My last visit to The City or East Bay was the Big Game last year. I have been to speak in the Peninsula (they actually let Cal grads speak at Furd symposiums) and didn't really see the homelessness that is so pervasive in Los Angles and San Diego and other urban areas in SoCal. So homelessness may be less of an issue in the Bay Area, but is huge down in SoCal, even in the OC. The problem here is more and more people are falling into homelessness as prices rise, the apartment stock has diminished over time, and there is a Pandora's box ready to open as discussed below.
As a result of several ballot measures approved by LA voters in the past few years, the city and the county spent hundreds of millions of dollars last year to address the homeless crisis. But the number of people living without shelter still went up 12% in the county and 16% in the city. Homelessness among youth and children rose 24% over the previous year. Per the LA Times of the nearly 60,000 people who are homeless in LA County, 19% told officials they came to LA County from out of state, 15% said they arrived from another part of California and 1.2% said they came from outside the United States. Why? Los Angeles had money to help them (at least in theory). While the homeless count in Los Angeles was shocking, the rise in homelessness in neighboring counties was equally bracing. Homelessness was up 40% in Ventura County, another county which embraces homelessness financially.
At the root of what is a very complex problem is the fact that many within LA's unsheltered population are grappling with substance abuse addictions and untreated mental illness, and families, have moved to tent cities generally into underpasses or protected areas in safer, often affluent areas. LA city and county policy, tent-dwellers are required to take down their tents during daylight hours to clear the streets for pedestrians and business owners. But because of the lawsuits, that policy is not being uniformly enforced. In most areas it does not appear to be enforced at all.
The lawsuits and court injunctions against LA have had other unintended consequences. Because of the proliferation of tents cities, police say, it is much harder to identify and halt drug dealing and human trafficking. The legal battles have also complicated the city's ability to clear trash-strewn streets, because it is not easy to identify what bedding, clothing or other property might belong to an "unsheltered" person living nearby.
However the bottom line is this has galvanized homeowner and business groups of people of different political persuasions, that in no way want any of these unsheltered people (homelessness in not PC to the West LA crowd) around or more density, and have the money and anger to delay new housing projects in their area, even those just built by government, for long periods of time, through CEQA or other methods. You certainly don't want to be a private developer (or anyone providing lending or capital) facing this type opposition.
So for long term action (not shelters) the government action should be to encourage increasing the supply of housing and retrofitting as much old housing as possible, to increase supply and bring down housing prices and in particular with respect to retrofits in not so upscale areas, affordable housing, right? Also greater density cuts down on commutes for those that are forced to live way out due to high prices in closer suburban and inner city areas, right? And that probably means subsidies because of the high cost to build or rehab housing in LA.
So housing experts (like UCLA) say that to help homeless individuals move into subsidized housing, we need to make sure there is enough housing to begin with. "Developing more affordable housing units doesn't just help homeless families and individuals make the transition into homes, it makes it easier for them to stay there after the rental assistance ends. As a region, LA is building about 20,000 units of affordable housing a year over the last 30 years, but L.A. should have been building more than 55,000 units a year to keep pace with growth. This disparity is partly fueling the homelessness crisis that we are experiencing now." (UCLA study).
Well housing starts (people pulling permits) last month were down 20% in the state, primary due to Los Angeles County having a drop pf 30%, over the same month last year. So when you talk to housing advocates, it is all about increasing supply, mainstreaming and government intervention in a positive way.
And then the Pandor's Box. About 30 years ago, the LA Redevelopment Agency made a huge effort to deal with then downtown homelessness, by funding a huge number of projects with tax-exempt financing. The developer got cheap financing in exchange for 30 years of rent control. As today, this was fee based development, as the developer, lawyers, consultants got paid their fees out of the financing, since after debt service and expenses, there was no future profit. until decontrol rents, decades later. The developer hired a management entity, often times a public (or quasi public) or non-profit entity to rent and operate the apartments and deal with the often onerous regulations of dealing with government regulations and subsidized tenants. Well guess what? You now have around 100,000 units that are about to become market rentals over the next couple years. So the money that was supposed to go to new projects is being used to induce the owners to these older projects to agree to not raise rents.
to be continued.
.
As a result of several ballot measures approved by LA voters in the past few years, the city and the county spent hundreds of millions of dollars last year to address the homeless crisis. But the number of people living without shelter still went up 12% in the county and 16% in the city. Homelessness among youth and children rose 24% over the previous year. Per the LA Times of the nearly 60,000 people who are homeless in LA County, 19% told officials they came to LA County from out of state, 15% said they arrived from another part of California and 1.2% said they came from outside the United States. Why? Los Angeles had money to help them (at least in theory). While the homeless count in Los Angeles was shocking, the rise in homelessness in neighboring counties was equally bracing. Homelessness was up 40% in Ventura County, another county which embraces homelessness financially.
At the root of what is a very complex problem is the fact that many within LA's unsheltered population are grappling with substance abuse addictions and untreated mental illness, and families, have moved to tent cities generally into underpasses or protected areas in safer, often affluent areas. LA city and county policy, tent-dwellers are required to take down their tents during daylight hours to clear the streets for pedestrians and business owners. But because of the lawsuits, that policy is not being uniformly enforced. In most areas it does not appear to be enforced at all.
The lawsuits and court injunctions against LA have had other unintended consequences. Because of the proliferation of tents cities, police say, it is much harder to identify and halt drug dealing and human trafficking. The legal battles have also complicated the city's ability to clear trash-strewn streets, because it is not easy to identify what bedding, clothing or other property might belong to an "unsheltered" person living nearby.
However the bottom line is this has galvanized homeowner and business groups of people of different political persuasions, that in no way want any of these unsheltered people (homelessness in not PC to the West LA crowd) around or more density, and have the money and anger to delay new housing projects in their area, even those just built by government, for long periods of time, through CEQA or other methods. You certainly don't want to be a private developer (or anyone providing lending or capital) facing this type opposition.
So for long term action (not shelters) the government action should be to encourage increasing the supply of housing and retrofitting as much old housing as possible, to increase supply and bring down housing prices and in particular with respect to retrofits in not so upscale areas, affordable housing, right? Also greater density cuts down on commutes for those that are forced to live way out due to high prices in closer suburban and inner city areas, right? And that probably means subsidies because of the high cost to build or rehab housing in LA.
So housing experts (like UCLA) say that to help homeless individuals move into subsidized housing, we need to make sure there is enough housing to begin with. "Developing more affordable housing units doesn't just help homeless families and individuals make the transition into homes, it makes it easier for them to stay there after the rental assistance ends. As a region, LA is building about 20,000 units of affordable housing a year over the last 30 years, but L.A. should have been building more than 55,000 units a year to keep pace with growth. This disparity is partly fueling the homelessness crisis that we are experiencing now." (UCLA study).
Well housing starts (people pulling permits) last month were down 20% in the state, primary due to Los Angeles County having a drop pf 30%, over the same month last year. So when you talk to housing advocates, it is all about increasing supply, mainstreaming and government intervention in a positive way.
And then the Pandor's Box. About 30 years ago, the LA Redevelopment Agency made a huge effort to deal with then downtown homelessness, by funding a huge number of projects with tax-exempt financing. The developer got cheap financing in exchange for 30 years of rent control. As today, this was fee based development, as the developer, lawyers, consultants got paid their fees out of the financing, since after debt service and expenses, there was no future profit. until decontrol rents, decades later. The developer hired a management entity, often times a public (or quasi public) or non-profit entity to rent and operate the apartments and deal with the often onerous regulations of dealing with government regulations and subsidized tenants. Well guess what? You now have around 100,000 units that are about to become market rentals over the next couple years. So the money that was supposed to go to new projects is being used to induce the owners to these older projects to agree to not raise rents.
to be continued.
.