ACLU lawsuits against LAPD and other entities have provided legal framework for living on sidewalks and public parks (judge’s opinion ruled that sit-and-lie ordinance is likely unconstitutional), pitching up tents on public property, like sidewalks (by ruling that any regulation that prevents that in 100+ degrees LA summer constitutes cruel and unusual punishment).

Prop 57 also removed legal framework for prosecuting casual drug trade, so LAPD basically stopped making drug-related arrests in Skid Row, as the culprits just get a misdemeanor charge.

There are even programs in various cities in the middle of the country that will pay to bus homeless people to California. And then those states try to stop all federal funding on homelessnes.

California is housing the country’s homeless, federal funding should be taking care of most of this problem.

California is definitely a destination for homeless people due to climate and tolerance.

There is a practice known as Greyhound Therapy where many cities around the country put mentally ill people on a bus and just ship them off to be someone else’s problem. Many times they pick California because they know that the homeless person would be better off there.

California and Florida are indeed major homeless destinations due to climate, and California more so due to tolerance.

The US allows local governments to control zoning. Local government will always protect incumbent landowners since incumbent landowners probably have control of local government. As such, ceding control to localities will result in a lot of localities protecting their investments and preventing dense developments.

A possible solution is to enforce national level zoning laws that forbid such practices that prevent dense developments where they otherwise should be.

I read a theory that it is due to CA offering drug programs designed to get addicts off drugs. Addicts move there, and when the program fails, they stick around. I've no idea whether it is a valid theory.