Comments on: The Housing Crisis Is a Crisis of Our Own Making

By: Pat Stempski

Pat Stempski — Tue, 15 Aug 2023 18:42:20 +0000

It is difficult for the average citizen to detect any rhyme or reason in San Jose’s efforts to encourage new housing projects. The city is approving large scale housing units without any/ or any adequate provisions for parking for the people who will live there on the one hand, and no public transportation infrastructure to allow residents to give up their cars on the other. For one example, if the future residents of the high rise living complex to be built at the former El Paseo de Saratoga in West San Jose has one thousand units but provides parking for only one car per unit, where exactly are the other one thousand cars that will probably be owned by these new residents going to park? In the surrounding residential neighborhoods? If the residents protest, is this what you scornfully call NIMBY? High density housing requires access to public transportation!
Further, I agree, we desperately need truly low income housing. I like the placement and design of that low-income housing unit at the intersection of Campbell and Hamilton roads, across from Target on the one side and El Paseo on the other. For me, it was a welcome addition to our area and a place I could see myself living. I also am not opposed to people being able to build duplexes or granny add-ons in residential areas. The long-term homeless however are a more complex issue. Many of these individuals have mental illnesses and if their families, the health care system, the social services systems can’t find a solution to their problems is it fair to expect neighborhoods of any economic level to do so? These are not new problems but solving them will require more innovative solutions than any of us seem to have come up with this far.

By: jobsnothandouts

jobsnothandouts — Wed, 12 Jul 2023 02:23:25 +0000

1. Housing the low income in one location is repeating the ‘Projects’ of the 40’s/50’s. It’s best to subsidize so that low income individuals and families can assimilate with the standard population.
2. There is a lack of housing because too many people are allowed to come to the bay area without proof of income and available housing. This includes legal and illegal immigrants as well as people from other states that think this is the place to camp out while they look for a ‘high paying job in software development’. Top priority should be long-time California residents and taxpayers, US Citizens. This free-for-all is unsustainable. Let’s start doing what countries that take care of their citizens do.
3. Expand our prisons and keep the criminals in jail/prison. Any theft of any amount should require prison time. And, they need to pay back the person/business they stole from. No more free rides.
4. Illegal drug use needs to be illegal. Not just the sale of illegal drugs.
5. Bring back living wage jobs such as manufacturing, not coffee, fast food, and retail jobs meant for high school and college students. Time to re-implement import quotas. Service economies are not sustainable, especially given they are offshoring our customer service roles too.

By: Not Suckered

Not Suckered — Fri, 23 Jun 2023 19:31:51 +0000

There is no crisis, never has been, never will be. Let’s have English competency, and perhaps overdue honesty, please.

There has been and is a shortage, particularly of affordable housing.

Demand isn’t limited to people or households seeking new residences.

The affordability problem in choice metro areas is a global phenomenon.

Add to it at the same time you pursue the inappropriate, and mass hamster housing galore, actions like the Grand Gesture of Coyote Valley that channels growth of the future in forms not wanted in most places by most to existing residential locations and near them, or downtown, where politicians and others with connections have in the past had established, no doubt ambitious, interests.

Meanwhile, employment, as opposed to yet more housing, is neglected as usual.

By: sj kulak

sj kulak — Fri, 23 Jun 2023 06:50:55 +0000

the housing crisis is by design:

CEQA
Urban Growth Boundary
Open Space
Rent Control
Outrageous Inclusionary Fees
Impact Fees
Incompetent Housing Departments and Code red tape leading to +35% “soft costs” for compliance

all welfare for the rich, welfare for the property owners, all rationalized by progressives as do-gooderism and good governance.

Shame on your self delusion.

Listen – you don’t want more houses to lower your property values – I get it – but stop lying… you are doing real damage to people who should live somewhere else.

By: Robert Means

Robert Means — Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:03:33 +0000

While increasing the supply of affordable housing is one approach to the supply/demand imbalance that is driving up prices for homes and rents, it may be easier and quicker to reduce the demand.
A growing body of evidence highlights the fact that unregulated capitalism is largely to blame for the problem, especially outside investors buying up local homes. Whether those investors are Chinese living in China, Wall Street scoundrels, or Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, they are in it for the money, not for the well-being of our community.
.
Here are a few ways to restrict foreign/investor ownership include:
1) raising property taxes for foreign ownership;
2) restrict resale of properties to California residents;
3) limit ownership to 100 units.
.
Progressive author and talk-show host Thom Hartmann lays out the case here: https://hartmannreport.com/p/wall-streets-barrons-are-causing

By: J Smith

J Smith — Fri, 09 Jun 2023 16:35:33 +0000

“One very harsh statistic is the growing number of homeless who die on the streets in our county every year: 250 in 2021 and 246 in 2022.”

Actually, “growing” implies that the number is going up, not down. And it went down during the pandemic as our homeless population was exploding with mandated business closures, etc.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 06 Jun 2023 22:26:26 +0000

I know this blog is called San Jose Inside but I am tired of San Jose taking on all the issues of the county. Other wealthier cities that brag about all the high tech headquarters in their cities are not contributing to affordable housing . This has been going on for decades so you can’t blame San Jose for focusing on industrial. They simply are facing the reality that other cities (Palo Alto Sunnyvale Mountain View Santa Clara) have known for years.

By: Time to be Honest

Time to be Honest — Tue, 06 Jun 2023 22:14:07 +0000

A lot of words here – and some are confusing. For example, this author talks about “discriminatory housing” practices. Well, San Jose is currently siting its affordable housing (particularly Permanent Supportive Housing) the old school “public housing” way by concentrating them in the already poor districts like 3, 5, 7. Downtown San Jose is a perfect example of this, where they have hundreds of units designated for Extremely Low Income within a 1 mile radius, and all of the tenants have disabilities.

On top of that, not only are they siting many affordable housing communities (particularly Permanent Supportive Housing) in close proximity in already struggling areas – they are filling the buildings with 100% of tenants that are very poor AND have disabilities. Then, they have security and cameras in every corner of these places because they are more institutions than they are housing communities. A few examples would be Second Street Studios and Villas on the Park. Both of these places have substantially more calls to police and medical than their neighboring market rate properties – living between two, I see it all of the time. I was initially supportive of 100% Permanent Supportive Housing buildings, but in hindsight, it to me, is a breach of fair housing – as every unit has a poor person with a disability, and the larger community is not reflected in the tenant composition. The County worked around this issue with the City and Housing Authority (I was sadly part of these discussions, but didn’t know better at the time) by ensuring they don’t designate a specific disability be housed in one particular building (i.e., a building where everyone is blind, for example) – but a broad range of disabilities. We researched the Olmstead Decision – and the question to me more-so than ever now is “does building 100% PSH actually integrate people with disabilities into the community, or is it institutionalizing people?” There is a strong case given the security requirements, surveillance and on-site management by publicly funded entities that these ARE institutions falsely identified as housing.

https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/community-living-and-olmstead/index.html#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court's%201999,with%20Disabilities%20Act%20(ADA).

So, for me, the issue is much more straight forward. Does Housing First work? Yes, but it does for populations that are NOT severely mentally ill or dealing with severe substance abuse issues. It works for families, the elderly and certain disabilities (i.e., Developmental on fixed income) where money/affordability is the actual root cause of homelessness. Therefore all Housing First resources should’ve and could’ve ended homelessness for families, seniors and people with certain disabilities. Ended it. Instead, we saw a massive increase in family homelessness and the elderly are filling up shelters. Study after study on Housing First shows NO IMPROVEMENT IN PSYCHOLOGICAL OR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ISSUES. Because we aren’t addressing root causes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7427255/#:~:text=STRONG%20EVIDENCE&text=Similar%20to%20studies%20conducted%20in,who%20received%20treatment%20as%20usual.

This isn’t the fault of NIMBY’s. Really it’s the fault of the state and local jurisdictions who failed to use any foresight on this issue, and created policies that welcome people from other states/cities to live on our streets. There needs to be a massive change in direction and strategy because the Harm Reduction is resulting in an escalation in overdoses. The County going around giving out syringes, pipes and teaching “booty bumping” is leading to MORE overdose deaths than ever – and that’s because they are moving forward with that model despite the presence of the powerful drug Fentanyl. If you enable addicts, which Harm Reduction does, then more will die. More will suffer.

https://publichealth.sccgov.org/services/harm-reduction-program

Build housing for seniors, families and certain disabilities – solve their homelessness. Then build out an interim system for the many with substance abuse and mental illness issues, and come to terms that they need actual treatment, not a $1 million apartment and PATH Case Manger. Then, we will see the progress.