Once upon a time in magical California, where the sun always seems to shine except when you’re stuck in traffic, the state spent a whopping $24 billion on homelessness. Now, you might be thinking that $24 billion could buy an impressive mansion or perhaps a decent-sized island somewhere. But in California, it bought more tents than ticket booths at Disneyland. Yes, according to some calculations, it costs the state $170,000 for every homeless person. That’s a lot of zeros for zip codes that still serve as outdoor living rooms!
Picture this: the streets of downtown Los Angeles, where folks with huge responsibilities and even bigger egos cruise by in their electric cars, only to see tents sprouting up like wildflowers after a spring rain. Governor Gavin Newsom insists the unsheltered homeless number dropped by almost 9% last year. But as you glance at the endless rows of encampments, it seems the math took a day off.
For those new to Son-of-a-Gun State, Gavin has been promising solutions since the era before smartphones. He first got elected way back in 1998, giving him over two decades to solve the riddle of our time. Yet, here we stand knee-deep in a crisis it seems even Captain Obvious couldn’t miss. You’d think that’s a long time to learn that throwing money at a problem doesn’t make it go away, but does it make the problem worse and more expensive? California sure seems like a model student!
Some say California’s homelessness dilemma is a result of politics as usual—a cycle of spending and blame with a side of media posturing. And let’s not forget the real estate game. Why solve a problem when it’s this profitable? The state continues its never-ending marathon with ever-pricier hurdles, taxpayers left wondering how they ended up financing a reality show instead of progress.
Fear not, as Gavin has his eyes set beyond the Golden State. But let this be a warning: don’t let California’s brand of lavish spending and creative accounting come to a town near you. The results might be both entertaining and costly but sure to leave locals with a view they’d rather not pay for. After all, not everyone believes bigger budgets mean better results, and sometimes, the solution might be simpler—and a lot less expensive—than it seems.
