>

Sure.  Build more homes.  But then how are you going to provide power and water to them on an already over-stressed grid?
Given the population density, maybe standard suburban homes aren't really the thing. Affordable apartments maybe? People have to live somewhere, but not everyone needs a 1/4 acre with a garage and a garden. It would be nice, but at some point there's just not fucking room. And if there were room, there isn't enough water to build out like that much more. >

People need to own, not rent.  It's the basis of generational wealth. >

People can own apartments. >

Speak to Bloomberg about that.  Blackrock isn't offering rent to buy keep licking their ass to the detriment of your peers. In the long run,  YOUR economy will be damaged. >

If only there were effectively unlimited water to pipe into that new housing. There is a way to handle this: BAN ALL LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Ventura counties. Good luck with that.
Banning may be too extreme, so require separate water meters for landscaping, and charge multiples of residential water charges. >

Actually, California banning water intensive crops like almonds would save a lot of water. >

I have no problem with that. Another excessive use of water is alfalfa, which also means cattle ranching in California outside the northern Bay Area and into Mendocino and San Joaquin counties is ridiculous. >

Makes too much sense. >

It's the land that is expensive, not the house. >

Then why is LA so spread out? >

LA is actually more dense than most American cities. >

Just build more housing and rail. Focus first on upzoning the areas near rail in LA. It’s all about supply and demand. Also don’t be distracted by impossible/harmful solutions like depopulation or demand solutions. Rent control is only a bandaid solution which I think should be adopted but not in lieu of housing construction. Supply manipulation by big corporations could be discussed/addressed, but this is not the main reason housing is unaffordable.
Additionally, anybody who doesn’t believe housing should be affordable has no ground to say that people don’t want to work anymore. Cheap labor has been priced out of the big cities and those living their will suffer the consequences of that. >

Probably need to make L.A'.s housing affordable first, before you can keep it affordable. >

More homes built. Banks buy extra homes. Problem persists >

More homes built.  Prices go down. Banks don't profit from hoarding homes. >

Me thinks homelessness is a social issue, not a resource issue. Trauma doesn’t go away indoors.