Depending upon whom you ask there is a 1.5 to 3.5 million housing deficit in California.
In 1946 the government implemented the "Veterans' Emergency Housing Program" which created 2.5 million homes in 3 years, by the end of 1948. This would be the equivalent of California building 1.3 million homes in 3 years from 2020 to 2023. Given the rate of increase in population this number rises to 2 million homes in 3 years.
The Solution was used successfully 65 years ago so why not use it again?
Emphasizing Northern California as an Example to be Applied State Wide.
Power Point Presentation of Facts Supporting this Legislation
"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory." Thomas Jefferson
"The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and did not want to hear the answer that was right."
Big Pharma and the research centers that promoted their Billion dollar profit products Tagamet and similar drugs, known as H2 blockers, for ulcers dismissed Dr. Barry Marshall's solution of using antibiotics as quackery. Well in 2005 Dr. Marshall received a Nobel Prize for his findings and proving thousands of doctors and scientists wrong. Much like how Big Pharma had a vested interest in continuing down a path of applying a solution that only alleviated the symptoms without curing the patient, so too does the current framework of the Affordable Housing Subsidizing industry in association with anti-development interest groups.
What is the solution? That Solution is to implement a program modeled after the “Veteran’s Emergency Housing Program.”
“Veterans’ Emergency Housing Program” (VEHP)
From 1946 to 1948, in a 3 year period of time, VEHP built 2.5 million homes that cost $10,000 or less to address the housing shortage crisis.
National Housing Emergency, 1946-1947
An act of congress, May 22, 1946, declared a national housing emergency and clothed the Executive Branch of the government with special powers to deal with it.
The Veterans’ Emergency Housing Program
Limiting the sale price or monthly rental of housing which can be built under the program to $10,000 and $80 per month respectively-administered by the NHA.
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2295&context=lcp pg. 13
3-year period that changed cities forever – The Veterans’ Emergency Housing Program
$10,000 for a house in 1948 adjusted for inflation equals $103,285.23 in 2017.
$80.00 a month for rent for an apartment in 1948 adjusted for inflation equals $826.28 in 2017.
William Levitt & Sons Mass Produced Housing
The building of every house was reduced to 26 steps, and sub-contractors were responsible for each step. His mass production of thousands of houses at virtually the same time allowed Levitt to sell them, fully furnished with modern appliances, for as little as $8,000 each ($65,000 in 2009 dollars) , ($75,356 in 2017 dollars), which, with the G.I. Bill and Federal housing subsidies, reduced the up-front cost of a house to many buyers to around $400. ($4,143.78 in 2017 dollars).
To fix the housing shortage California should implement a house building program modeled after the Veterans’ Emergency Housing Program.
Build 1.3 million single-family/unit homes that cost consumers $250,000 or less over the course of three years; and 300,000 of those homes which cost consumers less than $200,000.
Build 300,000 multi-unit apartment homes over the course of three years of which 100,000 units rent for $800 a month or less and another 100,000 units which rent for $1,200 a month or less.
A report by Metrostudy shows that only 12 percent of new homes are priced under $500,000 because prices in suburbs are rising.
"Many first-time buyers face a daunting challenge in one of the nation's priciest housing markets," LePage said in a statement.
Greg Gross, Metrostudy regional director for Northern California, said in a statement, "The story in this market continues to be affordability."
More than 20 percent of its residents struggle to make ends meet, according to recently released census figures. That’s nearly 8 million people.(Advocates for the poor argue that’s a great reason to dramatically expand housing subsidies).
For the last 30 years housing subsidies have not been able to meet the demand because you cannot tax poor people to pay for poor people's housing. The housing boom of the 40s, 50s and 60s created the largest middle class the world has ever seen. The only way to get back to that is to replicate that housing boom again.
California intends to spend $1 Billion annually on healthcare coverage for undocumented immigrants. If California cut housing costs in half than it would be unnecessary as the people would have the extra money to pay for their own healthcare as well as their own housing and still have money left over.
At a cost of $1,000 a month for health care $1 Billion will provide healthcare coverage for about one million people for ONE month or $83,333 for ONE year. Using that $1 Billion to implement the California Home Revitalization & Homestead Act would reduce housing costs by fifty to 70 percent for 5 to 7 million people indefinitely.
What is the most effective and efficient means of reducing overall “cost of living.”
What I mean by that is the poor have a difficult time affording to pay for their food so the state subsidizes their ability to buy food with “food stamps.” What exactly is “food stamps?” “Food stamps” is nothing more than other Californian’s money that the state took from them in the form of taxes and redistributed it to the poor so that the poor can pay for their food yet not before several public employees took a portion of that money as a part of their own income.
Why does the state need to pay for the poor’s food? The state needs to pay for the poor’s food because the poor don’t make enough money to pay for their food on their own. Why cannot the poor pay for the food they need? The poor cannot pay for the food they need because they do not earn money to meet the market rate for food. The market rate of food exceeds the ability of the poor to acquire what they need.
So the state steps in and makes up the difference in the form of “food stamps,” and financial grants to non-profits that provide food to the poor at no cost, modern day “soup kitchens.”. If the state were to rewrite the rules of the game of the market so that the poor earned more money and therefore would no longer require “food stamps” the state employees whose job it is to redistribute the money from tax payers to non-tax payers would no longer be necessary. Do I sense some “conflict of interest.”
Okay so when we say that the poor cannot afford to pay for their food what we are truly saying is that they are not capable of paying for their housing, their food, their health care and other necessities to function in society. Many of the poor pay for their housing but cannot pay for their food. Other poor pay for their own health care by working at companies like Starbucks yet they don’t make enough pay their rent and food costs so the state comes in and makes up the difference for them.
When people cannot pay for their food, housing, healthcare and other necessities from the income of a full-time job people cannot afford the “cost of living.” The inability of a large number of people’s ability to afford the cost of living is a sign that the economy is failing to produce a minimum amount of wealth necessary to survive for the majority of people.
The biggest factor as to why people cannot afford the “cost of living” is due to the biggest UNNECESSARY expense, the cost of housing.
Healthcare costs approximately $600 month for an individual and $1,634 a month for a family.
If the state changed the housing market so that housing costs were cut in half statewide people would no longer need the state to subsidize their healthcare costs nor their housing costs saving the State Billions of dollars in money that is in actuality maintaining a malfunctioning economy and income inequality.
With those extra Billions of dollar of tax revenue now available the state can use that revenue on rebuilding the States aging water and highway infrastructure as well as investing in clean energy projects.
Spending $1 Billion on reducing housing costs would provide more healthcare coverage than spending $1 Billion only on healthcare plus it would reduce housing costs to boot.