Sure, you can go homestead in Alaska. That should reduce demand in your city :)

Okay fantastic. California and the USA has extremely huge amounts of 'rural area with access to nature'. Enough for everyone with those desires to set up shop. I really don't think anyone would complain at all as many people are already camped on city sidewalks and we tolerate it, so hey, it's a somewhat improvement.

For everyone else, we are in desperate demand of 'inner city high rise'

You can go ahead and do that

They aren't mutually exclusive.

All tent cities in California cities should be relocated to state parks and open space land in unoccupied areas of the state, with homeless services exclusively provided there. They can be housed there while we build housing for the homeless in the more urban areas.

And what is your experience?

Zoning is the root of a lot of issues in the US:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/7/13/housing-scarci...

That depends on how long this goes on. It takes months to build a new unit, so it will make no difference in 3 months. In many areas there is a lot of pent up demand from people with more means who are living elsewhere, and they are now living in houses in areas far enough away that those living in tents won't find moving there useful.

In short it will take a decade or two of building to make a difference to those living in tents.

Also living in tents often implies other issues. More housing will not solve anything if your real issue is serious mental illness. There will also be a few people living in tents/on the street because their reason for living in tents is not related to the cost of housing. Building more housing will make a difference to those who's problem is housing is too expensive, but it can't help those who's problems are not high cost of housing.

This is all about making housing affordable. Ignore the 20% affordable housing figurine in the article; that's just a bandaid measure that doesn't address the root issue, which is that housing is too expensive. Increasing the supply of housing will decrease the cost of housing, for everyone. So yes, it will have an effect, but since there is such a high demand for housing and since it takes a long time to build it, it will be a while before that effect is felt. And if the growth in housing isn't sustained, then this will just be a blip.

I understand the point of these laws to be that cities were given the opportunity to have "increased density without high rise developments," the cities failed to use those opportunities, and so now that control is being taken away and the cities are being forced to accept whatever is sent their way.

Sprawl is a significant factor in climate change. Spreading out is what we've been doing

That's item 1 on the menu he offered.

I suppose maybe some people in California want their budget to balance in the upcoming decades, and have finally realized that restricting housing until the point that you start losing representatives in Congress is a long-term losing strategy.

And where is that?

Five floors may be the best for the parts of a city where the land is relatively cheap, but I doubt it's the most cost-efficient for, say, Manhattan, or the city centre of Hong Kong. At a certain point, the construction costs are dwarfed by the cost of land, and constructing a slightly larger building becomes a rounding error, unless somehow the marginal cost of the sixth floor increases astronomically.

Of course there will always be people taking advantage of every system. I think it's more problematic when the people setting up a system is also participating in it. See: US Congress making rules for itself, including stock trading (small potatoes) and corporations investing in politicians for massive returns (very large potatoes)

Not-so-poor people playing a game well that results in massive benefits? A mere distraction.

>Build enough and all houses are affordable.

There are more vacant units in the US than homeless people. There is some nuance in how the market functions - it happens to be profitable for large private landlords to set prices higher. The market does not exist to optimize the number of people who have housing, it exists to optimize the amount of money that landlords can make.