The idea is degrading. A generation of people for which the only feasible path to home ownership is living in a mobile/kit home in someone else’s backyard.
Part of the political problem is people voting against any form of housing they don't want for themselves.
What's degrading is people on the street because CA has such an extreme housing shortage.
To elaborate: this would be a fine policy IFF it were accompanied by other legislation that meaningfully improved the affordability of non-ADU homes as well.
Isn't that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?
Such as? Isn't the ADU going to be more affordable than the non-ADU home by definition (unless the ADU is actually larger than the house that was there first)?
First off, a lot of people jumped on the tiny home bandwagon in recent years, some seem to like them. Second, an ADU in a decent neighborhood would probably be a lot quieter than the various condo/townhouse/apartment options. Thirdly, it's not like they have to live in the ADU forever - if they could buy/sell it they'd actually have some equity built up for moving up to something bigger.