Why would they not scale? We have more people, more capacity to build, and greater opportunities for economies of scale.
Every homeless person, regardless of mental state, still needs housing. It is the one unifying aspect of homelessness.
Every homeless person, regardless of mental state, still needs housing. It is the one unifying aspect of homelessness.
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/Ne...
The desire to exclude, the refusal to permit enough housing, and the rejection of density are the fundamental cause.
The scale of the US has nothing to do with it. It's merely a cultural choice by a prior generation that younger generations have not yet been able to overrule. But they will.
Why doesn’t this happen? Because developers will have to do more work for less money.
The impediment to housing in California is capture of land use policy by homeowners and landlords. We should expand the category of home builders beyond developers, but developers make zero money when they are not building. So developers are not holding back housing in California. The few remaining developers in California tend to be more land bankers than developers. But if we made the process for decelopnrt straightforward, then small builders and contractors could build all sorts of projects. At the moment the process is so complex and difficult that getting approval to build on a site is a hugely valuable financial product that increases the value of a parcel of land significantly (though necessarily less than the cost of getting that approval).
The reason we do not have enough housing all comes down to that NIMBY neighbor who doesn't want to allow apartments anywhere nearby and who has also been given lots of wrenches to throw into the process of approval. We don't have that sort of approval process for single family homes, it's a night and day difference. Anybody is allowed to build a massive mansion without any community input, but for anything more affordable, neighbors can veto it, and do.
Otherwise, what's Finland's secret? Are they building houses for the homeless in the middle of nowhere? How do they manage to build public housing in the city without it ballooning into a $1M per unit boondoggle?
Being lot smaller helps, but it seems in large town new build pretty close to downtown is 150k€ for tiny apartment(23m^2).
4 and to a lesser extent 3 above are the biggest differences with the non-profits that build below-market-rate housing in California. In California, the non-profits must fight like hell to get any permission to build, and that process can easily take years upon years, with uncertain delays along the entire process. In the meantime, funds that might go to the project will have deadlines on them, and any project will actually be assembled from a large and diverse set of sources that vary from grants, to loans, to LIHTC tax credits. And for the funding that comes from an application process to other organizations.
All this means that the entire build must be 100% subservient to the needs of getting local build approval and funding gathered all at the same time. Any project that focuses on minimizing costs is going to fail because the other parts are so hard to pull together.
IMHO there should be changes to local approval such that when plans are submitted, the city has 90 days to give final approval or rejection, with zero, absolutely zero extensions. And if the city rejects projects that follow the rules, or takes longer than 90 days, then that city loses any control over permitting for a year and a disinterested state board takes over, with the city paying the state for that cost.
Due to the complexity and diversity in economic, cultural, and social value networks. For example, the approach which is working for Modesto will probably not work for San Francisco.
Our government is not more complex than Finland's because we have more people, it's because we chose to make it inefficient and complex.
Removing local cities' power to be different for the sake of complexity would solve the issue quickly. If the Bay Area had a regional government rather than tiny fiefdoms devoted to allowing wealthy people to extract the maximum economic value from shared business interests, while willing away their own tax dollars in tiny enclaves that are protected by minimum lot sizes and apartment bans, not only would we have far less homelessness to begin with, but we could solve the leftover homelessness much better, refuse crime and poverty, and have a far better functioning society.
Everything else you mention is just wishful thinking that could be applied to any government regardless of size or scope.
Name an efficient government of a country with hundreds of millions of people.