Romania has its plethora of (mainly Roma) shantytowns across the country, like Pata Rât which you link. But reasons why no one resorts to tents on a sidewalk are e.g. 1) weather in Romania is more or less the same across the country, unlike California which draws homeless from across the country for its clement weather, and 2) the Romanian authorities are more hands-off with enforcing building codes in Roma settlements, so you can erect actual buildings.

Also, perhaps emigration to Western Europe has served as a safety valve for homelessness. Some down-and-out Romanians can move to Italy or Spain and immediately improve their prospects. Down-and-out Americans, on the other hand, have nowhere to go so easily.

Actually only a small minority of California's homeless come from another state.

"L.A.H.S.A.’s 2019 homeless count found that 64 percent of the 58,936 Los Angeles County residents experiencing homelessness had lived in the city for more than 10 years. Less than a fifth (18 percent) said they had lived out of state before becoming homeless."

http://homelessperspective.com/2019/11/08/where-does-califor...

Those studies are always without any proof. Just because someone says they were “living” there doesn’t mean it’s true or in what capacity. I live next to a cop and believe me we are getting homeless druggies from all over because other states would rather send us their problems and those druggies would rather be here where we have loose and permissive laws. Our DAs regularly refuse to prosecute people who have dozens or even hundreds of felonies.

We built this hell.

Saying “I live next to a cop” doesn’t provide much proof either.

I think a big issue is that in the US people aren’t willing to acknowledge how blatantly corrupt ALL politicians are. People are really caught up in the tribalism of the two party system.

It’s not necessarily corruption. There’s plenty of voters who vote against making housing more affordable. The entire state of CA has built this mess with their zoning laws

I think the two party tribalism is a bit of a tangent but I agree. We need more options than red or blue.

Zoning is the big problem in the US. It is illegal in most cities to build a tiny house, or a decent shelter to sleep in, even if you follow all the safety codes. Zoning says you must have a minimum of 1000+ square feet (100+ square meters), a kitchen, a bathroom, a minimum lot size, minimum setbacks, minimum parking in some areas, etc. A sheriff with a gun will show up eventually to evict you. You either can afford city rent, or you are kind of screwed.

It's a shame that most places won't even allow these people anywhere to pitch a tent, somewhere with bathrooms and access to a bus stop.

> Zoning says you must have a minimum of 1000+ square feet

Minimum lot and habitable space rules vary by state and locality, not only is 1,000 sq. ft. usually above the minimum for habitable space, its often above the minimim for lot size by a wide margin.

Is that common or an exception, particularly in cities where the jobs are?

And does that change the point I was making, that zoning is a bigger impediment to more/cheaper housing than codes? It isn't safety codes that says I can't put six locked insulated sheds in my back yard for six homeless people to sleep in and a port potty, it's zoning, right?

> And does that change the point I was making, that zoning is a bigger impediment to more/cheaper housing than codes?

Zoning is codes, and safety is one of the overt purposes of such codes. And, conversely, state building/safety/hability codes can have zoning-like exclusionary purposes as well as their overt purposes. You can’t really cleanly divide them as unrelated orthogonal rules.

> It isn't safety codes that says I can't put six locked insulated sheds in my back yard for six homeless people to sleep in and a port potty, it's zoning, right?

No, in most cases using sheds and not having in-unit bathrooms would violate safety/hability codes at the state level, not just local zoning ordinances.

Now, building an otherwise legal multiunit apartment complex on your single-family-zoned lot would also be a zoning violation, true.

I appreciate the clarification on codes versus zoning.

However I did some digging and found that there's a big difference between what the commonly used international residential codes allow, and what zoning commonly allows.

From an article on tiny houses [0]:

> Most of the country’s local building codes have been adopted from the International Residential Code (IRC) for one- and two-family dwellings, which contains size specifications like rooms (except bathrooms and kitchens) must be at least 70 square feet, while ceiling height must be at least 7 feet.

> Zoning regulations are based off more local factors, and determine the size requirements of your home based on what zone it’s located in. You will need to call your local zoning or planning department to find that info. Many cities and counties, however, have a minimum size requirement of 1,000 square feet or more for construction of a new home on its own land, according to Tiny House Community.

And from a separate linked article on minimum dwelling size to satisfy codes [1]:

> I find no requirement that the sleeping area or kitchen must be in separate rooms, and instead could be combined in a studio arrangement. So I believe it could be legitimately argued that a minimum legal area by 2015 IRC standards could be as small as one habitable room of 70 sq. ft. with sleeping area and kitchen, plus a bathroom as small as 18 sq. ft. while meeting minimum spacing requirements.

So it does kind of look like zoning is still the big cost multiplier, since codes say 88 square feet minimum (separate bathroom), while zoning in most cities/counties in the US mandate 1000 square feet minimum. Quite a difference. And that's before getting into minimum lot size.

[0] https://archive.curbed.com/2016/9/22/13002832/tiny-house-zon...

[1] https://americantinyhouseassociation.org/minimum-size-for-a-...

Your article seems to misrepresent the minimum room size in the IRC for the minimum total house area:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/minimum-hou...

“The IRC codes require that all homes must be built on a minimum of 320 square feet. The minimum square footage for a house is 120 square feet, and at least one room must be habitable. Habitable rooms meet other regulations, such as needing a closet and at least one window. Other rooms, not meant for sleeping, must be at least 70 square feet.”

It also weasel words (and apparently succeeds in tricking you with it) about what zoning requires; what you interpret as “most” is actually described inbthe article you cite with the far weaker “many”:

> Many cities and counties, however, have a minimum size requirement of 1,000 square feet or more for construction of a new home on its own land

Not “most”.

Have I been tricked, or are you being pedantic? Based on my experience looking at a variety of specific city, town, and county zoning regulations I hardly see any that allows a primary dwelling anything close to as small as 120 square feet. 750 square feet? Sure, there's a bunch of those. 400 square feet? Some. Less than 400 square feet? Hardly any. Even places that allow accessory dwelling units are rare/uncommon.

The places where an overwhelming majority of people live (where the jobs are) have zoning regulations that do not allow 120 square foot houses, or anything close to that small. There's a lot of people who want a tiny house and can't find a place to legally put one. It still looks like zoning defines minimums for the most part, not safety codes, and there is a big difference, which was my original point.

Do you really think I'm that far off on this?

That is what I tell Americans all the time—go to any poor country in Europe and it never looks as bad as even the richer parts of San Francisco or LA. In California we simply have given up on the homeless.

We squander hundreds of millions and billions into completely untracked and unaccountable programs where executives skim off the top. We spend money on giving drug addicts more needles (but not to diabetics!) and blankets and $5000 tent camps or other useless or less than useless solutions. It’s pathetic that in the richest state and with so much wealth, we allow this inhumane situation to continue. COVID gave local mayors an excuse to do even less. Now there are city streets covered in filth, rats, feces, lawlessness, drugs, prostitution, etc are all on the street in broad daylight.

We should be embarrassed but most people just shrug it off (or downvote for bringing it up). Whatever we are doing is clearly not working and it’s a policy failure we should look into.

Then we have morons like the DA in San Francisco, Chesa Boudin, who have effectively stopped the police from enforcing the rule of law which is attracting more of the homeless who just want to do meth and steal bikes and break them down for parts. Every freeway overpass is covered in trash and homeless creeps are all over. I’m taking my wife and kid and moving out of California soon, this is just a disgusting way to live for the astronomical cost of living.

I don’t think it’s a question of money. The main constraints are:

1) No one wants homeless shelters, supportive housing, mental institutions, day program facilities, etc. in their neighborhoods.

2) Well meaning but naive people constrain the solution space.

For example, there’s been a movement to reduce arrests for various things. An unintended consequence or that is that homeless people that victimize other homeless people (including theft and assault) are less frequently arrested and so homeless shelters become less attractive to the homeless.

>> This is a failure for the US society as a whole, I am really surprised it's not a bigger discussion topic in the US mainstream media (at least I wasn't able to see it).

It's not a failure of the US society. In some parts of the world, which include the US, if you're out on the streets on your ass it's your fault. In other parts of the world, if you're out on the streets on your ass it doesn't matter whose fault it is, we'll take you in. Usually "we" is the family, sometimes "we" is the state.

But it's a feature, not a bug. Some parts of the world are so individualistic that everyone is on their own, for good or bad.