Except your point isn’t at all correct. A home that has no one living in it because it is in the process of changing hands(sale, looking for a renter) is not s

Except your point isn’t at all correct. A home that has no one living in it because it is in the process of changing hands(sale, looking for a renter) is not something that signifies a distribution problem. Your number overstates the actual number that are habitable by those without houses by a unknown, but likely very large factor. Additionally, California is HUGE. Housing location isn’t fungible. You can’t address Bay Area homelessness with empty houses in Redding. The “we already have enough houses” argument is a gross oversimplification, that constantly gets rolled out by people who think the status quo is ok, when it clearly is not.