> As a blue-stater, I'm undecided on whether I agree that it's a right, but I definitely think that nobody has a right to shelter in any property they choose.
Given that all the property is claimed, I don’t see what the distinction is. If there existed a ton of unclaimed coastal California property, there wouldn’t be a problem.
So the more interesting and actionable question then is who has the right to live in coastal California?
None of the rights that people have are unrestricted in that way. The sixth amendment gives you the right to a lawyer paid for by the government, but it doesn't give you the right to pick any lawyer you choose.
The obvious answer is that, if people do have the right to shelter, it is the state / county / city's obligation to make some form of shelter available. And I get that there are "shelters" available, but from what I understand they are effectively not available to a vast number of unhoused people far a wide variety of reasons. Failure to maintain appropriate shelters is effective a constructive refusal.
I liked the concept of the tiny home villages that LA experimented with, but it looks like they did a poor job, or cost cutting got too severe, and ultimately they fell short.
Given that all the property is claimed, I don’t see what the distinction is. If there existed a ton of unclaimed coastal California property, there wouldn’t be a problem.
So the more interesting and actionable question then is who has the right to live in coastal California?