California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

Today, as the state grapples with an unprecedented affordable housing shortage, Article 34 has limited effects on the construction of low-income developments. But it remains an obstacle: Los Angeles officials believe that without a public vote in the coming years, the city will no longer be able to finance such projects — even though it has the money to do so.

I realize that screaming at “NIMBYs” is practically a hobby for some, but I can see their perspective too. For one, the resources exist today to do better, but it’s not done. Rather increased housing leads to billionaires, Russian oligarchs and others buying up expensive real estate and not actually living there. For all that new plans claim to be aimed at housing the poor, it rarely works out that way.

If you want to reduce concerns, use the existing funds responsibly, and prove that future loosening of restrictions wouldn’t just be a bonanza for the wealthy, and lead to even more tech influx. Listen to people who express concerns that leveling smaller structure and building vertically:

A.) Would lead to a predictable boom-bust leaving California at some future date, with a load of ugly, crumbling infrastructure.

B.) That attempts to house the poor will go hand in hand with other efforts to increase economic opportunities for them, expand mental healthcare, and improve policing. Without that it’s just warehousing, and communities do suffer.

C.) Would change what drew people there in the first place, leading to the afformentioned boom-bust.

D.) That this isn’t all about extremely well-paid techies who will move where’ve the money goes.

I see more of a dynamic, in practice, of rich existing interests clashing with rich incoming interests, while the poor are used as little more than a rallying cry or scapegoat. I suspect that I’m one of many unconvincedby arguments of “the character of a community” under threat, as well as facetious arguments from “digital nomads” who are mostly just tired of the commute. I’ll say it again, as the article states the money is there, Article 34 isn’t a significant impediment, yet the poor are still systemically screwed.

Public housing should be mixed into other neighborhoods, or (as my city does) developers should be incentivized to operate a certain percentage of subsidized low-cost housing in otherwise normal apartments.

- Is there evidence that they would be less safe than makeshift homeless communities? My instinct would be to assume that homeless people in California are already congregating somewhere, and that those areas have increased crime risks. Does public/low-income housing make it worse than the current situation already is?

- Should we weigh the overall loss in safety for middle-income residents against the overall safety of poorer or homeless residents? My instinct is to say that the homeless population in California is part of its constituency, and that their needs should be considered equally with middle/upper income residents. Suppose overall crime in an area is increased, but the area simultaneously becomes safer for the homeless population itself. Is there a ratio between those changes where we would say, "it's worth the increased crime."?