THE STATE’S approach to the housing and homeless problems don’t seem to be working as well as we’d like (Shutterstock).

Housing issues have been in the news locally lately and they reflect the old saying that “a camel was a horse designed by a committee.”

California is an extremely expensive place to live. There are still a lot of homeless on the street. Neither problem is close to being solved, and neither problem is solvable by what has come out of Sacramento.

The cost of housing is partly driven by demand. People want to live here and a ) the nearer the coast better and b) near where there are jobs.

Both are completely reasonable reasons, but the given solutions are not. The imposition of ADUs (accessory dwelling units) and their new cousin, junior accessory units, was intended to make more housing available.

But the blowback is to crowd suburban areas with too much traffic, too much demand on roads, law enforcement, demand on utilities, etc. by adding units not aimed at providing more housing exactly, but by serving as a revenue stream for homeowners who rent the extra unit out at for-market prices.

Most homeless persons are not just a few dollars out of reach from affording an apartment, but are hobbled by mental illness, alcoholism and drug abuse. Most of the unsheltered have refused services because it means they would have to stop drinking, using drugs or agree to mental health treatments.

The infamous “regional housing needs assessment” that calls for 13,000 new homes in Huntington Beach and 19,000 in Garden Grove will not spark a wave of affordable housing and the chief economic benefit – if any – will be to those who construct or sell housing.

Access to housing is influenced by interest rates, desirability of an area and people’s ability to buy. Or, to go to another old saying: “It’s complicated.”