An abandoned office park in Sacramento will be the site of the first group of 1,200 tiny homes to be built in four cities to address California’s homelessness crisis, the governor’s office announced Wednesday after being criticized for the project experiencing multiple delays.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is under pressure to make good on his promise to show he’s tackling the issue. In March, the Democratic governor announced a plan to gift several California cities hundreds of tiny homes by the fall to create space to help clear homeless encampments that have sprung up across the state’s major cities. The $30 million project would create homes, some as small as 120 square feet (11 square meters), that can be assembled in 90 minutes and cost a fraction of what it takes to build permanent housing.

More than 171,000 homeless people live in California, making up about 30% of the nation’s homeless population. The state has spent roughly $30 billion in the last few years to help them, with mixed results.

  • @grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    161 year ago

    Please, I’m begging you: just fix the damn zoning already!

    (That goes for California and everywhere else in North America.)

    • @Num10ck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      in tons of instances theres simply lacking the infrastructure like electricity water and sewer and traffic etc to handle such densities in a reasonable timeframe, nor the labor or materials or finances to bring them up. i’d love to see a long term plan along with a short term stopgap like this.

      • @grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        It’s called “impact fees.” The developers pay for the infrastructure costs to support the development.

        • @TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          It depends on each region but in the case of Cali prop 13 (someone correct me) keeps a certain type of zoning locked in preventing new developments. It’s awful.

      • @grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it’s that; development with dense zoning can be just as profitable, if not more so.

        If anything, the corrupt business interests behind this would’ve been mostly General Motors and Standard Oil back in the day. Nowadays, I think it’s genuinely sustained mostly by good ol’ fashioned grassroots racism, classism, and NIMBYism.

        • @PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Depends on who wants what land or who owns what land. If you think local politicians aren’t up the asses of your local elite, I’d say you’re being way too kind.

          • @grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Perhaps I misled by using the word “grassroots.” The local elite are the NIMBYs. Their selfish interests as homeowners collectively greatly outweigh the business interests of the tiny minority of them who are property developers.

            In other words, consider the archetypal mansion neighborhood way too close to the city center (for example: Tuxedo Park in Atlanta), whose single-family, large lot zoning physically displaces tens of thousands of people who could have been living there if development were allowed to meet demand. Even if the filthy-rich developers living there wanted to buy out their neighbors and profit fabulously from meeting that demand – and they don’t, because they themselves live there – they can’t because their neighbors are doctors and lawyers and CEOs and celebrities who are just as rich and powerful as they are and would never stand for it.

            • @PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              That’s fair. I’m in a small/mid sized city that’s still expanding into the neighboring towns so the impact is really bad at times.