☆ Disinformation: Nonprofit housing advocates mislead in effort to slow growing momentum for Mahan's Measure E reallocation plans
Local affordable housing advocates have always had an arm's length relationship with the truth (remember when their brutally expensive Housing First strategy would solve homelessness by 2020?). But when their hand-outs from local governments get threatened (as in Mahan's proposed Measure E reallocation), the distance between fact and fiction more closely resembles a Grand Canyon. The Opp Now team exclusively fact checks four of their most questionable claims, based on public documents.
{Editors' note: We parsed three documents opposing Mahan's Measure E Reallocation—Richard Bramson's (of Destination: Home) op-ed in SJ Spotlight, Santa Clara County gov't's memo Measure E, and housing advocate Jerome Shaw's SJ Spotlight op-ed.}
Claim: Measure E was only intended for Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) units
Fact check: Demonstrably false
Analysis: Measure E's language clearly states that funds are to be spent on "shelters/permanent housing." That obviously includes temporary shelter units such as Mahan's quick-build communities, and not just long-term housing, and certainly not just long-term housing + supportive services, as advocates suggest. Claims that Measure E was meant to be only about PSH (Bransom asserts, absurdly, that the Measure E reallocation to shelters "is the equivalent of hanging a 'closed for business' sign on the front door of SJ's Housing Department") are false and ignore the clear language of the measure and how it was understood when citizens voted for it.
Claim: Quick-build (or Tiny Homes) are not adequate for people currently living in tents and lean-to's along the Guadalupe
Fact check: Demonstrably false
Analysis: Jerome Shaw complains that the quick-build units aren't nice enough: "They are tiny shelters in a communal environment, with gates and security guards. Any place where you don’t have a refrigerator, kitchen or bathroom under the same roof as your dwelling isn’t a home."
This is a false comparison, as Mahan's quick-build units are much more fully-equipped than Shaw suggests. As former Mayor Liccardo explained to the Merc last year, "we embraced an approach that looks much different and delivers better results: prefabricated, quick-build housing communities. Unlike tiny homes, these attached flats provide residents with private bedrooms and bathrooms, utilities and secure access — all essential to convince unhoused people reluctant to get off the street. Also unlike tiny homes, their sturdier construction lasts for a couple of decades. Residents can remain in quick-build housing communities for a year or more."
Indeed, these Quick-build neighborhoods may also include the following amenities: pets, thermostats/AC, Wi-fi, mini-fridges in rooms, 24/7 in-out, adjoining units for couples, ADA access, and the ability to cook and prepare meals individually. The Quick-Build units can average around 120 sq feet (average market-based bedroom is 132 sq ft).
Claim: Permanent Supportive Housing is the only answer to homelessness
Fact check: Demonstrably false
Analysis: Shaw and Bramson engage in a notable bit of tautological nonsense when they assert that quick-build units are not a solution to homelessness because they "do not offer permanent housing." Needless to say, this one-size-fits-all mantra misses the point completely: Most who are unhoused are experiencing homelessness for a finite period of time—most for much less than a year. What they need is immediate shelter—now; not five years from now. And transitional shelter can be tremendously effective at helping those individuals through their temporary difficulties and help place them in other permanent living arrangements—without requiring new units that clock in at $1m/door. SJ's Housing Dept (a big funder and supporter of PSH, btw) reports that 72% of residents who exit Emergency Interim Housing (EIH aka Quick Build) remain stably housed. 52% go on to a permanent housing solution, and 20% to more temporary stable housing. The smart response to homelessness is a variety of solutions, tailored to different needs.
Perhaps more to the point, Housing First/Permanent Supportive Housing doesn't even deliver on its metrics, despite its painfully slow building time and mammoth costs. As the Manhattan Institute reports:
Housing First has not been shown to be effective in ending homelessness at the community level, but rather, only for individuals.
A Housing First intervention for a small segment of “high utilizer” homeless people may save taxpayers money. But making Housing First the organizing principle of homeless services systems, as urged by many advocates, will not save taxpayers money.
Housing is not the same as treatment. Housing First’s record at addressing behavioral health disorders, such as untreated serious mental illness and drug addiction, is far weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
Housing First’s record at promoting employment and addressing social isolation for the homeless is also weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
Claim: It's breaking convention to re-allocate Measure E funds on an annual basis
Fact check: Demonstrably false
Analysis: Any good business looks at changing market conditions and re-budgets accordingly. Measure E should be—and has been—no different, and funds have been reallocated in previous years, without all this clutching of pearls. There are no legal, procedural, or informal conventions suggesting allocations need to remain the same (as all of the writers here analyzed suggest). Check out the facts of how Measure E has been substantially reallocated every year since its adoption:
Funding for “homeless support programs, shelter construction and operations” changed from 0% in 2020-2021 to 15% in FY 2021-2022 & 2022-2023.
The 10% funding for “below market-rate for-sale housing and rental housing for moderate income households” in 2020-2021 dropped 50% to 5% for “creation of new affordable housing for moderate income households” in 2021-2022 & 2022-2023.
Funding for “permanent supportive and affordable rental housing for extremely low-income households” in 2020-2021 dropped 11% in FY 2021-2022 & FY 2022-2023 for the “creation of new affordable housing for extremely low-income households.”
The reallocation of $30.5m over the past two years to hotel acquisitions.
Santa Clara County complains in its memo that moving Measure E funds around could produce a "lack of clarity" and "could disrupt projects further down the pipeline." This is economically illiterate, as those funds have always been subject to change since the inception of Measure E, have been reallocated before, and those allocations were never intended to be encased in amber.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity