing unaffordability.
The richest target for deregulation is also the state’s most firmly entrenched law: the California Environmental Quality Act. While well-intended when enacted in 1970, it has become a destructive force derailing “the possibility of homeownership” among the “hardworking members of Latino, Black and other minority communities,” says Jennifer Hernandez, an environmental and land-use lawyer who has documented CEQA’s long list of litigation abuses.
This article originally appeared in CalMatters. Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Image by Wikimedia Commons
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.