inclusionary housing programs. Then, California’s situation will be compared to those of other countries in an attempt to understand what others have done to conquer similar challenges. There is no question that the homeless population requires immediate attention, and in the face of a worldwide pandemic the situation is only exacerbated and brought to the forefront of the mind. Given the statistics about the number of homeless with serious mental illness, preventative measures to homelessness in the future will need to look like better mental health care statewide. This may include long term plans for increased homes or live-in care. More urgently though, is the need of the people currently on the streets. While the pandemic has panicked many without homes, the long term effects and surrounding circumstances of the shut-down may present a unique opportunity to get people into stable shelter. First, the health crisis has forced the government to move forward with assistance measures more quickly than usually seen, reportedly spending $800 million into serving the homeless population since the beginning of the outbreak.32 Second, the pandemic has placed strain on the tourism industry and threatened small tourist businesses such as hotels.33 Third, experts have long recognized permanent supportive housing as the most stable and longest term solution to housing, but the regulatory barriers to building permanent supportive housing make the venture difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and often unrealistic.34 These factors combine to create the unusual opportunity for failed hotels, unable to reopen or wait out the storm of the pandemic, to be transformed into cost-effective permanent supportive housing units. Additionally, improving the housing situation in the state will require regulation reform of some kind. Though debates continue of the extent of regulations as the cause of the housing shortage, there is no question that it is a contributing factor. In order for more housing to be built, particularly affordable housing for low income residents, regulatory measures such as the California Environmental Quality Act must be lessened or restructured so that environmental friendliness is no longer an excuse for anti-growth measures which drive housing prices out of reach for California residents.35 Similarly, the scope of influence of inclusionary housing will have to be deeply researched and taken into account. Past programs have to be updated to take into account the current reality, which is not enough housing and too many barriers to overcoming the shortage. One suggested plan to update would incorporate a three part strategy including zoning reform, land value tax, and more housing subsidies, each serving a purpose and working in tandem to set California on a path toward a redeemed housing market.36 Whether the aforementioned three part plan will be accepted by state leaders or not, one thing is clear: the public’s attention—and therefore the attention of leadership is far more focused on the obvious disaster of homeless people
165
