WHY IS SO LITTLE HOUSING BUILT?

While San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria patted himself on the back for addressing homelessness in his recent state of the city address, the Lucky Duck Foundation actually proposed something tangible about the increasingly severe homelessness problem. It proposed to place two large tents on part of the parking lot in the Inspiration Point area of Balboa Park. The tents would provide temporary shelter for 500 homeless young adults and elders.

The first question is whether temporary housing for homeless people is even legal in a dedicated park. I worked in the San Diego City Attorney’s Office, primarily addressing real property and park and recreation, housing and planning and redevelopment issues, from 1969 to 1997 and addressed the issue of homeless facilities in parks in a memorandum of law in 1987. (It’s ML-87-18, if you want to look it up.)

The short answer is yes. (Anyone interested in the subject can access all the city attorney opinions, reports to the mayor and council, and memoranda of law by googling “City of San Diego City Attorney documents.”)

Given this opportunity, I would also like to address why so little has been actually accomplished by Mayor Gloria or other mayors and councils. All politicians recognize that there is a serious problem with the cost of housing. It is now forcing even working families out onto the streets. However, no one seems to like the idea of living near homeless facilities. This creates a significant political problem.

Since being re-elected is the highest priority for any politician, including Mayor Gloria, re-election often clearly supersedes doing what is best for the city as a whole. Politicians know that there can be repercussions if they actually try to establish homeless facilities within their districts. So they lament to us about how we need to help homeless people while not doing anything tangible to effectively help them. The safest political option today is buying a hotel or old apartment building and converting it to housing for homeless people. This option generally costs taxpayers $500,000 or $600,000 per homeless person accommodated. It is obviously not a practical solution to the homelessness problem, but it’s politically relatively safe.

The need for housing for homeless people is not just local. It is a problem all around this country and around the world. Most successful housing programs for the homeless involve good individual or family tents roomy enough to stand up in, as well as bathrooms and showers, food programs, access to local transit and whatever else is required to satisfy the basic needs of people.

No country, including the United States, can afford to spend $500,000 for shelter per homeless person. In fact, because of high housing costs, thousands of hard-working families in San Diego have little, if any, disposable income to enjoy their lives even though adults are working two or even three jobs to make ends meet. Putting homeless nonworking people in $500,000 units using tax dollars would be totally unfair to all those families.

My suggestion is for the mayor and council members to bite the bullet, and agree to provide safe tent living in each district so that no part of the city is required to accommodate an excessive number of people. There is no other logical solution short of doing whatever it takes to allow creation of truly affordable housing, which would mean antagonizing any number of unions and other special interests which presently are in complete control of our elected officials at all levels of government.

For homeless people, or those working people who can barely afford rent, and who have no mental or substance issues, the mayor should start heavily subsidizing accessory dwelling units, with long-term rent control, and use low-cost prefab home units readily available at places like Home Depot or Amazon.

As to the use of Inspiration Point: It is directly under the flight path only mitigated by freeway noise. The closest point of human contact is across the street in Balboa Park, which is full of tourists and visitors, perhaps not the best choices for homeless interactions with the public.

The recent City Council declaration that housing is a “fundamental human right” is just a foolish political ploy. The city obviously cannot provide free or subsidized housing for everyone who needs it. This statement will create unreasonable expectations, cause more problems and cure none.

No country, including the United States, can afford to spend $500,000 for shelter per homeless person.