Housing for Homeless:

Permanent Supportive vs. Affordable

California’s homeless population is estimated to be at least 150,000 with nearly half of that population living on the streets in Los Angeles County. It is estimated that it would cost $70 billion to build ‘affordable housing’ for that number. Currently, ‘affordable housing’ works in 12 out of 3,000 counties in the US. That means a person earning minimum wage can afford the rent for a one-bedroom apartment while it accounts for only 30% of their income. According to Real Estate Investor there are greater than 10 million US households that pay more than 50% of their income on rent. Let’s take a factual look at LA County’s affordable housing crisis:

1. Proposition HHH passed in 2016 raised $1.2 billion from taxpayers to build 10,000 units. Today, 72 units are completed. Mayor Garcetti’s goal was 10,000 units in 10 years.
2. In LA County, 1 out of 10 new units for new construction will be ‘affordable’ versus the US average of 1 out of 7. Both numbers are unacceptable.
3. 2018 median family income in LA County was $69,300. It is widely accepted that a person making $30k can afford up to $750 (30%) per month on rent and utilities.
4. California is one of the most expensive states to live in and the highest taxed.
5. SB50 to increase homebuilding in CA was rejected by the politicians for the 3rd year in row.

According to the Terner Center, the average cost per unit is around $500k in LA County and $600k in Oakland. Governor Newsom indicates he is depending on housing construction innovations. ‘Tiny housing’ projects are starting to emerge in cities like San Jose.

That can help some, but with the homeless count soaring, will this ever catch up with the demand? And, what about the additional services that are needed by those that are disabled, mentally ill, veterans and past substance abusers who simply do not have the financial resources to pay for these services? How can they avoid cycling back onto the streets where approximately 1,000 homeless people died last year in LA? With soft (fees) and hard development costs on the rise in the last 5 years, will the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act (2019) be enough to offset the burden? According to the NCSHA it appears to be working in other parts of the country where the average cost per unit is around $200,000. Newsom proposes $6.8 billion in affordable housing funding, with some to be used for mortgage assistance and veterans housing. He wants to allocate the money to designated cities and force them to spend it. How? And, if they do not spend the money, he wants the ability to pursue litigation. That does not sound like collaboration, non-partisanship or even bipartisanship. On the Federal government side, Ben Carson still believes that a ‘self-sufficiency’ model will work and wants to push the responsibilities down to the low wage earner with rent increases while decreasing the HUD budget the last three years. That’s not a good strategy nor a good trend.

I have lived in California for nearly six years now. I am a volunteer, blogger, and a homeless advocate. I am not a political activist. I am very concerned with the current strategy as the numbers do not lie and yet some political activists still believe we can build our way out of the problem. Again, I ask: and then what? People living from paycheck to paycheck will continue to struggle to make rent and meet other basic needs. Approximately 50% of the homeless population struggle with mental health and substance abuse issues. Substance abuse has reached epidemic proportions in this country. How will they get the long-term care they need to stay off the streets? Fact: Mental health and addiction are treatable with long term care. If left untreated, they can cause subsequent harm to society and themselves.

In my opinion, permanent supportive housing that provides longer term care solutions is the model that all sides need to be moving to the forefront of the discussions around funding, along with passing necessary legislation like SB50 that will work in the short and long term. That means the local, state and federal government will need to figure out a way to work in synergy or synergistically. Permanent supportive housing studies clearly show that this model drives down hospital costs (ER visits and inpatient costs) and jail costs while increasing monthly income and health insurance participation.

Permanent supportive housing achieves much better stability than other models and can improve a person’s overall health. People entering supportive housing are less likely to use costly systems and to be incarcerated.

Developing a scalable plan to properly transition people from the streets and emergency shelters into housing that provides and requires longer term care solutions is a must. Mental health issues and substance abuse along with economic barriers are not going to suddenly disappear anytime soon and sustainable solutions must be developed and delivered.