I think you have the right facts, wrong (or at least unsubstantiated) conclusion.
Much of California's problems lie in regulatory capture. Housing can't be built because homeowners have experienced great wealth gain and don't want it to be touched (at the detriment of livability for all generations after -- or folks attempting to climb to socioeconomic ladder).
Then you could make a similar argument for social spending on homelessness, which at least from the Bay Area seems wasteful in that it doesn't attack root problems (drug rehab and housing).
Where is the evidence that the government is effective at managing money, as you imply?
I would agree with that last comment. Currently, social spending on homelessness IS wasteful. LA's Prop HHH is a joke, it's only led to the rise of the homelessness industrial complex. It's not the equity built but the red tape...
Many people here support a strong central government. However, I do not.
What would your alternative to government money management be? Corporations have frequently shown themselves to be bad at managing money - just look at our history of bailouts.
Not to say governments are particularly good at it either, but there's at least the opportunity for better alignment of incentives and transparency there, unlike with corporations.
Agreed, we should be doing much more of that. There are still some things that the government would still need to pay for like infrastructure improvements though.
Much of California's problems lie in regulatory capture. Housing can't be built because homeowners have experienced great wealth gain and don't want it to be touched (at the detriment of livability for all generations after -- or folks attempting to climb to socioeconomic ladder).
Then you could make a similar argument for social spending on homelessness, which at least from the Bay Area seems wasteful in that it doesn't attack root problems (drug rehab and housing).