> Is your position that nothing should be done unless it is known beforehand that it will address some certain percentage of the problem? I think it makes sens

> Is your position that nothing should be done unless it is known beforehand that it will address some certain percentage of the problem? I think it makes sense to try to maximize dollars spent vs. impact made. 30 million dollars is a lot of money, whereas 1200 is literally 1% of the overall homeless population in California. What's the goal of this program? Do 1200 "houses" really move the needle? Is 25k per "house" really scalable? Or is this just burning tax dollars on PR? > Or like change your statement to be about housing in general. Tens of millions of people in housing that costs $300,000 per family? Doesn't sound like it scales. If we move the needle enough on what we're discussing nothing makes sense. My question was basically "How does this actually positively impact the homelessness problem in California?". And the answer seems to be "It doesn't really".