3 ms·

Thanks for your perspective... I set up a straw man in my response... worst case. Your description is not that different from what I observed when a friend of

by kurthr 9y ago

Thanks for your perspective... I set up a straw man in my response... worst case. Your description is not that different from what I observed when a friend of mine tried to stay in shelters (in SCRUZ). Because he was over 65 and capable managing his affairs (checking with housing/shelter services every day) he had a real advantage in finding help. It still took more than a year to find stable subsidized housing at a price he could afford and he went through a lot of uuncomfortable/insane situations on the way, but he would never leave his city. His friends tried to help (stay in doors for periods, keep a cell phone, store his stuff), but he had independence and pride so he wasn't looking for us to support him. I visited him every week or so when he when moved up from the shelter to temp housing for a little over a year. He lived with moderately crazy people, apologetic (but incurable) petty hoarder/thieves, along with prostitutes and small time drug dealer/users who could hide it and get along with their neighbors... some were kicked out of temp housing (shared trailer) or went into the hospital. Curfew was very strict! Those were the lucky folks. They either had it together enough or had family/friends to take care of them, and they also had some condition (kids, medical,age) that gave them a step ahead... if he had been 2-3 years younger, I don't know what would have happened (no chance to get a regular temp or permanent bed). Still, the shared conditions he lived in were nuts. You could barely sleep for the noises (overweight diabetics in a bunk bed that have to pee every couple of hours, vets screaming in the night...), nothing was safe from theft, and there was constant drama and argument with occasional mild scuffles. This was the NICE place, the shelters were much worse and you didn't know where/if you would sleep any night. Eventually, after 18mo on the waiting list, he got a tiny subsidized efficiency for $600+/mo. If he ever loses it, he cant get back in line so paying for it is his highest priority (even food). I'd guess market rate for the room is at least 2x. He's lucky!

DoreenMichele 9y ago
I think your firsthand experience is coloring your interpretation of my remarks here such that we are simply not on the same page. I am currently in an SRO. It is not part of the shelter system. It is just low cost market based housing. There is no curfew. The rooms are adequately soundproofed that I am not kept awake by other people going to the bathroom in the night. When I am in my room, I mostly don't hear what other people are doing. When I walk to the bathroom, I can hear TVs and other things all night long. But it does not keep me up at night because I can't hear this stuff when I am in my room. I only hear it when I am out in the hallway. It has to be quiet from 10pm to 8am. Of course, there are other rules as well, but it is nothing at all like what you describe. I never spent time in the shelter system. It absolutely has serious problems, which is why I am advocating for other approaches to the issue. Sharing living space with strangers is always challenging. People in college dorms or who have roommates routinely complain about the problems involved or seek help on discussion boards for how to more effectively cope. But in most cases it is not the nightmarish scenario you describe.
- kurthr 9y ago
  Yes, my friend is now in an SRO. Heavily subsidized it is over $600/mo (market would be over $1000 or $300/week). There is no way my friend could afford market rate. Without moving far out of town there isn't going to be anything like that. He had to wait 18mo for that subsidized rate. There is a long waiting list and and he was able to push constantly to stay on it (checkins, paperwork, etc). If he wasn't over 65 (or otherwise disadvataged), there would be NO availability. Note that SJ is looking at tiny homes (dispensation from state to violate building codes), but for 80sqft (or 120 double) they are looking at $75k (100k double) build cost. That does not include land cost or utilities. Cost is likely to be $7-10k per year realistically so subsidy is fundamentally necessary. http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/12/tiny-homes-for-san-joses-homeless-wins-approval-after-heated-debate/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/12/tiny-homes-for-san-jos...
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    The fact that I would like to see market based solutions does not mean I want "cheap" housing that starts at $1000/mo. I would like to see enough housing at $400/mo or less to house 2 percent of the population. In any given year, between 10 and 15 percent of the population falls below the federal poverty line, but most do not stay there. Only 2 percent are chronically poor, which is typically defined as falling below the federal poverty line 5 years out of 10. The chronically poor have intractable problems that are not readily solved. To keep them off the street, we need very cheap housing. But I would prefer to see that housing made available with minimal restrictions. Achieving this would require policy changes and probably other things. I am aware this is not feasible in the current climate. But climates can change.
    - kurthr 9y ago
      The challenge is that $400/mo is not much more than a few uncovered parking spaces in a lot of these locations. That means that we have to subsidize each one to price them that way. In a city like SJ (SF is even harder) 2% would be 20k rooms. Subsidies of $400/mo are not unreasonable to reach your targets. That means we need to raise $100M/yr in local taxes to make this happen... which basically is an impossible political ask before you even start choosing locations and NIMBYism.

by kurthr 9y ago

DoreenMichele 9y ago

I think your firsthand experience is coloring your interpretation of my remarks here such that we are simply not on the same page. I am currently in an SRO. It is not part of the shelter system. It is just low cost market based housing. There is no curfew. The rooms are adequately soundproofed that I am not kept awake by other people going to the bathroom in the night. When I am in my room, I mostly don't hear what other people are doing. When I walk to the bathroom, I can hear TVs and other things all night long. But it does not keep me up at night because I can't hear this stuff when I am in my room. I only hear it when I am out in the hallway. It has to be quiet from 10pm to 8am. Of course, there are other rules as well, but it is nothing at all like what you describe. I never spent time in the shelter system. It absolutely has serious problems, which is why I am advocating for other approaches to the issue. Sharing living space with strangers is always challenging. People in college dorms or who have roommates routinely complain about the problems involved or seek help on discussion boards for how to more effectively cope. But in most cases it is not the nightmarish scenario you describe.

kurthr 9y ago
Yes, my friend is now in an SRO. Heavily subsidized it is over $600/mo (market would be over $1000 or $300/week). There is no way my friend could afford market rate. Without moving far out of town there isn't going to be anything like that. He had to wait 18mo for that subsidized rate. There is a long waiting list and and he was able to push constantly to stay on it (checkins, paperwork, etc). If he wasn't over 65 (or otherwise disadvataged), there would be NO availability. Note that SJ is looking at tiny homes (dispensation from state to violate building codes), but for 80sqft (or 120 double) they are looking at $75k (100k double) build cost. That does not include land cost or utilities. Cost is likely to be $7-10k per year realistically so subsidy is fundamentally necessary. http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/12/tiny-homes-for-san-joses-homeless-wins-approval-after-heated-debate/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/12/tiny-homes-for-san-jos...
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  The fact that I would like to see market based solutions does not mean I want "cheap" housing that starts at $1000/mo. I would like to see enough housing at $400/mo or less to house 2 percent of the population. In any given year, between 10 and 15 percent of the population falls below the federal poverty line, but most do not stay there. Only 2 percent are chronically poor, which is typically defined as falling below the federal poverty line 5 years out of 10. The chronically poor have intractable problems that are not readily solved. To keep them off the street, we need very cheap housing. But I would prefer to see that housing made available with minimal restrictions. Achieving this would require policy changes and probably other things. I am aware this is not feasible in the current climate. But climates can change.
  - kurthr 9y ago
    The challenge is that $400/mo is not much more than a few uncovered parking spaces in a lot of these locations. That means that we have to subsidize each one to price them that way. In a city like SJ (SF is even harder) 2% would be 20k rooms. Subsidies of $400/mo are not unreasonable to reach your targets. That means we need to raise $100M/yr in local taxes to make this happen... which basically is an impossible political ask before you even start choosing locations and NIMBYism.