WHY SAN DIEGO NEEDS A NEW FORM OF PUBLIC HOUSING

The homelessness count in San Diego County eclipsed 8,400 people last year, an increase of about 10 percent since January 2020. Significant increases occurred in Oceanside and National City. Downtown’s homeless population hit a new high — close to 1,700. Homeless “camps” are strewn across San Diego streets and along riverbeds in North County; in Chula Vista, the homeless area is called “the Jungle.”

The current strategy for addressing this problem is failing. Several programs provide shelter, services and housing assistance. Nongovernmental organizations such as Father Joe’s Villages and the Salvation Army are making strides. So are private entities and philanthropies. Some housing has been provided by the private sector, but it’s expensive and largely dependent on government subsidies.

But there is no light at the end of that tunnel — because there is no tunnel. We simply must develop a new approach. The city and county need housing units — a lot of them — that they control, that are cheap and readily available. What’s needed is a form of public housing.

Small housing units built with one or more shipping containers are commercially available for less than $50,000 with insulation and utilities.

More conventional 300- to 400-squarefoot manufactured homes are popping up in places like Detroit. The cost per unit would depend on the specifications, but creative architecture could save big money.

Another example: Last year, volunteers built six new 16-by-20-foot houses for a group of homeless men in central New York state. It was the beginning of Second Wind Cottages, a village of tiny houses provided for the chronically homeless in the town of Newfield. Each house cost about $10,000.

Twenty trailers were received by the city of San Diego in 2020 to protect homeless people during the pandemic. They are in storage now; let’s put them on city-owned land to make them available to the homeless now.

Tiny-house villages are an alternative approach to housing the homeless and local governments must find a way to make this alternative work in their community. Each of the living units would have a street address that would facilitate getting a job or receiving services or simply establishing a more normal life.

There are homeless people who would not be interested in living in a small house for various reasons: mental health issues, drug addiction, choice. But the availability of such units would give local governments an alternative to scrambling for adequate shelters on a cold night.

While local governments are not usually in the housing business, they could do something like this. Of course, there are zoning issues, decisions to make about where to put the housing units, NIMBYism, maintenance requirements. So the city and county would have to put in place some new ordinances.

And how many “small” houses would be needed? At least 1,000, probably many more. But start with 100 to figure out how it would work. And do it in 18 months.

Local developers could compete with ideas on the architecture. Issues to resolve are many: length of occupancy, cost of rent, potential work requirements, maintenance schedules, availability for families and children, proximity to schools, as well as important mental health and medical supports. Safety issues associated with small groups of small homes would also be an important issue to address. Flexibility would be the key to success.

Would such a program in San Diego act as a magnet and draw homeless people from places near and far? I think we are lost if the answer determines whether we try this new approach.

It’s a given that getting anything done efficiently and quickly in San Diego is all but impossible. It takes months and a lot of money to get the permits to build a house. Could things be changing? San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria just announced he’s going to speed up the approval process for affordable housing.

Also helpful, perhaps, is that California is one of the most innovative states in the nation. Things are done here that become models for what is done in other states. Maybe that spirit will motivate a creative solution to housing for the homeless.

Everyone agrees that our homelessness problem deserves to be a high priority. A lot of well-intentioned people and organizations are involved in trying to make headway on it, but they are losing ground. We need a new, collaborative strategy: Think some form of public housing.

The current strategy for addressing this problem is failing. We must develop a new approach. The city and county need housing units — a lot of them — that they control and that are cheap.

Dalhberg is a retired nuclear scientist and engineer who taught at National University. He’s active in the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at UC San Diego and in community planning in La Jolla, where he lives.