SLO: County Needs Affordable Housing - Part IV

*****December 19, 2014:

The Tribune ran my letter to the editor in the 12/19/2014 edition on page B4. You can read the article "Adding to the Homeless" by clicking here. It is a slightly modified letter that I sent to the SLO City Council to oppose their "Rental Inspection Program" (RIP) that they recently voted in favor of by a 3-2 margin. I am in favor of RIP only if it is accompanied by an equal or greater program for affordable housing. The idea is to at least offset the housing we are losing to the RIP by creating affordable housing in place of the lost housing.

*****December 18, 2014:

To make it easier, I'm removing the identity of the city council people that I am corresponding with, as it does nothing helpful, but may not be constructive. Also, printing the back-and-forth emails is counter-productive as well. Nothing but well meaning discourse, resulting in nothing. If any concrete action is ever proposed (in the future), I'll print that.

Dear Slo-City-Council-Person, 

Thanks  for taking the time to get back to me. I appreciate your concern for homeless and workforce housing issues. Unfortunately, the workforce model that you describe below does not appear to work. Why do I say that? Because it does not produce affordable housing. At least that’s what homeless people in search of Section 8 housing told me recently - there isn't any. Same with the 50 Now program - no affordable housing for the program. Don't believe me - ask them yourself.

There are models in effect around the country that do work, but there is no political will here for those models. What little is being done in SLO dabbles around the edges, but doesn’t dig into solving the problem. I know that you are of goodwill towards the homeless and expend considerable effort to help. In the end, good intentions don’t matter - only results matter. 
For instance, scroll down to read about cooperative housing (Update 7/14/2013) I lived in while attending UCLA:
timwaagblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/slo-county-needs-affordable-housing.html
No reason this could not be done here on a small scale, except for prohibitive municipal codes written by politicians.

I too support those same organizations you mention. 

The homeless that I most often work with, for starters, just want a legal place to put up a tent and get out of the weather, without fear of being harassed by SLO Park or Police employees. The option of living in, as you call it, “substandard housing ... dangerous and filthy and crowded housing” is NOT available to them. Should it be available, it would be a substantial upgrade, and they would gladly take it, if for no other reason than to be safe and be able to lock up their meager possessions. 

I suggest that we take a field trip together: first to the Cal Poly student substandard rentals, then to the adjacent creekbed homeless camps. Then let’s decide which problem to fix first. Heck, I proposed that we fix both at once (in my recent letter to the SLO city council).

It is hard to envision a scenario where the Rental Inspection Program (RIP) will create more housing. It is easy to see scenarios where the RIP will create more homeless people. Sorry you don’t see that. Look again. Closer.

Anyways, thanks for the conversation. I wish we could actually talk some time. I’m always available. I’m writing this letter instead of taking my lunch break. Glad you liked the photo.
--Tim

On Dec 18, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Slo-City-Council-Person wrote:

Hi Mr. Waag,
Thanks for taking the time to communicate with the Council.  I wouldn't say that anyone who lives here is a "nobody" so please don't say it about yourself.

I appreciate very much your concerns for low-income and homeless issues.

You may not know it, but I have been working for 15 years on housing issues, especially trying to get more housing actually built, and supporting the "inclusionary" housing rules which require either homes to be built or fees to be paid that provide low-income housing on every project that is built in the city.  I supported the formation of the Housing Trust Fund and a number of the laws and regulations which have helped get at least some affordable housing built.  I have been a long time donor to a number of organizations which help the homeless, including the Food Bank, Prado Day Center, Homeless Shelter and Transitions Mental Health.

As a City and County Planning Commissioner, and now as Council person, I have often approved projects or land use changes that allow more housing and more low-income housing to be built, sometimes against a very vocal group of residents or neighbors who oppose such projects or changes.

This is not to say that more can't be done, but I do think that no one, even the poor or homeless, should have to live in substandard housing where dangerous and filthy and crowded conditions exist, and that's what this ordinance intends to address. 

Meanwhile I will keep up all my efforts to actually get more housing for our homeless, and not just talk about it like some do. And thanks for all you do too!

Happy Holidays!  It was nice to see your cheerful picture,
Regards,
Slo-City-Council-Person

*****December 18, 2014: 
I wrote to this letter to the SLO City Council after reading the headline in the morning paper today: "SLO wants to inspect rental properties" which went on to say that the new Rental Property Inspection Program was approved in a 3-2 vote. 

I am in favor of the program, provided that there is an effective workforce/affordable housing program in place as well. There is not, and there probably never will be. Unfortunately, this rental inspection program is just another version of "criminalization of the homeless". 

For the record, I believe that those who voted in favor of the ordinance have a good reason to do so, and are voting for it for the right reasons. Anyways, let's see if I get any responses back from the SLO City Council on this one.

On Dec 18, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Tim Waag wrote:

Dear SLO City Council,

The move to inspect rentals will result in increased homelessness in our community. Inspections will reduce the amount of rentals in our city, especially lower income rentals. 

Thanks to Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Rivoire for voting against the  ordinance.

In general, there is no political will to create more low income  workforce housing in SLO. The push to "end homelessness" is all lip service, in my opinion. Many people hate the homeless,  and politicians that support the cause in a meaningful way will not  get re-elected. To read more, click here.

Tonight, as we memorialize the 14 homeless people that are said to have died in our streets of SLO in 2013 (to read more, click here),  please look in your hearts and in the eyes of our homeless, and treat their plight as the "emergency condition" that it actually is, and find a way to do something about it immediately. To read more, click here.

If you've read this far, thanks for listening to a nobody like me. Happy Holidays!
--Tim

*****December 16, 2014: This brief letter below was sent to the SLO City Council in reference to the proposed city ordinance to have a fee and inspection program for city rentals. Yes, I can turn practically any subject about our local government into a way to help the "needy".

SLO City Council email addresses:

drivoire@slocity.org, 

cchristi@slocity.org, 

Dan Carpenter <dcarpent@slocity.org>,

jashbaug@slocity.org Ashbaugh <jashbaug@slocity.org>,

Jan Marx <jmarx@slocity.org>, 

amejia@slocity.org

Dear SLO City Council,  

I would be in favor of a Rental Housing Inspection Program, only if there was an effective companion program to add affordable workforce housing to the city of SLO where I live.

Why? What do you say to a person (student or minimum wage worker) barely getting by that they are getting kicked out of the garage that they are renting for $300 a month? Now they will be out on the street because they have no other options. Now they are homeless. Please address that person as well. Homelessness in our county is only going UP, not DOWN.

Also, in all that has been written about the proposed ordinance, I have not found anything about how a safety condition lead to a tenant injury, causing me to ask - is this a solution without a problem? I have no doubt that safety issues exist in SLO rental housing (as well as owner-occupied housing), but will an additional layer of fees and inspections reduce injuries, or will it just reduce available affordable workforce/student housing?

IMHO, SLO has too many Big Brother regulations already. However, my opinion could be changed if significant injuries were occurring due to poorly maintained rental housing. Somehow, I sincerely believe that is not happening, or we would be hearing about it.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

--Tim Waag

City Council Member replies to my email:
On Dec 16, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Slo-City-Council-Member wrote:

Thanks for weighing in on this program, Tim. I’m thinking that we might want to devote all receipts from any fines and penalties to a fund that is reserved to pay short-term rentals (up to 90 days) to assist displaced households when a rental unit that they are occupying requires such repairs or renovation that they must be evicted.

Inspection fees should, however, be established to cover the costs of the inspections alone. With good compliance from landlords such as yourself, we can probably work out a system that enables a longer inspection cycle (with reduced fees) for properties that become “accredited”. Lots of ways to design this program to make it more user-friendly with no sacrifice as to its effectiveness.

Council Member
Office of the City Council
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
slocity.org

*****November 11, 2014: There was an article in the San Luis Obispo Tribune front page on November 9, 2014. It was titled "In Cambria, desal just days away". You can read the article by clicking here. I have stated many times that there is no sense of urgency among our elected officials to "end homelessness". Ignoring (for the moment) the fact that we will always have homelessness, our elected officials could act to declare an emergency housing crisis, but have chosen not to do so. So what could these 2 things (Cambria's new Desal Plant and Ending Homelessness) have in common? Well, yes, I'm going to tell you.

According to the Tribune article, the desal plant was fast-tracked  using emergency permits - something that would take years (if ever) to obtain. Why? Because of the prospect of having to truck in water and drink bottled water. They claim the Cambria water shortage is a real emergency, and existing laws can be circumvented for that reason.

Well, guess what? Homeless people also don't have tap water, and have to drink bottled water. Unlike Cambrians, who are only short on water, in addition the homeless also don't have shelter, heating, air conditioning, indoor sanitation, etc. Surely, the homeless situation constitutes a much greater emergency than merely running out of water until the winter rains arrrive? Think about it.

What's the difference? The homeless don't vote. Also, most people dislike the homeless and feel they have brought their circumstances upon themselves, or even worse, believe that they WANT to be homeless. I've heard this all said many times, over and over, by friends and acquaintances of mine, as well as local leaders (including local politicians).

Politicians could similarly declare homelessness an emergency, circumvent all the restrictive housing codes, and let people live in tents and RVs without being harassed by the powers-that-be. Will that happen? Never.

The homeless are people too. Let's treat them at least as well as we would treat a stray dog, shall we?

Click Here to go back to "Tim Waag Blog" Home Page!