3 ms·

The article mentions that they tried this in NYC. Unfortunately, the same approach doesn't work as well in a city that's almost 100 times as large as SLC, and w

The article mentions that they tried this in NYC. Unfortunately, the same approach doesn't work as well in a city that's almost 100 times as large as SLC, and which has a much more competitive real estate market. The program has ended up being quite expensive to run, and it's not actually cost effective, to the point where homeless advocates actually criticize the program's in effectiveness. It's also caused negative impact for other residents in the buildings or nearby areas. Depending on what the stipend provided by the government is and whether it's above or below market rate, landlords will either intentionally neglect and blight buildings in order to run them down, or they will refuse to rent to market tenants, with the knowledge that they can make more money from the stipends for homeless housing. This, of course, makes it more difficult to find housing and has the effect of driving prices upwards.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
Do you have a source for this? It was my understanding that the program was being undermined by landlords illegally refusing to accept the rental vouchers, banking on the city being lax in its enforcement. A pretty good calculation given how in bed with the real estate industry every mayoral administration has been, even an ostensibly liberal one like DeBlasio's (see the recent Rivington housing scandal). Seems to me housing first doesn't work in New York because the politics around telling real estate are more corrupt. http://abc7ny.com/news/the-investigators-homeless-struggling-to-find-takers-for-rent-voucher-program/1123922/ http://abc7ny.com/news/the-investigators-homeless-struggling...
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  Yes, there are plenty. Here's the first hit on Google: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/nyregion/for-some-landlords-real-money-in-the-homeless.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/nyregion/for-some-landlord... > The city’s Department of Homeless Services pays many times the amount the rooms would usually rent for — spending over $3,000 a month for each threadbare room without a bathroom or kitchen — because of an acute shortage in shelters for homeless men and women. Indeed, the amount the city pays.. has encouraged Mr. Lapes to switch business models and become a major private operator of homeless shelters. He is by most measures the city’s largest and owns or leases about 20 of the 231 shelters citywide. Most of the other shelters and residences are run by the city or by nonprofit agencies, but his operation is profit-making, prompting criticism from advocates for the homeless and elected officials.
  - alphonsegaston 10y ago
    Thanks for that! I wasn't aware that the end result was essentially a privatized shelter system.
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      > I wasn't aware that the end result was essentially a privatized shelter system. For the record, a privatized shelter system isn't inherently a bad thing. Private shelters are an integral part of addressing homelessness in many cities. The problem is that this particular program is an unbelievably inefficient route to that end result, and it also does so in a way that eats away at existing inventory for long-term tenants.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > because of an acute shortage in shelters for homeless men and women. It sounds like the problem isn't Housing First, but a lack of resources for it.
- wyager 10y ago
  > It was my understanding that the program was being undermined by landlords illegally refusing to accept the rental vouchers If that is indeed the case, I really can't blame them. Who would want a likely mentally unstable homeless person living on their property? I'm sure the expected property damage is substantially higher than from a standard tenant. Forcing landlords to take "vouchers" for high-risk tenants is essentially forcing much of the cost of homelessness away from the city and onto the landlords.

alphonsegaston 10y ago

Do you have a source for this? It was my understanding that the program was being undermined by landlords illegally refusing to accept the rental vouchers, banking on the city being lax in its enforcement. A pretty good calculation given how in bed with the real estate industry every mayoral administration has been, even an ostensibly liberal one like DeBlasio's (see the recent Rivington housing scandal). Seems to me housing first doesn't work in New York because the politics around telling real estate are more corrupt. http://abc7ny.com/news/the-investigators-homeless-struggling-to-find-takers-for-rent-voucher-program/1123922/ http://abc7ny.com/news/the-investigators-homeless-struggling...

chimeracoder 10y ago
Yes, there are plenty. Here's the first hit on Google: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/nyregion/for-some-landlords-real-money-in-the-homeless.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/nyregion/for-some-landlord... > The city’s Department of Homeless Services pays many times the amount the rooms would usually rent for — spending over $3,000 a month for each threadbare room without a bathroom or kitchen — because of an acute shortage in shelters for homeless men and women. Indeed, the amount the city pays.. has encouraged Mr. Lapes to switch business models and become a major private operator of homeless shelters. He is by most measures the city’s largest and owns or leases about 20 of the 231 shelters citywide. Most of the other shelters and residences are run by the city or by nonprofit agencies, but his operation is profit-making, prompting criticism from advocates for the homeless and elected officials.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  Thanks for that! I wasn't aware that the end result was essentially a privatized shelter system.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > I wasn't aware that the end result was essentially a privatized shelter system. For the record, a privatized shelter system isn't inherently a bad thing. Private shelters are an integral part of addressing homelessness in many cities. The problem is that this particular program is an unbelievably inefficient route to that end result, and it also does so in a way that eats away at existing inventory for long-term tenants.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > because of an acute shortage in shelters for homeless men and women. It sounds like the problem isn't Housing First, but a lack of resources for it.
wyager 10y ago
> It was my understanding that the program was being undermined by landlords illegally refusing to accept the rental vouchers If that is indeed the case, I really can't blame them. Who would want a likely mentally unstable homeless person living on their property? I'm sure the expected property damage is substantially higher than from a standard tenant. Forcing landlords to take "vouchers" for high-risk tenants is essentially forcing much of the cost of homelessness away from the city and onto the landlords.