The definition of rich is "having a great deal of money or assets", California's tight budget doesn't leave much room for a large reserve - what comes in gets spent the same year, and it's always a mystery whether or not the state will be solvent next year.
Thank prop 13 for that.
Or high-speed rail. Or unreasonable pension obligations.
Just prop 13. If a less well off Europe can handle all 3 so can the richest state in the richest country.
While statutory property tax increases are exclusive to California, homeless populations are not.
Being so spectacularly wealthy and having such a large homelessness problem at the same time is unique to California though.
Hence "wealth distribution" problem, not "not having enough wealth" problem.
Again, what number are you looking at to call California wealthy? California state budget revenues are $4,366 per capita, which is fairly low-end. North Dakota, Wyoming, Washington, Kentucky, Minnesota and Oregon are all in solid five digits a head. California's is richer than Georgia's $2,320 per capita for sure, but if it were a person in a company of 49 other friends, it would be a low-income friend always trying to borrow money.
A GDP of $2.6 trillion, highest in the US and 14% of the US total. Deliberate starvation of state and city budgets doesn't stop California from being the richest state.
One of the richest and largest polities on earth has a large number of mentally-ill people who would befoul basic sanitation facilities were they given access to them.