Housing, Homelessness, and the 2020 Elections in San Diego - Part 3
In Part One of this essay, I discussed two ballot measures on the March, 2020 county-wide ballot. Part Two concerned itself with what’s happening in the City of San Diego. Today’s essay is about what’s (maybe) happening on the homeless front.
Measure C (for City of San Diego voters) has a homeless component built into it in that it promises an income stream for as yet undefined programs designed to serve unhoused humans.
The real reason for Measure C’s existence is funding for a convention center expansion. People living on sidewalks and cars dodging potholes in streets are window dressing to get something the local hospitality industry says is a must for the future.
After several failed attempts, a business-labor coalition broad enough to theoretically gain the needed two-thirds voter approval has been put together. The San Diego Republican Party and homeless advocate Michael McConnell are opposing C.
After some wrangling, the City Council was persuaded to consider this proposal urgent enough to sidestep a voter approved charter amendment meant to limit measures to general election ballots.
This move alienated some activist organizations. And lawsuits emerged, challenging the ballot language, but failing to stop the measure.
Measure C does not promise anything specific for homeless people other than a directive to the Mayor to present a five year plan. Given the amounts of money potentially involved, it’s safe to say social services and temporary housing will no longer be draining resources from other city entities.
San Diego's Independent Budget Analyst has warned that the current method of funding for two of Mayor Kevin Faulconer's key homeless initiatives is "unsustainable." So what we’ll likely end up with are dollars to keep the existing inadequate programs running.
To make matters worse, there’s a taint to the general subjects of hotel tax increases and convention center expansion. Voters have said no to higher hotel taxes four times. Wheelings and dealings surrounding convention center expansion involving a maybe-available lot needed for expansion and a failed effort to tie a parallel idea to a stadium for the Chargers, along with the on and off nature of the current coalition are a recipe for voter confusion.
Some would say the city’s obsession with a bigger convention center has become a joke.
Joe Mathews well-circulated op ed at Zocalo Public Square (and elsewhere) asks Santa to make San Diego’s dream come true.
After a decade-plus of failed attempts at an expansion, San Diego’s preoccupation with this has become sad and embarrassing. America’s Finest City seems stuck on the idea, unable to move on. In March 2020, voters will once again be asked to approve an expansion — but the measure seems likely to fail.
So, Santa, I beg you, please find a way to give San Diegans all the exhibition halls and ugly carpets their little hearts desire. That way, civic leaders can think about something else — anything else — again.
I realize that, from your vantage point on the North Pole, San Diego’s obsession with its convention center might seem silly. But San Diego’s quest for a larger convention center is rooted in the city’s identity as a host — for the U.S. military, for tourists, and for great and important gatherings of people.
Finally, there’s the question of whether expanding the convention center is actually a good idea.
The draconian measures some say are coming in the face of climate change, debate over the future of the convention industry, and that dreaded sea level rise all come into play.
Here’s a theoretical example: Business and pleasure travel could be replaced with augmented/virtual reality. Why pay $1000+ in carbon offset taxes to fly to San Diego when headsets are all that’s necessary for the experiences offered by meetings?
Yes on C for a Better San Diego
Website | Facebook | Twitter
Ballot Argument Against Measure C
***
There is an actual ballot measure making its way toward the November general election that could make a dent in the affordable housing/homeless situations.
Nine hundred million in bonds dedicated to actually building housing is what the “Homes for San Diegans” coalition led by the San Diego Housing Federation wants people to vote on. Those bonds will be used to leverage three billion in available state funding.
This, friends, is the kind of serious cash needed to put a good dent in the problem. Decades of ignoring (and active hostility to) the needs of the lower end of the housing market have led us to this point.
Those who want to say our streetside population is mostly about substance abuse and/or mental illness need to be reminded about the thousands upon thousands of single occupancy hotel rooms that disappeared from the market over the past couple of decades.
While it wasn’t pretty or even necessarily humane, those buildings housed people who had no place else to go. Our government supervised development agencies okayed tearing down some ugly old buildings with very little thought about the social costs of what they were doing.
Now the bill for that negligence has come due.
The bonds sold would raise annual taxes on San Diego property owners by an average of $72 per year. The increased cost would be phased in as the bonds are sold in several batches.
I don’t know about you, but twenty cents a day ($72/365) doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request.
Republicans on San Diego’s City Council think the price is too high for building low end housing.
I suspect by eliminating things like documented workers, functional plumbing, safe wiring, and using lead based paint, they’ll come up with a cheaper solution. (Don’t hold your breath)
Approval for this bond measure still needs to happen via the City Council, and I wouldn’t be too surprised to learn that some elements of the coalition supporting the convention center measure are watching to see who’s naughty and who’s nice when it comes to supporting their measure.
Both the March and November propositions involve tax increases and need two-thirds voter approval, which means that any funded opposition makes it likely they won’t pass.
A phone poll conducted in November on the Homes for San Diegans idea shows support drops from 71% to 64% when likely voters hear arguments opponents could make against the measure.
Homes for San Diegans
Website
***
The City of San Diego now has a plan to address homelessness. Housing and help for unsheltered humans will cost $1.9 billion over the next decade. Nobody’s sure where the money will come from.
Via Voice of San Diego:
The Housing Commission-funded plan produced by the Corporation for Supportive Housing urges the city to more than double its stock of so-called permanent supportive housing units, homes that typically come with services and amenities for vulnerable formerly homeless residents. That means building or rehabilitating about 2,800 supportive housing units over the next decade and providing supportive housing subsidies for another 700 existing units in the city.
And the plan suggests the city should line up 60 percent of the new units in the next four years. Consultants estimate construction and rehabilitation costs to accomplish that would total $577 million.
The report also calls for hundreds of new temporary rental assistance slots for homeless San Diegans and more aid for San Diegans on the brink of homelessness.
Since nobody in their right mind will trash a plan to do something about a top of mind issue with voters, the three establishmentarian candidates for mayor (Barbara Bry, Todd Gloria, Scott Sherman) all have voiced their support… with a significant “but’ about stuff they also want to see.
Councilperson Bry says more attention needs to be paid to the “root causes” of homelessness. In a perfect world she’d be referring to the cost of living, substandard wages, and the fact that so many people are falling through the societal safety net.
But nope… this is about dope... and alcohol… and mental health. As if we could somehow “cure” all those street people and then homelessness would melt away. Or at least they’d have the decency not to wear white after Labor Day when panhandling.
Assemblyman Todd Gloria has his own plan, one emphasizing ending chronic homelessness, a goal not included in the official city plan. And somebody obviously whispered a dirty little secret in his ear; he says ‘housing solves homelessness.’
Councilman Scott Sherman, vying for the old man yelling at the kids on his lawn voter, wants the police to crack down harder. (“We need to end the social experiments and political pet projects”)
Our county jail, by the way, already has the largest homeless population of any facility in the region.
Only outsider candidate Tasha Williamson is rightfully wondering why talk rather than action (other than criminalizing folks) is even necessary, according to the Voice of San Diego.
Part One of this series: Housing vs the Environment in the County
Part Two of this series: NIMBY vs YIMBY in the City of San Diego
Trust me, I'll have more to say on these topics in future posts
Hey folks! Be sure to like/follow Words & Deeds on Facebook. If you’d like to have each post emailed to you, check out the simple subscription form on the right side of the front page.
Email me at WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com
Lead images: Convention Center by Doug Porter;
Others by Homelessness News