3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    I have reason to believe that homelessness is such a crisis in California in part because homeless people actively travel there for the weather. I did. I am not the only one. I suspect that relief in other parts of the country would provide some relief for California. I am aware that California in specific has serious challenges in this area. But I see the problem of homelessness in the US as a national problem that disproportionately impacts California. So I see improvements in other parts of the nation as benefitting California.

by kurthr 9y ago

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.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I have reason to believe that homelessness is such a crisis in California in part because homeless people actively travel there for the weather. I did. I am not the only one. I suspect that relief in other parts of the country would provide some relief for California. I am aware that California in specific has serious challenges in this area. But I see the problem of homelessness in the US as a national problem that disproportionately impacts California. So I see improvements in other parts of the nation as benefitting California.