Want to put California’s housing crisis into perspective?

Then head up to the hills.

Take Highway 49 north out of Sonora.

As you approach the bridge crossing of New Melones Reservoir just around a sharp bend you will see a sign stating “Jackass Hill Road” with an arrow pointing to the right.

Drive a short ways up the road and you will come to what was once the home of Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain, one of America’s most celebrated writers.

The cabin he shared in 1864-1865 with other miners still stands, partially restored and partly arrested decay.

It is basic shelter. Fireplace. Windows. Doorway.

There was no indoor plumbing.

There was no HVAC.

There was no insulation.

There was no electricity.

You’d be hard-pressed to squeeze two Chevy Suburbans side-by-side under the roof.

There is a few feet extra lengthwise, but that’s is about it.

It is just somewhat larger than a secondary bedroom in an average tract home.

And there was no 10-foot ceiling.

That must have been a challenge for the 5-foot-9 Clemens, given it is doubtful anyone much taller could stand up straight inside.

Fast forward nine years to 1873.

Clemens commissioned a new home to be built in Hartford, Connecticut.

Instead of rustic Sierra foothill, it is more in the genre of American revival gothic.

The home consists of three floors, 25 rooms, and 11,300 square feet.

It looks like what most of us would call a house.

That said, most of us would not call the cabin a house.

It is clear the Hartford home was much more expensive to build.

It actually cost $45,000 to build back in an era when $50 a month was an outlandish wage for a house servant.

The house on Jackass Hill probably cost several hundreds of dollars to build and was likely considered outrageous for the time

That’s because primitive glass windows, nails, and assorted supplies needed to assemble milled and non-milled wood, along with other building materials were inflated in the California market.

The Gold Rush wasn’t at its zenith but the hunt for gold was still going on.

Building supplies were scarce and in high demand.

The point of this trip back in history is simple.

The biggest problem we have when it comes to addressing the housing crisis is how we define housing.

Yes, a hovel is clearly a hovel.

The problem is more along the lines of what constitutes a house and the number of people that society expects to live in one.

We certainly don’t define housing as basic shelter.

If we did one solution would obviously by building more efficiency apartments. Think old-fashioned college dorms with separate bedrooms but shared communal bathrooms, kitchens, and living area.

“Old-fashioned” because newer dorms have basic rooms with bathrooms and are designed for one person instead of roommates.

That helps to explain why it is not unusual on some campuses for a dorm room to come close to $20,000 a year — significantly more than the rate of inflation for prices paid for college dorms in the 1950s.

The Biden administration believes if the federal government can build 500,000 starter homes it will make a sizable dent in the “housing crisis.”

Rest assured they will have minimum room sizes. They will have the latest — and by extension — expensive building technology whether it is the roofing or insulation.

True new standards save money in the long run, but it raises the price bar up front.

And some new standards place long-range affordability, which is key to being able to afford housing below environmental concerns, even if studies contend to benefits may not justify the cost.

Yes, those 500,000 homes likely would not be allowed by the federal government to use natural gas to heat them, heat water, or cook even though the energy output based on British Thermal Units is significantly more efficient and significantly less expensive than using electricity to do the same things.

Our definition of the un-housed often includes those not living in situations that match a bureaucratic decree.

Are multiple unrelated families living under the same roof, multiple adult-family generations doing the same, or five single people sharing a two-bedroom flat examples of a housing crisis per se?

It is more of a societal issue and not an economic issue.

That’s because the type of housing people living in through such arrangements might be able to afford isn’t being encouraged.

We’re not talking tiny metal houses as big as a typical backyard shed with heat, air, bed, desk, and shelving that cost $8,000 a pop clustered around a restroom facility.

There are options such as single and double-wide modular housing.

The development of government owned mobile home parks makes more sense instead of trying to implement some form of federal rent control that has been tossed about and will do absolutely nothing to encourage more apartments to be built.

Toss that out as a possible piece of the solution and the pushback would be loud enough that it would pop your eardrums.

On one side of the spectrum, they’d be screaming trailer trash and crime magnet no matter how presentable such housing is or law abiding those living in them are.

On the other extreme would be those arguing such housing is inhumane because it isn’t a “real house.”

If the truth be told, the homeless crisis today will not be solved by building more homes.

It’s because the housing crisis — based on how it is defined — would mean easily a hundred times more people would be in the streets.

Year after year, we are told California on an annual basis fails to build tens of thousands of homes it needs.

An Up From Growth analysis that is widely referenced pegged California last year as being 873,000 houses short of its need.

If that’s the case, then the homeless should be curb-to-curb on the streets.

The reality is most do find accommodations.

No one is saying it’s a bed of roses, but it works.

The question is why those on the street aren’t able to do the same.

It likely comes down to mental concerns, addiction issues, or — for want of a better term — plain old stubbornness and not willing to comprise and be flexible to live with someone else or follow rules.

The first isn’t a choice.

The second is sort of a choice.

And the third is a choice.

Then there is the real issue for those that are able-bodied.

It’s called upward mobility.

Samuel Clemens went from living in a cabin on Jackass Hill in Tuolumne County to living in a stately house in Hartford.

Most people don’t “rise” that far up in housing, but many do go from five guys living in a house to their own apartment or owning or renting a home.

They didn’t do it by being forever happy in an entry level job or because the government raised the earning floor to $20 an hour.

There is a housing shortage.

But it is only a “crisis” by how we define housing which undermines any effort to pursue anything that is out of the societal norm.