What makes you think California's programs fit that description? Housing programs in the US and most other countries are viciously means-tested because the necessary long-term investments are not being made to improve capacity to meet demand (on top of the moral arguments involving who "deserves" help based on their backgrounds or struggles).
If you can point to a single housing authority who has implemented such a plan satisfactorily, ie, to meaningfully address homelessness within their jurisdiction following the dictates of that bill, please do let us know. But it's otherwise naive to assume that because a law exists that the state has the resources to enforce it. Virtue signalling pursuant to more-or-less intentionally hamstrung initiatives is rampant in California's legislative bodies.
Where in that bill is the mandate to build or acquire housing adequate for demand? What makes you think legislators aren't savvy enough to understand the consequences of legalistic language and the loopholes it can provide?
Solutions are a separate question and irrelevant for this comment thread. Do you have any reason to believe that California is comparable to Finland? Or did you just need to vent?
